1. "Where was the Arsenic?"
Posted by augusta on Dec-25th-03 at 6:34 PM

After the "milk" thread, things look grim that arsenic was in the milk.  What else could it have been in?

What about the bread?

They had run out of bread for Tuesday's supper, didn't they, and Bridget took a nickel and went to the bakery.  She went for rolls, but they had none so she got a loaf of bread.

I was just reading on this site that Arsenic will often have a garlicky smell to it, so, would it create that taste in something that you put it in?

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/elements/arsenic/arsenic.htm

Could it have been put in the gravy for the mutton maybe?  I would think it would have to be dissolved in something, it starts out whitish, but, when exposed to air it becomes blackish in color.

Yes, the last thing we know that Bridget had that day before getting sick was the glass of milk.  Possible she picked at something else in the icebox too and forgot? 

I am looking for *arsenic* in this case and have found it in the trial.
I'm not sure of the point of this line of questioning as to arsenic, but it does evolve from illuminating gas to arsenic to prussic acid.
Sorry the selection is so long but it's pretty interesting, encompassing cats & rats and ether and chloroform...

Trial
Nathaniel Hathaway
1292+
Q.  What is the effect of illuminating gas upon the human body?
A.  I presume it would either suffocate or poison.

Q.  It would bring death?
A.  Bring death, inhaled sufficiently long.

Q.  Then I am right in inferring, after all, that because an article is volatile in its character that is not the ground of objections to its use for a purpose that it accomplishes?
A.  I think it is no objection to its use as a poison, but it certainly---

Q.  That is not what I am asking you now. I suppose you don't really think anything that is used as a poison is desirable to take?
A.  No, sir; I should not; not in a poisonous dose.

Q.  Well, it isn't poison unless you get enough of it; it is not a success. But you want to kill moths, you want to kill any insects or creatures that will destroy an article. Would you say you wouldn't use any article that would do it because it was volatile?
A.  I don't know as I should say that, sir, no.

Q.  Then that is not any ground of objection, really, if a person takes care of it, is it? Is careful in the use of it, I mean?
A.  No, it would not be.

Q.  Arsenic is a poison, isn't it?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Is it an ingredient of the common article know as "Rough on Rats"?
A.  I believe it is, sir.

Q.  Is that article, "Rough on Rats", something that is very commonly used in households to dispose of rats?
A.  I suppose it to be, yes, sir. I really don't know.

Q.  Now it is an entirely proper thing to use to kill the rats, isn't it?
A.  No, sir; I should say not.

Q.  You don't think so?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  You would rather have the rats?
A.  I think it would; yes, sir, rather than have such stuff about my house.

Q.  Well, what I want to get at is whether we are all going wrong in using these poisons that will kill the rats?
A.  Yes, sir; I think we are.

Q.  Simply because somebody may get it by accident into his own stomach?
A.  Yes, sir; or somebody has a chance to use it criminally.

Q.  Well, if somebody wants to use it criminally, that is what we spoke of. But if you don't use it for that purpose there is no objection to it then?
A.  Yes, I think it is a dangerous comodity to have in the house.

Q.  Arsenic?
A.  Yes, sir; I do.

Q.  Do you know anything about the use of arsenic to beautify the complexion?
A.  No, sir; I do not.

Q.  Perhaps you have not used it yourself?
A.  No, sir; I have not.

Q.  And none in your family?
A.  No, sir; I hope not.

Q.  Well, I will not insist that you ought to. But you never have heard anything about its use in cosmetics?
A.  Yes, sir; I have heard something about it.

Q.  And the use of arsenic, then, is quite general in innocent ways, isn't it?
A.  No, sir; I think not.

Q.  What do they kill cats with? If you want to kill a cat, and don't shoot her or knock her on the head or tie a stone around her and leave her in a bag down by the river? What would you kill cats with if you wanted to do it quietly?
A.  I am unable to state, sir.

Q.  You have no experience in that way?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Well, suppose you put one in a box and put some strong chloroform in with her, what about it?
A.  I think if the box was tight the cat would die, if you put in enough chloroform.

Q.  Is it the same about ether?
A.  I am a little doubtful about ether, with a cat.

Q.  You don't know I suppose?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Now take prussic acid. You have got the two per cent solution, as I understand it?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  That is what you call it. Now suppose you were to dilute it still more, what fluid could you use to dilute it with more?
A.  You could use either water or alcohol or ether.

Q.  It would mix with water?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  It would mix with alcohol?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Now suppose you were to dilute it one hundred times more?
A.  That is, until it contained two hundredths of a per cent?

