1. "Theories?"
Posted by merri on Dec-15th-03 at 5:44 PM

I was curious as to what everyones theories are as to what happened that day?  I would be very interested to hear what you guys think really went on that summer day.


(Message last edited Dec-15th-03  5:46 PM.)

Well I see nobody answered your question!
We do have a lot of browsers and we have actually had a few members who joined saying they are writing a book or a screenplay.  So I doubt you will get much more response than people have admitted so far, which is usually if Lizzie didn't do it then she knew who did.
In the Justice System that is still First Degree Murder if she conspired.
I doubt too many here think she knew nothing that day or after.

It's easier to imagine Lizzie breaking and killing Abby in a fit of rage.  But it's not easy to imagine or explain how she could cold-bloodedly sneak up on her father while he rested and slaughter the man 2 hours later. 

Besides, if it was a fit of rage or animosity which set off the attack on Abby, where'd the hatchet come from?
If you're really really mad at someone at the moment and inclined to violence in that moment, you'd grab a chair or some scissors or something.  Therefore a hatchet is pre-meditated. So if Lizzie did both killings she planned it ahead of time and committed the perfect murder because she was acquitted.

How'd she do that?  She's not the most brilliant Victorian spinster, and never committed violence again?

Like the result of the Preliminary trial I believe that Lizzie was, as Judge Blaisdell said, "probably guilty".  Just not 100% certain.  The circumstantial evidence is very strong but it's the lack of physical evidence that is hard for me to overcome. 

Her involvement to some degree I think is about 99-44/100th's per cent sure. She probably committed both murders with a smidgeon of help after the fact. But to prove that legally is another matter all together.

I want to believe, along with rays, that William Borden, the bastard brother did it.  But, realistically, I have to believe that Lizzie did it.  I think that she probably premeditately killed Abby and, as an afterthought, killed Andrew.  The motive for murdering Abby is greed, i.e. the house transfer, and a loathing toward Abby.  The motive for murdering Andrew could have been out of pity.  But there might have been a hatred toward him, too, for allegedly killing her pigeons, for not moving to "the hill".
Kat, if Lizzie snapped, there is normally a "triggering mechanism".  What was the triggering mechasism for her snapping?

I lean toward the two killer theory: the wounds seem to be produced from right in one, left in the other; further, the wounds seem more controlled in Andrew's case.  As for trigger (see Joe above), I think we can only guess/invent on that one.  I think Lizzie did one with premeditation, but must have had a flood of emotion going at the time.
I think her accomplice must have had equal and similar motive.

(Message last edited Dec-16th-03  11:51 AM.)

Right you are, Lydiapinkham.  There probably was not a triggering event to cause Lizzie to murder.  I guess I lean toward the accomplice theory, too.  If there was an accomplice, IMO, it was either Uncle Morse or Hiram the Butcher. 

i was going to address this to kat but since you address this to her, let me just get behind the train.

(actually i'm not sure where to post this, but we always end up overlapping anyway.)

i have to hold with the theory that lizzie was already planning this at least as early as wednesday.  whether she tried to buy prussic acid or not -- she in fact went to alice that night to get her story started -- a manipulation you can see lizzie continuing to develop when she sends bridget for her.  this is lizzie's first murder morning story -- that she went out to the barn and someone came in and killed them. 

my point i wanted to make here is that when you examine lizzie's story change, you can see that (given the circumstances) lizzie borden is not exactly a fool.  had she chosen to make up little things she might have heard, for example, that could have indicated the presence of a killer -- this would have been her undoing under severe questioning.  but since her position is that she saw/heard nothing and has nothing whatever to offer concerning it -- irregardless of how unlikely it may seem -- she therefore disallows knowlton (or whoever it might have been) from getting any meaningful info from her.

i would think that many killers, for example, might at some point decide to say, "Oh, yes, i remember now--i think it was about 9:30 while i was reading that magazine in the kitchen, i thought i heard a strange noise from the front part of the house.  i called out for mrs. borden and she did not answer, so i assumed she had gone out on her errand.  i then supposed what i had heard was from maggie washing the windows outside the house."  this might seem like a good idea until you consider the kind of scrutiny it's going to come under. 

After reading all the books available in the County Library system, I conclude that Arnold R Brown's book was the Final Chapter on this case. No one has ever contradicted his theory in another book; or "proved" him wrong, even here. The "proof" is a better solution.

Brown provides a parallax view to this case, using the notes from two people. I think Henry Hathaway had told others of this about 50 years ago, but this was "unwanted information".

Probably Rays is the only one of us here who's theory is set in
stone. I change my mind often but keep coming back to the most
likely facts for me to swallow:  Lizzie had help. Lizzie didn't
get her hands dirty.  Maggie knew something. Uncle John knew more. 
  It is all the pesky little details that just never add up! 