Q.  Yes, sir.
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Would you say that any such use of that would not kill the animal life on a piece of fur?
A.  It would be impossible for me to say so without experimenting upon it.

Q.  You do not know about that?
A.  I am not quite prepared to admit that.

Q.  You never have looked into that question at all?
A.  Excuse me sir; I have.

Q.  Tell me the result of your experiments?
A.  I have used the two per cent solution, tried its effect on insects.

Q.  That is two per cent in a hundred?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Will that kill them?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Promptly?
A.  Yes, sir.

--Arsenic does not appear in testimony in the Inquest, Preliminary Hearing or the Witness Statements.  It does appear in Knowlton's closing arguments in Porter which is a re-telling of that offering from the original Preliminary Hearing, upon which Judge Blaisdell admitted Lizzie was "probably guilty".

"We find here the suggestion of a motive which speaks volumes. The druggist told her plainly she couldn’t have it. [Prussic Acid] Then how could this thing be done? Not by the pistol, not by the knife, not by arsenical poisoning. There was but one way of removing that woman, and that was to attack her from behind. That is a dreadful thing. It makes one’s heart bleed to think of it. But it is done."

I did a little more research on Arsenic, heres what I found:

During the 19th century, arsenic was used as a coloring agent in wallpaper. In periods of humid weather, a chemical reaction would cause the wallpaper, especially green or gray paper, to release arsenic fumes, called arsine gas. A person in such a room would breathe in these toxic gases and soon become ill. Exposure to arsine gas produces a constricted feeling in the throat, burning sensation on the tongue and acute abdominal pain. There are known incidents in which people have died in rooms decorated with arsenic wallpaper.

The murderer is compelled to administer small amounts of arsenic over a period of time. This could be dangerous to the suspect because it can never be known exactly how much of the poison to feed to the victim. Too much arsenic can cause instant death. Too little may have no effect. Also, long term unexplained illness in the victim might arouse suspicion and place the suspect in jeopardy.

Since arsenic has an objectionable, metallic-like taste, it must be in powder form so it can be mixed with food or diluted in some sort of liquid. It has to be carefully disguised so the victim will swallow the entire dose.

From this site:http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/creighton_applegate/6.html?sect=11




Most other times, however, racist stereotypes of the Chinese were used in trade cards to promote products that had a stronger connection to those stereotypes. Trade cards is an American trade card for a pest control product called "Rough on Rats." It shows a Chinese male about to eat a rodent. The advertising premise for this product is based on the stereotype that Chinese eat rats and mice and are therefore good rodent exterminators.

From this site:http://www.chsa.org/features/ching/ching_conf.htm

Interesting, Susan and Kat.  Thanks.
I did not know about arsenic being in wallpaper. 
Like the trial testimony Kat posted, it was used in cosmetics.  It was also used as an early form of embalming or mummification.
In Knowlton's closing statement, and as we know, the Bordens were not killed by arsenic.  The cause of death was the bludgeoning.  But signs point to their having been given arsenic prior to it.  Their symptoms of illness so point to arsenic poisoning. 
We have witnesses saying they saw Lizzie in several different stores trying to buy prussic acid, which she never got hold of.  And we have Abby with that gut feeling she'd been poisoned.  Dr. Bowen didn't run any tests on her for it, if they even had them back then.  He just sort of dismissed her, non-believing, and told her it was probably something she ate.  I think he did the best he could. 
I wonder if Lizzie knew about how to use the arsenic if she wanted to cause death to her parents with it.  I would think what arsenic she could get hold of would be something like the Rough on Rats product, which was probably cut with other ingredients.  I wonder if she had access to a publication that told all that Susan posted about either giving them a little at a time, or a massive dose all at once. 
Tuesday night they had the swordfish dinner.  It was fresh Tuesday night, was it not?  I wonder what else they had for supper, and if Lizzie ate with them?  Whatever Lizzie did not eat on Tuesday night I'd think was likely to contain a little something extra in it.

Here is a trade card for Rough on Rats from my collection.  Some of these are better than our commercials today.  (Geez, they knocked the baby out of the highchair.)

Thanks, Augusta.  I like your trade card better than the one I found, besides being derogatory, its disgusting!  I wonder if that book Household Hints that Lizzie allegedly read had anything on arsenic?

Found this little tidbit on a source for arsenic:

Arsenic was an ingredient in Victorian fly papers. When soaked in water, it would combine with the water to create a deadly liquid that was easily disguisable in beverages and food.