I think that is the reason the case remains the country's classic.  It's as slippery as mercury--keeps changing shape in one's mind.  No matter what path you choose, something turns it into a dead end.  Lizzie and Bridget are so clean, but an intruder would likewise be bloodied and terribly conspicuous.  Why did Lizzie raise the alarm so quickly? Wouldn't she want to give the assassin more time?  Maybe he was hidden in a spiderhole downcellar. . . . (Sorry, but somebody had to say it.)

--Anyway because we think Lizzie didn't normally keep a hatchet in her room, she could not have acted on the spur of momentary rage, agreed?
I mean, she is our lazy girl!

(Message last edited Dec-17th-03  3:01 AM.)

Lizzie is in charge of when the alarm was sounded, so it must have been enough time.

i guess this is as good a place to post this as any.  but this ubiquitous subject of "rage" vs. "planning":

my best explanation i have going is something along this line:  that some people are able and willing to do whatever IS NECESSARY in order to get what they want -- naturally you get into the subjects of selfishness, emotional impulses, etc., in trying to "diagnose" or "explain" -- but somehow the horrible phenomenon exerts itself outside of or beyond those "normal" terms.  does that make any sense?  i realize it does not explain. 

for example, the irresistible question:  how did she later live with herself?  answer?  she used the available data that this or that had made it "necessary" for her to so act -- and then perhaps most of all, she had been found "not guilty" -- therefore she was NOT guilty.
just a thought, anyway, the best i can do. notice the key there is that it is always something beyond her own control that is doing the defining.  obviously "conscience" is missing -- this is something that again she may conceptualize as a "troublesome thing" that is "forced upon her" by others.  the conscience itself an "unfair imposition?"




     

AND she does nothing in a hurry.  I've always loved that line.

This makes me think of Rhoda in "The Bad Seed":  Claude Daigle MADE me kill him, because he wouldn't give me his penmanship medal. . . SOOOOOOOO I hit him with my shoe.--The perfect sense of a sociopath.

I agree with that lack of concience thing, I think she was one of those people who is able to ignore those pesky little guilty thoughts because the desire to get what she wanted was greater.  She went through all that trouble of killing them, to confess now, would make it all for nothing!  I also kindof lean towards her being a master at manipulation.  People who are really good at manipulating risk the danger of taking it too far, that is, their manipulations become an obsession to get what they want no matter how much maniputating it may take. Maybe hers just went way too far. She seemed to have alot of time on her hands she probably got really good at thinking up ways to convince this person or that person to give her what she wanted or do what she wanted, and when for some reason she came up against someone better at the game than her (Andrew Borden putting that key on the mantle comes to mind) I think she acted out to punish them (breaking into her parent's room, shoplifting, referring to Abby as Mrs. Borden, etc.) When she realized that there was a chance that all Andrew's money was going to be shared with Abby, something she was living out her boring existence for in hopes of someday being out from under her father's miserly ways and finally spending the money as she had always dreamed of, she snapped and went into maniputation overdrive! The only explation I can come up with for killing Andrew though would be that she no longer trusted him with his own money, if he was willing to waste it on Abby who knew who else he may leave it to, maybe he was one of those types who swore he was going to take it with him!  I sometimes wonder though if the guilt did not eventually catch up to her.  We know she lived pretty high on the hog for awhile, but towards the end of her life she seemed so alone, for all we know she could have lived her last years in sheer agony over what she did, or her part in it. Nobody really knows what kind of demons she had on her back!

My thing is this: If Lizzie did it, she committed the closest thing to the perfect crime in the sense that she committed both murders without Bridget catching her in the act and that at the end of the day, she walked. If she didn't then who did? Bridget is the only other logical suspect, and she had no motive unless one chooses to believe that she was pissed off about having to wash windows on a hot day afer puking her guts out. And THAT explanation would only cover Abby. Andrew had nothing to do with that order. At the present time, I find myself leaning toward the "Lizzie dunnit" side, but that is subject to change. 

I think Lizzie - and probably Emma, who hated Abby even more than Lizzie - paid a third party to do it and helped him in and out of the house.  I think the person was a butcher, who knew how little blood would really be spewed.  I think this person was either told by Lizzie to "Keep hacking to make SURE they are dead" or had an emotional tie to the Bordens and it was "angry hacking".

Definitely pre-meditated, I think.  I think she did try to buy poison.  I think she did poison the dinner on Tuesday with arsenic.  Families had arsenic on hand in those days for killing rats and stuff.
Could have gotten a new axe when she went to New Bedford and went shopping alone.  The gilt in Abby's wounds prove a new axe was used.

I think Andrew's death was more of an axe-ident.  Like he came home too early and it had to be done because the murderer had to get away.  Lizzie was very shocked after Andrew's death.  But after Abby's she was laughing about Bridget's swearing at the front door. 

I don't go for the theory of her killing Andrew, or having him killed, because he would know who killed Abby.  I don't think he would have turned her in if he knew.  He protected her from the daylight robbery.  And I think she would have just given him the same story she gave the cops. But if he 'knew' she killed Abby, she might have felt he would have cut her out of his will because of it.

Yes, Bridget knew more, I'm voting for.  When the cops came to pick her up for questioning she broke to pieces and thought she was being arrested. 

I think the motive was that something was going to happen.  Abby was expecting company that Monday that was going to stay overnight.  Did this play into it?  If we knew who those guests were, it would help a lot.

The motive could have been Andrew about to change his will. 

She wasn't all that lonely in her later life.  She had her fair share of friends.  Look at all the people she left money to in her will.  She travelled and enjoyed the theatre.  She probably had no conscience like y'all were saying.  I do believe she was a kleptomaniac.  My guess is it was caused by her not being allowed the finer things in life from Andrew, who could easily afford them for her.  And I think she justified her shoplifting by thinking of it in that way.

Two murderers is interesting.  That would be fun to explore in another thread. 

Yes, she was very smart to just say she didn't hear anything.  I didn't think of it like that before.  But you're right - if she had admitted to hearing anything at all, it would have been challenged and examined with a fine toothed comb.

The crime scene was ruined right off the bat.  There were so many people going all over the place as soon as it happened.  Just the number of doctors that came in alone - was it like seven of them?  And they were touching the bodies, putting their fingers in the wounds ...  Fingerprinting was not used then, tho it existed. 

The police had no formal training.  There was no police academy in those days. 

And then there was that fabulous Gilded Age the murders took place in.  It was too hard a sell for Knowlton to make, convincing a jury that a woman did this, and with no direct evidence against her.

Would Lizzie poison the elder Borden's Tuesday (with the possibility of also poisoning Bridget) and then knowing Dr. Bowen & wife knew that the word poison was used on Wednesday, go out within a couple of blocks of her own home Wednesday and walkin and try to buy more poison?  And then go to Alice and tell her about poison Wednesday and then Thursday the folks are hacked to death?

Augusta sure hits almost dead-on how I think, but I don't think Lizzie tried to buy the "prussic acid", I think that was a media
frenzy type headline.  Never really proved.  Merri I think you give
Lizzie too much credit for manipulation skills and complicated thinking. She was not that smart, I think she went along with a plan
that turned out lucky, dumb luck.  She probably spent the rest of
her life dumbfounded and shocked at what happened, like she wasn't
even there.  

(Message last edited Dec-18th-03  8:54 PM.)

Also, why bother poisoning them with a hired killer coming in a couple of days?

Good point about the unidentified company.  Their ID could tell us a lot!

Lyddie

You know, Kat, I don't think she ever poisoned them either, but I do think she tried to buy the prussic acid--for herself in case she should be caught.  Or maybe for some other reason. . . .

But I think the only poisoning going on was of the the natural sort: the meats and their broths would have been getting pretty ripe even in the icebox, but when you think how they were being left out on the table to accommodate the two (sometimes three) eating shifts, it's a wonder the axe was necessary.  The Bordens were doing a pretty good job on themselves!

Lyddie

(Message last edited Dec-19th-03  12:32 AM.)

The simplest solution is this: Andy sent Lizzie outside to hold a private conversation with William S Borden. Later Lizzie saw WSB leave by the back way, and went inside. Then she found the body.

This requires simple obvious actions, no hypothetical reasoning as to "what really happened". AR Brown solved the case, in theory.

A theory is a way to explain observed facts by people who were not there to directly observe them. "The theory of relativity" etc.

Introducing stories about the "bad character" of the defendant is an old, old trick. It is an attempt to convict by belittling the defendant and making the jury consider him sheet.

"Well some of you think Santa Claus is a harmless old gent. But do you know what he does with all those kids the other 364 nights of the year? Just leave it to your imagination."

well.......considering she did what she apparently did do...and how ridiculous she was about so much of it....would you necessarily put it past her to try to buy poison on wednesday?  she prepared alice for disaster wednesday night.

this gets back again to who lizzie is.  look at her performance at her inquest.  did she think she was going to be so questioned?  was she prepared?  the more i look at it --  honestly, it looks to me like lizzie thought lizzie could do just as she pleased.

Some have posted the report that there was an agent provacateuse going around the drugstores that day, trying to find someone who would break the law. (Do not think this doesn't go on in bars today!)
If so, that would explain why the Judges threw out that testimony. Another reason is the collusion of three guys repeating the same phrases.
...
Also, poisoning is more likely with a woman of that class; unlike an edged instrument. Agree?

(Message last edited Dec-20th-03  3:53 PM.)

Yes, I think Lizzie went out on Wednesday to try to buy poison.  I think the arsenic she put in the food on Tuesday evening she saw wasn't doing the trick and she needed something stronger.
Remember the book with the spine cracked to 'prussic acid' in the - was it - kitchen?