From this site:http://www.history-magazine.com/arsenic.html

Heres a link for an article about arsenic in William Morris wallpaper: http://www.nature.com/nsu/030609/030609-11.html 

(Message last edited Dec-26th-03  2:01 PM.)

Thanks, Susan!  And I thought I had studied arsenic!  I didn't know about the flypaper, either.
I was just on that William Morris site today and didn't see a link to what you posted, but you found it!  I'll visit these later on.
Gee, you'd make a good Pinkerton agent. 

Are there several sources who state Lizzie came to buy prussic acid or two?

Recall, Prof. Dr. Wood of Harvard, 991 Trial:
"A.  I found no evidence of poison of any kind.

Q.  Of any kind whatever?
A.  In either case. "

These are not naive men.  They have thought of poison and have ruled it out.  An expert opinion of one who touched the stomachs has to be good enough, at least to me.

You mention Martel and I assume Bence is the other attempt of Lizzie alledgedly to buy poison?
Is there another try?

Abby ate her breakfast before going to Dr. Bowen.  I ask, why would she do that if she thought there was poison?
And Bowen's description of Abby's visit was that she was frightened she was poisoned, but he says Abby said  "she had heard of baker’s cream cakes being poisonous."
(Bowen at Inquest, 115+)

Bludgeoning, btw, is done with a short, heavy club, but our weapon is a 3 lb. hatchet with an long, almost 2' handle.

There are letters in the Knowlton Papers which give the writer's theory that the *old folks* were poisoned first and then a hatchet was used to cover that up.

In those same Knowlton Papers (33), is our friend, Nellie McHenry, giving it as gospel that she had interviewed Bridget who supposedly says Mrs. Borden told her someone was trying to poison them.
These citations are why I am somewhat unconvinced of a *prior-poisoning* theory.
Besides, even everyday products can innocently *poison* a person- bad food or even lingering soap products on the plates.

(Message last edited Dec-27th-03  2:12 AM.)

There is something that has always confused me, they were all sick with upset stomachs throwing up yet they kept on eating!  When I have the stomach flu the last thing I want to do is eat, (and trust me, it takes alot to make me not want to eat).  Everybody knows with a stomach virus strong enough to make you vomit there is no appetite for anything not even liquids.  Do you suppose it is different with poison?  Maybe when you are poisoned it just irritates your stomach but you still have the appetite?  Food poisoning could also be the culprit like salmonella or something, but I asked my husband (who has been in the hospital twice from food poisoning, not by me, honest I'm a good cook!) if he even entertained the thought of food during his sickness and he let out a very definate NO! So I doubt that food poisoning was it, you become violently ill with it. So I kindof lean toward the notion that maybe Lizzie was slowly poisoning them.  If you think about it she was the only one in the house who was never seen vomiting.

Those were funny trade cards! Lots of information on arsenic
here, thanks for the research. I don't believe lizzie ever
got the poison.  Bence's comments didn't hold up to get in
testimony, plus that would be just one more piece of missing
evidence along with the hatchet and bloody clothes, where is
the box or bottle of poison? 

You're welcome, Augusta.  I was trying to think of a way of obtaining poison without having to go out and buy it, and then I found that bit about the flypaper.  I wonder if the Borden house was already wallpapered when they moved in or if the put up any new paper?  The timeline is right for having poisonous wallpaper in the house.

Abby seems to only be concerned with poisoning coming from outside of the house and seems fixated on those cream cakes and baker's bread, I wonder why?

I did a search for cream cakes, as always, I'm curious as to what Abby ate.  I found an online bakery site that lists 3 different treats as cream cakes; a cream horn, an elephant's foot, and a chocolate eclair.  Never heard of the elephant foot before, but have had the other two.

One of Raymond Chandler's short stories is titles "Flypaper". It is worth the time to read it; it was expanded into novel form.
I remember back in the 1940s and 1950s seeing a coil (not sheets) of "flypaper" hanging in the kitchens of relative's farm houses. But not by the late 1960s (my memory).
Hanging arsenic over food is not a good idea!!!
(Maybe that explains things to some people?) Ha-Ha.

In those days "summer flu" was often the cause of infant's deaths.
Probably recognizable as food poisoning today from spoiled food.

About 30 years ago I read about a retired banker and his wife who suffered from botulism poisoning. The wife didn't like the taste of her vichysoisse, but the banker wouldn't waste his money, and ate it all. The wife survived, the banker went to wherever dead bankers go. This scandal forced the small soup company out of business, of course.

Even today, if you keep food for too long in the "ice box" (as my long dead Dad called refrigerators), you can sniff a vinegar smell before you see any white or green mold.

Famous poisoning case, Florence Maybrick (an American in England) -- her husband died and she was arrested.  She had been soaking flypapers to extract the arsenic in order to make a complexion concoction.  Her husband was a confirmed arsenic eater.
It was thought that the reason Florie was found guilty, August, 1889, was because she had commited adultry, rather than any direct evidence that she had poisoned her husband.
What are the first outward presenting sympytoms of arsenical poisoning?

The tour guide at the B&B in Fall River, "Emma", told Stef in 1997 that the walls of the cellar had been painted with arsenic in the paint and opined that she didn't know if Lizzie knew that but it would be easy to scrape the paint to use in some way. 

I don't think Lizzie knew that if she kept giving the Bordens "a little something extra" in small increments, it would build up and kill them.  So I don't believe she was slow-poisoning the Bordens.

I think she gave them some kind of a dose in something Tuesday night.  Where was the poison?  Gee, they sold it over the counter then.  They could have had a container of Rough on Rats or something else and it wouldn't have been suspect.

The examination for poison on the bodies was, to my understanding, a visual one of the stomachs to look for corrosion.  If they were given a dose of arsenic on Tuesday it would not have shown up that way on the bodies. 

When a person is given a dose at first, most of it is excreted.  They get these really bad flu symptoms, very sudden-like, and when it's over they are okay.  The arsenic, tho, stays in the body - a little bit of it, what they could not excrete.  Then with each dose, they get a little sicker and a little sicker, to where even today doctors can be baffled and think the person has some neurological disorder.  And with each successive dose, the arsenic mounts up a little more and a little more in the body until it reaches such a toxic level the person dies.  There are very specific tests TODAY for the detection of arsenic.  If they know to look for it TODAY they can detect it in the blood.  Or, if it's gone on long enough, the victim will have tell-tale signs on their nails, and it will also show up in their hair roots.  The hair roots can tell how long it's been going on, sorta like how they tell a tree's age by counting rings - each successive dose leaves a mark on the hair.

The Bordens look like they were given an initial dose of arsenic.
I don't think Lizzie got it off paint in the basement (that was interesting, Susan) or anything like that.  People had this stuff hanging around the house back then.

I had forgotten about the cream cakes, Susan.  That's right.  There were those.  I'm thinking that with food going bad from time to time back then, the cream in the pastries would be tainted with food poisoning if not properly refrigerated.  Lizzie could have put something in those cream cakes, tho.  That is a thought.

Yes, Merri.  It is, I think, a clew that Lizzie was never seen sick.  She said she had been, but she also said something like, "Not sick enough to vomit".  When they asked Bridget if Lizzie was sick, in the movie she said, "She looked well enough to me."  I know - the movie doesn't "count" as a "source document"  (rats!    ).  I think Bridget said words to that effect in testimony, tho.

Lizzie was mighty concerned about the Bordens Tuesday night - looking in on them to see if they needed anything.  Geez, she let Abby lay there and rot when Abby had bronchitis before.  I think she was seeing how bad they were doing, and seeing how the poisoning was working.

I don't know if arsenic in something like rat poison would turn black and taste garlicky.  There's a difference in the different forms of arsenic.  I think I was reading about it turning black when I was reading about the raw form of it, as it came from the earth (?).

There are two really good books that really get into this.  They made movies out of both of them.  One is "Preacher's Daughter" which starred Elizabeth Montgomery as Blanche Taylor Moore.  She disposed of a couple husbands and maybe a parent with arsenic.  The other is the story of Audrey Marie Hilley.  The book is called "Poisoned Blood".  The movie starred Judith Light and was called, "Wife, Mother, Murderer".  She had done away with one husband like that, and she was working on the daughter.  The books give far more information on arsenic than the movies do.  One of them, I think Liz Montgomery, was putting it in potato soup and banana pudding.  I wouldn't think a garlicky taste would be tolerated in banana pudding by someone going to eat it.  Same stuff as the Bordens essentially.  At first, flu symptoms.  Very curious.

I think I know what the cream cakes actually were, I have a cookbook published in 1895 called the Century cookbook, I looked up cream cakes and they did have a recipe for them, from the description it sounded like what we call cream puffs, or even cream donuts/jelly donuts even.  It is basically a pastry that is baked in a round shape that they pipe filling into through a small hole.  They listed fillings as custard, jelly, whipped cream, they offered advice on making the custard filling lighter and that was by beating egg whites and folding into mixture.  Maybe it was the egg whites that caused sickness in people as Abby had heard about bakers cream cakes.