I've done a bit of studying on poisonings by arsenic because it's interesting. The Bordens had pretty convincing symptoms, to me, of having been poisoned by arsenic.  Lizzie didn't give them enough to kill them.  Arsenic is a cumulative thing.  If she would have given them a little more in a couple days, they would have gotten even more sick.  And a little more after that, sicker yet, etc., etc.  Lizzie only said she was sick.  Nobody ever saw her sick.  Lizzie herself said she was not sick enough to vomit.  I think she said that because she knew darned well nobody heard her throwing up. 

She ate dinner with them on Tuesday evening.  That was not a common thing for her to do.

I don't think she wanted to harm Bridget.  But it looks like Bridget got hold of a little bit of it.  She woke up feeling sick the morning of August 4th. 

Why try poisoning them when a hired killer was coming?  That's a great question.  I think Lizzie wanted to try the poison first, and if it didn't work, then the more drastic measure was taken.  She may or may not have told the hired person about the poison.  OR, if she did the murders herself, time was running out (for whatever was pending) and she got desperate when they didn't die.

Telling Alice Russell about it Wednesday night makes it all the more convincing to me that Lizzie tried to poison them.  She was setting up the whole thing.  "Look!  I just got done telling Alice last night - didn't I, Alice? - that Father had an enemy and this might happen."

Abby went screaming across the street telling Dr. Bowen she was "poisoned".  I would think in her 64 years, she had had "summer complaint" before; the flu before.  She never felt THIS before.  She believed, most firmly, that she had been poisoned.

Actually if Bridget were poisoned in this attempt, so much the better.  Because it would show that someone tried to poison the whole family.  Whoever said that Lizzie went out of her way to see that Bridget was not poisoned?  I don't think she cared all that much.  After the trial, they never spoke again, that we know of. 

Yes, we have posted about law officials sending in a decoy in the drug stores at that same time to see if the pharmacist would sell a person prussic acid without a prescription.  That was in the newspapers of the day.  If I doubted any part of the story, it would be this part. It's too coincidental.  I think those stories in the paper were probably not true.

As far as doctors testing the stomachs for poisons, they only tested for corrosive poisons.  They didn't test for arsenic. 

The arsenic Andrew and Abby probably ingested was practically all lost thru their vomit, sweat and intestinal tracts.  That's how arsenic works, in a small amount, at first.  And then the victim seems okay after a period of having these strange, sudden, violent flu-like symptoms.  Lizzie gave them a small amount, thinking they'd drop dead.  She even went to their bedroom door to see how they were.  She didn't care how they were!  When Abby was ill on other occasions, she just let her lay in her bedroom and rot. 

The only way we could prove this today, would be to get hold of a hair or nail sample of them.  There is no surviving hair of the Bordens that is taken from the ROOT.  There is some clipped hair.  That isn't the same.  Arsenic remains in the hair, starting from the root out.  It would have been a long shot anyway, because the amount Lizzie probably gave them was probably pretty small. And did it have enough time to make it to the hair or the nails?

The poison evidence was thrown out mainly because - let's see if I can get this straight, because I think there were several reasons but only one was called "the" reason:  I think the main reason they said was it had nothing to do with the way the Bordens were killed. 

There was also an objection by the defense that "Hey, prussic acid really can be used for uses other than killing someone.  A sealskin cape is a legitimate reason for buying prussic acid."  And they put some guy on the stand who, under the right questions worded the right way, admitted that y-yes, prussic acid would kill moths. 

There were eyewitnesses as to Lizzie trying to purchase the prussic acid.  The drugstores she went to were not the ones she normally visited.  She went out of her way a little. 

She tried to buy the acid on Monday (August 1) from one of the Martel brothers who owned a drug store on Pleasant Street.  She went in once, was turned down because the brother who was the druggist wasn't in.  She came back a little while later and the druggist still wasn't in.  So this guy (Hypolyte Martel) got two good looks and talks with her.  Hoffman writes:  "Hypolyte described the woman as about twenty-six years old and weighing around 150 pounds.  He stated to the police that he did not recognize her when she entered the store and did not know her.  He was not asked to testify at the trial."

Was he not able to make a positive ID on her?  Was he asked to make any ID on her? 

Didn't she also try to buy it in New Bedford?

We have Bowen's story as to how Abby presented herself to him as a patient on Wednesday.  If we believe Bowen, Abby didn't run across the street screaming.  He was pretty low-key about it.  And he claims she didn't say she was poisoned by a person, but asked if the food she had eaten could be poisonous...she had heard that it could be:
Dr. Bowen'Inquest
115+
A.  No Sir, I had not been called. I went over to see them. The day before, Wednesday morning, about eight o’clock, or before eight, Mrs. Borden came to the door and said she was frightened, said that she was afraid she was poisened. I told her to come in. She sat down, and she said the night before about nine o’clock she and her husband commenced to vomit, and vomitted for two or three hours until twelve, I understood.
Q.  What morning was this?
A.  Wednesday morning. I asked her what she had eaten for supper, and she told me. She said she had eaten some baker’s white bread, and she had heard of baker’s cream cakes being poisonous, and was afraid there was something poisonous in the bread that made her vomit. She said she only ate cake and baker’s white bread. At that time she had a sort of an eructation of vomiting, slightly. I was afraid she was going to vomit there, I rather got ready for her. I told her to go home, and told her what to take; and she took it.
Q.  Do you recollect what it was you prescribed for her?
A.  I told her to take some castor oil, and take it in a little port wine to take the taste off, and probably that would be all she would want.