Could be, Merri.  Or cream gone bad.

Here's something interesting I came across in "Victorian Vistas", Volume 2, page 338:

"Again it was said that the whole family had been ill for a few days owing to the poisoning of milk.  Dr. Bowen was the attending physician and he believes that deliberate attempts at poisoning had been made."

Dr. Bowen didn't believe it was poisoning when Abby went over there Wednesday morning.  Where did this source come from?  Did Dr. Bowen change his mind when he saw that the Bordens were murdered?

Yes, I've read that one before, interesting story.  Another one is Napolean himself.  I've read that he may of died of stomach cancer and then I've read that he possibly died due to arsenic poisoning as it was found in his hair.  There was a site I visited where a woman has a scrapbook that was passed down and has a wallpaper sample from the house that Napolean died in, the green color in the wallpaper was tested and found to contain arsenic.

I would like to look this up if you have a source, please?
As to the first symptoms of arsenical poisoning?
I understand it is a metal and builds up in the system.

The doctor looked for irratation of the stomache lining, to see if there might have been poison, which seems like a lot less intensive search than for *corrosion*.  He found no irritation like he would expect to see in a poisoning case.

By law, a black dust like compound was added to powdered arsenic so it could not be masked in common white substances used for foodstuffs, like sugar or white flour.

They were finding arsenic in bodies in 1873.
"The ingenuity and persistence of poisoners has no limit, but arsenic seems to be a particularly popular choice."- On Death's Bloody Trail, Brian Marriner, , St. Martin's Press, Ny, 1991, pg. 120.
--This brings me to my opinion that poisoners don't stop.  They are a rare breed and they seem to almost poison as a hobby, deriving some strange high from the power they hold.

(Message last edited Dec-28th-03  8:16 PM.)

I'll look for the sources you asked for as soon as I can, Kat.  The books are down in the basement. 

What is the difference between "corrosion" of the stomach and "irritation of the stomach lining"?  In any event, what could have been this first dose of arsening would not have shown by looking at the stomach.  Most of it was excreted by their flu-like symptoms, from what I've read on the subject.

I don't think Lizzie was a very good poisoner.  She only succeeded in making the Bordens sick.  (If she did indeed use poison.  I am not saying for sure she did; I don't know.  It does look very suspicious to me, and that's my vote at this point.)  And after the Bordens were gone, she didn't have anyone else she wanted to knock off.  But I can see if a person got away with it once, they'd do it again if they wanted to kill someone else.  In the books I referred to, the women did it more than once.

Kat, do you know what year that was made law that arsenic had to be mixed with black dust?  That's a good find.  Interesting.  I didn't know that.  I'm betting it was after 1892. 

Good story on the wallpaper and Napoleon, Susan.  So did they ever come to a conclusion on if he was really poisoned by arsenic?  That wasn't studied by Professor Starrs, was it?  Didn't they think the same of Mozart and/or Beethoven?

Corrosion seems like a an organic activity which takes place over time, and is obvious (like an ulcer).  Irritation sounds like it can be a temporary affliction, more subtle and not as advanced a health risk. (Like a redness from heartburn which can be reversed).
If irritation is subtle, and no irritation was found, then that tells me the Prof. found no evidence of poison (to which he testifies).

* "Then the acids and alkalis which are corrosive and usually burn the mouth.  Chloroform is one example."- there actually is a medical description of *corrosion* in the use of a certain class of poison, which is not arsenic
.....
Lizzie had spats with her neighbors over land disputes on French Street.  (I believe this is in the Research paper by Ter "All Things Swift", at the Museum/Library).   That's the type of frustration which would evoke the poisoner.  It may be meant to make the person suffer and not die.  I could think of ways a poisoner could get P.O.'d and want to show some (annoymous) power.  That Lizzie was not known to be a poisoner in 1892 or ever after, that again points to her not using poison.

(Message last edited Dec-29th-03  3:33 AM.)

I don't know if Starrs is investigating this one or not, heres one of the sites that I read about it:
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/arsenic.html

I haven't read anything about Mozart or Beethoven.  Were they suspected of arsenic poisoning too? 