---This was after she ate her pork steak breakfast, mind you.

Prelim
Bridget
53
Q.  What did you have for breakfast?
A.  Pork steak, and johnny cakes and coffee.

Q.  This was Wednesday morning, after the sickness? [of Tuesday night]
A.  Yes Sir.

....
The anecdote about the household book being open to the page on Prussic Acid is Pearson:
Rebello, pg. 81
"Edmund Lester Pearson, in Five Murders (1928: 282-283), mentioned the following: 'One of the attorneys (for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), upon entering the Borden house for the first time, found a book of recipes and prescriptions. He took it up, and it fell open in his hand at a passage devoted to the subject of prussic acid. ...' "

-Do we know from where he got this?

.....
Knowlton Papers
HK109
..."The stomachs of both Mr. & Mrs. Borden
were perfectly healthy in appearance and showed no evidence of the
action of any poison- The stomachs were neither congested nor irritated,
so that I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of your preliminary
hearing to make an analysis to prove the absence of ordinary poisons -
Prussic acid is the only ordinary poison which would kill immediately
within 15 minutes & leave no marks (either congestion or irritation)
except in very rare cases & under rare circumstances. If an indictment
should be found, it will then be time enough to prove the absence of the
other poisons. Such an analysis would require 2 or 3 weeks steady work.

I will come to Fall River on Saturday reaching there at 10, 11 A.M.
unless I hear from you to come Friday or Monday.

I would like to know the exact ingredients of the mutton broth
which they had for breakfast.
Very sincerely yours
Edward S. Wood.

--Since he found no irritation and he says it would leave a mark, Did he test later for "ordinary poisons".  He offers to if there is Indictment.

--Here is the citation for those who don't have Rebello, on the Martel story:
pg. 78:
"Story of a Drug Clerk," Fall River Daily Herald, Saturday, August 6, 1892: 4.

--But there also is a story told about poison- Rebello, 81:

"Nailing The Poison Story / Neither Nor Any Relatives Bought Prussic Acid at Brow's," Boston Herald, August 8, 1982: 2.

"It was claimed Lizzie made a second attempt to purchase prussic acid at Walter J. Brow's Drug Store at 62 Second Street. A Boston Herald reporter interviewed Mr. Brow to verify the rumor. Mr. Brow said Lizzie traded at his store and had known Lizzie for the past twenty years. He assured the reporter Lizzie did not purchase any prussic acid. He recalled that Lizzie stopped trading at his store about four years ago. Her last purchase was chloroform, stating she wanted it for the purpose of killing a cat. Mr. Brow states Miss Borden asked for the stuff in rather a surly manner, and he answered just as saucily. Miss Borden paid for the chloroform and went out. She has never been in the shop since."

--I think it can be viewed either way-  Whether Lizzie allegedly tried to poison the Borden's using arsenic.  Are there sources for the possible use of Arsenic by Lizzie?
--You know, I think arsenic is more a type of torture, rather than a direct means of death.  The victim is usually meant to suffer horribly for as long as possible and the thrill to the killer is either to imagine the horror or witness it.  Death is the afterthought, but the ultimate progression.
If Lizzie possiby researched prussic acid than it might follow she researched arsenic too, if arsenic was involved.


(Message last edited Dec-21st-03  4:24 AM.)

There was a fool-proof test for arsenic poisoning in the late 18th century. They would be aware of it by 1890. So "no poison found" still seems like the correct testimony. I don't have the complete testimony, but I think no one asked if they found arsenic, did they?
...
I think the historical record of arsenic poisoning shows small doses given over a long time does the trick. If an old couple get sick and die that would not be too suspicious.

Anyone read about that male nurse alleged to have poisoned forty old sick people recently? Giving them a slight overdose pushed them over the edge, and would seem to be part of their digoxin meds.

(Message last edited Dec-21st-03  4:35 PM.)

I'm just asking if arsenic is mentioned in any of the primary documents.
If not then it is as elusive a theory as Billy Borden.

I thought the existence of Wm S Borden was a fact. While AR Brown first put this into print, what about the others? Its not like Brown made it all up. Didn't Henry Hawthorne publicize this in the 1950s, but was ignored?

Again, a theory is a way to explain the facts by someone who was not there. The theory of evolution, of the earth rotating around the sun (no longer a theory w/ space travel), etc.
...
If both Lizzie and Bridget have an alibi for one of the murders, and there was no collusion, then who did it? The presence of someone whose identity was hidden certainly explains the mysteries.