This is a British version of Forensic Toxicology history from around the world:

"Around 1790 Johann Metzger discovered the 'arsenic mirror'.  He found that if substances containing arsenic were heated and a cold plate held over the vapors, a white layer of arsenious oxide would form on the plate.  This could prove that food had been doused with arsenic, but it could not tell if the body had already absorbed arsenic.

Dr. Valentine Rose of the Berlin Medical Faculty solved this little problem in 1806.  If the corpse's stomach with it's contents were cut up and boiled, when the resulting liquid had been filtered and treated with nitric acid to remove any remaining flesh and to convert any arsenic into arsenic acid, it could be subjected to Metzger's 'mirror' in the usual way to detect any arsenic.
....
...The most important step in the history of forensic toxicology was the arrival on the scene of the Spaniard named Matthieu Joseph Bonaventure Orfila, born 24 April 1787.  ...he soon became aware  - to his astonishment - that there existed no standard tests to detect many poisons, and he decided to remedy this.  When he published his Traites des poisons in 1813 he found himself famous at the age of twenty-six, and his book marked the end for the poisoner.
...
...In 1824 he cleared a woman of suspicion of murder...The contents of the dead man's stomach were sent to Orfila, now a full professor in Paris, and he carried out exhaustive tests before reporting he could find no trace of any poison.  In other cases his expertise helped convict.

The next turning point in the detection of murder by poisoning came in 1836 when James Marsh, a middle-aged alcoholic, published his incredibly sensitive test to detect the smallest quantity of arsenic.  It was a refinement on the Metzger test.
...The Marsh Test is still used, although modern analysts prefer to use the Reinsch and Gutzeit tests.  Hugo Reinsh developed his test in 1842...

...In England the Arsenic Act of 1851 laid down that no arsenic compound was to be sold unless the seller knew the buyer, and it also insisted that all arsenic compounds had to be coloured either with soot, or with half an ounce of blue indigo per pound of arsenic.  No longer was arsenic to be confused with sugar or flour.  The Pharmacy Act of 1852 brought in regulations making it compulsory for purchasers of poisons to sign a Poison Register.
...for decades to come poisoners would obtain arsenic by any means - even if it meant boiling down flypapers - in the hopes of getting away with murder by its use.

,,,Arsenic was the favorite poison of the Victorian era - what George Orwell termed the 'golden age of English murder', - because it was so readily available as a rat-killer.  The Marsh test was useful for the metallic poisons, but there were plenty of vegetable poisons which could not be detected so readily, including aconite, belladonna, strychnine, opium and nicotine.

...in 1850, Jean Stas, a desciple of Orfila, devise(d) a test to detect nicotine poisoning.  The Stas test is still used today.

Another landmark in the history of forensic medicine had come in 1835 with the publication of Alfred Swaine Taylor's Principles and Practices of Medical Jurisprudence.

...Tardieu's test for digitalis [1864], using a frog, is still the standard test in use.

The state of knowledge in the field of forensic toxicology at this time was limited but improving.
...broadly speaking...four categories [of poison] according to their effects.

First those poisons which affect the ozygen-carrying capability of the blood - typically cyanide.  Then the acids and alkalis which are corrosive and usually burn the mouth.  Chloroform is one example.  The third group consists of those poisons which destroy the entire body system by absorbation, either slowly or quickly, such as arsenic*, antimony, mercury and the vegetable poisons, like strychine, morphine and hyoscine.  The fourth group comprises poisons which leave no trace of entry - no obvious lesions - but kill after being absorbed by the body.

...Although modern forensic toxicology has made great strides with the result that poisoning now accounts for only six percent of all murders, the fact remains that almost anything can be a 'poison' if enough is used.

..The poisoner is detested because she or he works in secret, often over a long period, pretending to nurse the victim they are slowly murdering, and so poison has become known as the 'coward's weapon.'

...Poisoning is a method of murdering a person without leaving any inconvenient and incriminating clues like bloodstains, knife-wounds, marks of strangulation or crude bludgeoning.  With luck, the murder might even be put down to death from natural causes.  That, quite simply, is the reason why poisoning was the favourite method of muder for thousands of years:  because it was virtually undetectable, its affects indistinguishable from a heart attack or a stroke.

That is, until science had progressed to the point where to use poison was as obvious as using a knife or gun.  Then poisoning virtually ceased....That is one area where forensic science can be said to have had a positive deterrent effect."

* "Arsenic is a metalic poison, extracted from ores [and] used for centuries as a potion to improve the complexion."

--from:
On Death's Bloody Trail, Brian Marriner, St. Martins Press, NY, 1991.  Pages, 102, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115,116, 117, 118, 119, 125, 127.
First published in Great Britain as Forensic Clues to Murder by Random Century Group.

(Message last edited Dec-29th-03  3:50 AM.)

I read in some true crime book that arsenic had to be colored blue so it would never be mistaken for food. Note the coloring on windshield washer fluid. Laws do change.

Yes, but since neither Lizzie (or Emma or Bridget) was ever implicated in any poisoning or hatchet chopping, they MUST be innocent of murders. Agree? And who did Bertha Manchester?

Maybe mercuric poisoning is more likely. Calomel uses mercury as the active ingredient, very popular in the 19th century. "It'll cure you if it doesn't kill you."

According to what I read, arsenic makes the face pale, a popular cosmetic feature of earlier times. To look like an indoor person, rather than someone who worked outdoors - manual labor. Class prejudices? Hence powdering faces today.

That was real interesting, Kat.  But this was stuff done and published in England and used over there back then.  Do we know that those tests for arsenic were accepted by American doctors and used in the US then, and if so, if they were used specifically in the Borden case?

The "Marsh Test" that says it was sensitive enough to detect the smallest amount of arsenic would be interesting to learn how it was conducted, as with the Reinsch and Gutzeit tests.  Again, tho, I have the same questions as I do in the paragraph above.

Rays, because Lizzie or Emma or Bridget weren't accused of poisoning doesn't mean they didn't do it - nor does it mean none of them committed the murder. 

That was a good point, Rays, about the upper classes wanting to wear makeup to show that they didn't labor outdoors.  I never thought of that. 

Kat's post includes the law in England changing so that arsenic had to be colored with soot or indigo so it wouldn't appear powdery white. 

I don't know what year that was made law for the United States.  Or if it was. 

I can't find the two books I named earlier in the two modern-day arsenic cases.  This comes from "Lizzie" by Frank Spiering, footnote on page 200 that was pointed out to me by Dave Rehak some time ago:

"* Author's note:  I discussed the symptoms which Abby and Andrew (as well as Bridget) had experienced prior to the murders - nausea, stomach cramps, vomiting - with Professor Milton Bastos, Head of Toxicology, Medical Examiner's Office for the City of New York.  He described these as the usual symptoms of arsenic poisoning.  He explained that Professor Wood's analysis of Andrew's and Abby's stomachs would not have revealed arsenic poisoning, as the Bordens had only experienced a few doses with their food.  According to Dr. Bastos, arsenic is the ideal murderer's poison as it can only be detected in the stomach when consumed over a long period of time."

I believe blood testing today shows arsenic levels - everyone has a little bit in their system.  I think you can pick up minute levels today that way. 

Susan, thanks for the web page address.  Yes, it was thought that Mozart was poisoned.  I don't know what, if anything was done about it.  I think I heard something about maybe Beethoven but am not sure.


(Message last edited Dec-30th-03  9:55 PM.)

I knew you would want to know this was British-based.  I don't know when American laws took effect.
I kinda thought this had been covered, before.  I did hunt for some of my transcription from earlier but did not find it.
William may know.

Excellent message, Kat. But I once read somewhere that a reliable test for arsenic was available around 1780, which is when they stopped hanging or burning witches. Killing was found to be simple poison, not "being in league with the devil". My memory is hazy about the details. I once read about the Marsh test. Note the use of hyoscine (?) in Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", a book that made her reputation. And still a good story today.

pg. 110:
"It was a very unscientific age, the only test for poison being to feed it to an animal and see if it died.  But the men of science were now emerging, men like Joseph Priestley and Henry Cavendish.  Around 1790 Johann Metzger discovered the 'arsenic mirror'."
...
For Augusta, 122:

"...in 1836...the Marsh test...was a refinement on the Metzger test.  Instead of allowing the vapours to rise up to the cold metal plate - with most of the gasses escaping into thin air - the whole process took place in a sealed apparatus in which the vapours could only exit via a small nozzle.  The suspect material was dropped into a solution of zinc and sulphuric acid to produce hydrogen.  Any arsenic gas was then heated as it passed along a glass tube to form the 'arsenic mirror'.  It was simple yet effective.  The Marsh test is still used, although modern analysts perfer to use the Reinsch and Gutzeit tests."

-On Death's Bloody Trail, Brian Marriner, , St. Martin's Press, Ny, 1991.

--I have written a doctor to see what I can find out about arsenic's presenting effects.  If she is not involved with Toxicology I may talk to my pharmasist.