The lack of evidence against Lizzie also applies to Bridget. Can we all agree on this? No weapon, no bloody clothes, etc. Besides Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". She KNEW!!!

(Message last edited Dec-22nd-03  3:26 PM.)

***I thought the existence of Wm S Borden was a fact.**

why did you think that?  there is no such fact.

Does anybody share this opinion?
His existence is proved by the notices of his "suicide" in the newspapers. Read Arnold R Brown, last chapters.
Or were the newspapers wrong?

Keller, Jon. N. "The Mysterious William S. Borden." Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 4/5 (Fall/Winter 1995): 15-18.

....."Further, it shows that William was never in Taunton during the 1890's as Brown supposes, but rather in the 1870's an therefore his treatment there seems to have had no relationship to either the Borden or Manchester murders. The file clearly shows no admissions for Bill between the date of discharge on December 2, 1875 and the last curious entry in the record dated May 15, 1901, which concerns his alleged suicide in Fall River.
Now I present, for the readers' convenience of reading, a transcript of the contents from the one-and-a-half page document concerning William S. Borden's association with the Taunton mental facility:

5821——William S. Borden Act. 19 Married Fall River Labour.
F.——Taunton 4 weeks Hereditary. 2 Sisters and 2 Aunts insane.
Dec. 8th——Sister no. 4822, Loss of employment had a depressing effect.
1874——Melancholy, Suicidal. Went into the pond this a.m.
Prob. Ct.——Wil. S. was married eight weeks ago. Temperate. at entrance
quick-depressed.
Wife——Dec. 2nd 1875. Patient was quite depressed and very quiet through the
East——winter. Towards spring he began to wake
Taunton—up and become very active. Early in
Mass.——March was at work in the laundry. In April was allowed his parole of the
Father——grounds. he went everywhere, and was
Charles—— up to all sorts of mischief When shut in
hall he became quite troublesome and
Fall River——destructive and was secluded in a screened room for a fortnight. In May
Sister——he eloped, and was gone 24 hours —
Eliza A.——went to Fall River and New Bedford. —
Borden——returned voluntarily — sent to rm. 8
#10,232 R—— Early in August he was up to all the
#12,310 R—— mischief possible — breaking glass,
#13,570—— tearing off window casings, digging off mortar etc.
Tried belts, straps, seclusion
Sister—— etc. with little avail. Learning that an
Amanda—— iron crib was being constructed for his
Taylor—— especial benefit, he desisted — saying he
#4822—— did not want to get into anything that he
#11,255—— could not get out of. Oct. 20th. he eloped,
was gone a week and then brought back
on the 27th of Oct. has been doing very
well, Has worked out some. Always
inclined to get into trouble striking with
very little provocation. Was discharged
to go by himself
Dec. 2nd 1875. Discharged Recovered p. 286
5821 (p. 287) William S. Borden Act. 19 Married
May15-01 A few days ago the above patient Wm. S. Borden
committed suicide by taking carbolic acid, and afterwards
hanging himself to a tree by the roadside."
...
The above is a copy/paste from the LizzieAndrewBordenVirtualMuseum/Library:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResearch/BrownControversy.htm

--If William Borden was married in 1874 at approx. 20 years old, he would be 38 when the murders occured.

--Rebello's research on William s. Borden, pg. 373+

"Profile: Charles Lott Church Borden was born in Fall River, November 12, 1811, and was the tenth of twelve children born to Joseph Borden (1763-1843) and Susan Church. Charles Borden was a carpenter and was involved in church work all his life. He was a member of the First Baptist Church in 1846. He later assisted in the formation of Second Baptist Church, serving as a deacon for many years.

Deacon Borden was married twice. His first marriage, at the age of twenty-eight, was to Phebe Hathaway, age twenty-three, on October 16, 1839. She was the daughter of Michael and Hannah (Davis) Hathaway of Freetown, Massachusetts. Phebe was born in Freetown, July 30, 1816. Charles L. and Phebe (Hathaway) Borden were the parents of six children: Charles A. Borden, Amanda M. Borden, Hannah H. Borden, Eliza Ann Borden, Eliza Ann Borden (2nd.), and William S. Borden."
.....

"The last son, William S. Borden, was born in Fall River, April 20, 1854 (see marriage record, Weld Genealogy, p. 253 and Federal Census, 1900)  William, age twenty, a laborer and peddler, married seventeen year old Rebecca Francis Gammons of East Taunton, Massachusetts, October 14, 1874. They were married in Raynham, Massachusetts, by Rev F. A. Reed. Rebecca was born in East Taunton (January, 1858- ?). She was the daughter of Lewis B. Gammons, a nailer who worked for the Old Colony Iron Company, and A. Frances Gammons. Rebecca was the sister of Frederick B., a shoemaker and Jesse B. Gammons. The Gammons and Bordens all resided at 38 Liberty Street from 1872-1901. Within those years, William moved twice (1885-1893, 1896-1897) to a house at the corner of Caswell and Staples Streets located about a half mile from Liberty Street. This was the home of Eldridge Staples and his son, Charles G., both farmers. William returned to Liberty Street in 1898. Two months after he was married, William was committed to Taunton Lunatic Hospital in Taunton, Massachusetts, December 8, 1874, and released December 2, 1875. William S. Borden committed 'suicide by hanging.' He was found hanging from a tree on New Boston Road in Fall River, on April 17, 1901 (death record). Hospital records and newspapers accounts of William Borden's suicide reported that his two sisters, 'Eliza Ann Borden [2nd.] and Amanda (Borden) Taylor and two aunts were at the asylum in Taunton at the time William committed suicide. He was survived by his wife who had been "ill and ...partially helpless for some time." ' Funeral services were conducted by Rev. Mr. H. H. Loud at the Congregational church in Taunton. Burial took place at King's Furnace Cemetery (King Cemetery) in East Taunton, Massachusetts. His wife and her two brothers moved to Brockton, Massachusetts, in 1909. Rebecca Borden's last known residence was in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, in 1917."

-Whew!




(Message last edited Dec-23rd-03  2:31 AM.)

Thanks for all the research, Kat. 

William S. Borden was a real person.  But there is nothing that proves or even hints at the idea that he was Andrew's illegitimate son.

I agree, Rays.  I think Lizzie did know who committed the murders.  The line she spoke about Bridget not doing it, and her saying  nobody else that worked for Father is probably one of the dumbest things she said.  I would think she would suspect Bridget or any employees first, and at least remain quiet about who did it or who didn't. This blabbing of hers made her look guilty as well, but I think it had a reverse effect (which was perhaps her intention).

Arsenic was an over-the-counter thing back then.  It was used to kill pests. 

If Lizzie had given them a massive dose, they would have dropped dead. It didn't absolutely have to be given in little doses over a period of time.  I think she put some in something - I'm thinking the milk - and thought they'd drop dead from it.  But it wasn't enough.  And for whatever reason, there wasn't time to do it again.

I know - they tested the milk.  But would the milk they had delivered probably on Tuesday morning still be in the ice box at noon on Thursday?  I don't think they got the right milk bottle.  I would think something would have showed up if they got hold of the right milk bottle.

Lizzie mentions the milk to Alice on Wednesday night.  How anybody could come up to the back door and put something in it.  I think that was her alibi in case she was caught.  She mentions the baker's bread, too.  Maybe that was to throw people off the track - like, "I don't know exactly what was poisoned - how could I? - but here are a couple ideas." 

Bridget drinks a glass of milk on Wednesday night.  I would think that would not be the bottle that was tampered with, because I think she would direct the police to the bottle of milk that was last used by the Bordens.  She makes no mention of finishing the bottle off or putting this milk bottle out for the milk man.  On the other hand, she woke up sick Thursday morning.  I dunno.  Maybe that was part of Lizzie's payoff to her - "Oh, and Bridget, throw this bottle somewhere on your way to get Miss Russell."  I think there was some conspiracy between Lizzie and Bridget. 

Mrs. Borden was plenty scared that morning.  She told Dr. Bowen she thought she was poisoned.  Did she go screaming across the street?  I don't know.  I think she was panicked when she went over there.  I think she felt something in her body she never felt before.

In Smith's drugstore, three witnesses said it was her.  Bence, Hart and Kilroy.  If that testimony were allowed in, I think it would have made a difference in the jury's thinking.

I'm a believer of the arsenic theory.  To me, if really fits. 

While this assumption may "fit" how do you account for the negative opinion of poisoning by the Doctors who examined the bodies?

I think the classic poisoners used a little at a time so the victim slowly sickened and died. This was how Napoleon was bumped off.

The question of illegitimacy was covered in AR Brown's book.
But why did Wm S Borden at 20 marry a 17-yr old? Were they caught in bed? Was there any issue? Wasn't that a young age for those times?

Brown also notes that Andrew J Borden GAVE that property to Wm S Borden. How to account for his generosity? (We now know why Strom Thurmond was so generous to the daughter of the household maid!) Could this explain Andy's gift of valuable property?

Lizzie's line "it wasn't Bridget or ..." merely shows how she sought to shield the innocent. After Uncle John returned, the new story was concocted; Lizzie hung tough to avoid any more comments.

If you ever read some fictional novels on detective work, you may see how logical the solution is. It does solve the crime. Fiction, to be salable, must be believable to the audience. AR Brown didn't make it up, he used the notes obtained from P Peterson for his solution.

this is all very interesting stuff. on one hand we think of Andrew
as the Quaker and simple man, frugal and cheap, then on the other he was a scheming pervert who fathered an illigitimate son and generously gave him property.  (?) 

Well, I personally don't think Abby thought she was poisoned by a person, whether it's possible Lizzie put something in the food or milk which you do think.
Abby did not run to the Doctors house.  She took the time to eat breakfast.  I doubt she would eat again in that house if she thought there was deliberate poison.
Also, she eats again the same food Wednesday noon meal and gives the same food to Morse when he comes.
If Abby thought the food was poisoned she would not give it him and if Morse thought the food was poisoned he would not have eaten it.  He wasn't even hungry he said and yet he ate.

If there was a scrap of testimony offering a theory of arsenic I would be glad to know of it.

But isn't that so VERY HUMAN? Who is there without contradictions in their life?

The only reference I find regarding Arsenic is from an article
in one of the local papers at the time. The article reported
that a young woman entererd a drug store and requested to buy
Arsenic.  Since the druggist was not present, the clerk told her
he could not comply with the request....the young lady stormed out
but did return 20 min. later and this time asked for prussic acid..
again she was refused the sale..........it was later discoverd that
this young lady was the wife of a police inspector on a crusade against the illegal sale of drugs....
  I think regardless of whether the above is factual, there is too
much confusion regarding the poison and the clerk's memory to
count it very seriously.  Didn't Eli Bence only identify Lizzie
by voice, not by sight.

Yes, there problems with the drugstore clerks. But if the authorities KNEW that a look-alike agent provacateuse was being used (out of town Knowlton may not have known or even cared), THAT alone is reason for not allowing their testimony. (I won't say anything about procured testimony to win brownie points. You can find evidence for this if you look for it.)

Back in the 1980s "Sixty Minutes" did a story on this. One local publisher ran a story about a prosecutor in bed w/ organized crime. The prosecutor arrested this publisher for "murder" based on the testimony of an eye-witness who was present. It took a few court cases for the accused to be freed. That eye-witness was out of state at the time, but was used because he had indictments that were dropped. You can look this up too.

radin tried to make the case that bence identified lizzie only by her voice without seeing her.  the evidence shows different.  he saw her when he went to the house to make an identification.  he claims to have seen her in passing often enough to recognize her and knew she was a "miss borden."  he mentioned that her eyes were "strange."  right or wrong, his memory of her was specific in some ways -- not general.  i don't have testimony on that at hand, i'll try to remember to follow up on this with it.

but you're thinking of radin's "take" on this issue.  he either did not have certain witness evidence or chose to ignore it.

elaborate or explain this.  you don't think abby actually believed she was being poisoned?  are you saying she was pretending to think so?  bowen did not seem to take it seriously.  considering he was right -- then what was abby up to?

Please see post #30 here.

Partial of Bowen, about Abby:

"Wednesday morning. I asked her what she had eaten for supper, and she told me. She said she had eaten some baker’s white bread, and she had heard of baker’s cream cakes being poisonous, and was afraid there was something poisonous in the bread that made her vomit. She said she only ate cake and baker’s white bread."

I'm beginning to think Lizzie told Alice that someone might be trying to poison the family, yes, as a scapegoat reason because they had been sick.  It was just the right thing to say to make the suspicion that they were in danger seem real, because the elder Bordens Had been sick.  But that was the only proveable part of Lizzie's story.
So it's the other way around.
Lizzie didn't mention poison because she had been poisoning the elders, but mentioned poison because they had been sick.  That gave her the idea.
Knowlton Papers, 227, HK212, letter from Alice to Mr. Moody, June 2, 1893:

..."Later on she said 'father and Mrs. Borden were awfully sick last night.  I was too, but not as sick as they were, for I did not vomit and they did.  I could hear them in my room.  I asked them if I could do anything for them but they said no.'  I asked Lizzie if she thought it was anything they had eaten, she said 'we don't know, we had some baker's bread for supper and all ate some of it but Maggie, and all were sick but her.  Don't know whether it was the bread or what it was.'  I said if it was the bread I should think that other people would be sick too.  She went on to say that she had thought perhaps the milk had been poisoned.  I asked her about the milk, how it was broght etc.  She told me that they put out an empty can overnight.  The milkman took it in the morning when he brought the milk.  I asked her what time he came.  She said 'she thought about 4 o'clock.'  I said it is light at four, and I shouldn't think any one would dare to come in and do anything to the can, for someone would be liable to see them.  She said 'I shouldn't think so.'  She said 'her father seemed to have so much trouble with the men that he had dealings with, that she sometimes was afraid that some of them would do something to him' * She added I expect nothing but that the house will be burned down over our heads."....

--Lizzie can't seem to convince Alice of poison in their food from outside the house as a source.  In fact Lizzie says, herself, "I shouldn't think so" when faced with a credible explanation by Alice as to her fears.  Lizzie actually starts by claiming it may be the baker's bread-- The thing which concerned Abby at Dr. Bowen's that morning.  It's a bit later, trying to impress Alice, that she confides about the milk and that maybe the house would be burned down.
Also Lizzie tells everbody else that Andrew's men would not harm him, yet here she blames those same men.
--* emphasis by Alice- this portion underlined.