(Message last edited Dec-31st-03  7:35 PM.)

Augusta if you wish to read more about the detailed testing for arsenic and other metallic compounds, go to Google and check out Reinsch test or Gutzeit test.

So where is there any positive proof of arsenic or other poison found? Aren't some people getting pretty silly in claiming the existence of something that was never found?

WHERE is the common sense in all this?

No there is no proof but apparently this was a rumor going around and is in the newspapers a bit as I look around- so as long as it is a person's theory or opinion, It is probably a valid topic to investigate.

THANK YOU!!!
If "as long as it is a person's theory or opinion" then you have no cause to criticize my opinion of Andy based on his character and how other rich men will act when the opportunity arises. (Another thread.)

If a person designates that what might seem unsupported, as their opinion, that has not been a problem here, as long as it is on Topic and related to the Borden case.

ha makes me laugh Kat, so NOT true, I've seen this forum get rid
of so many who disagree.  They are intimidated.  I remember when I
first joined, Edisto replied things like "you don't know what you are
taking about.."   I just hung in there because I knew I knew as much
about this case as anyone.  But very insulting and my feelings have been bruised a bit on this forum.  Not for the meek, that's for sure.

You're making a rather sweeping statement, as maybe mine was rather sweeping, itself.
We do strive to air all opinions.
That some drop out is their decision always, but two.
Baiting works both ways- and we're dealing with a lot of different personalities here and a loaded subject.
We do pretty well.
You seem to like it here.

(Message last edited Jan-4th-04  9:03 PM.)

This, or any other forum would be dead-dog boring if everyone agreed!

The entire concept of this type of venue is to share our opinions, thoughts and ideas and to broaden them by listening to others.


I personally think it would behoove us all to share and listen while maintaining good manners and respect for our fellow posters.  I suppose it could be easy to get one's "feelings" hurt-- but I have generally found that people will treat you  much as you treat them.

If you give respect you will receive it.  If you share opinions and ideas in a mature and sensible fashion you will benefit from the same from others.

Ever listen to a wide-open talk radio show? This is pretty tame compared to one NY city talk show: few insults.

I won't give any bad examples here.

No, I don't like it here, I LOVE IT HERE!.  Thanks folks for
listening to me jabber and complain but bottom line, I love talking
about the Lizzie case and this forum is wonderful, you people are
my friends.  Thanks for putting up with this cranky ol lady. 

{ This is my first posting to this society's conference room.)

The question is not "was it poison e.g Arsenic" but how was it served up?

My mother and father were friends of someone in Ms. Borden's family – in the thirties/forties I believe. [I am not exactly sure of the dates.]

A long time ago one of Ms. Borden's relatives gave my mother two personal items from the Borden home.  They seem to be part of a set of formal china used by the Borden family for their dining room -porcelain pieces.

Both items, the first a gravy bowl, the second a serving dish, have a floral design [roses etc] around them.  The items also carry what seems to be 18 carat gold edges.  Neither of the two have been restored or cleaned, and are in the near perfect state in which they were given I suspect.

The gravy bowl measures approx 8 inches, is made of porcelain , and carries on the bottom the following:  John Maddock & Son, Ltd.  England. Royal Vitreous. It has the maker’s marks engraved into the porcelain. 

The serving dish measures approx 11 inches in diameter and has two handles.  The bottom carries the name John Maddock & Son, Ltd, England, Royal Vitreous.  It has numbers 11x150 engraved into the porcelain.

I have always found it odd that these items - quite authentic and very much part of the home dining ware - would be given so graciously. [Both pieces are now held by my brother in his collection of odd pieces.]

Could Ms. Borden have used the gravy dish to serve up the poison without having the need to use it herself?  Could the serving dish have been used in items that she herself would not have need to choose from?  Why where these items given away so graciously to my mother?  These questions remain a minor curiousity to me.

You could most certainly hide more then gravy in a gravy dish.  It would be interesting to understand the individual eating habits of the family members involved.  Wouldn't it interesting to find that she never used gravy while other always did?  Guess we would never know.

http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/m/maddock.html

This clearly states (several times) that the "ltd" was not added until 1896.  4 years after the murders.

If these items did indeed exist in the Borden home they came along after A&A died.

The gravy bowl measures approx 8 inches, is made of porcelain , and carries on the bottom the following:  John Maddock & Son, Ltd.  England. Royal Vitreous. It has the maker’s marks engraved into the porcelain. 

The serving dish measures approx 11 inches in diameter and has two handles.  The bottom carries the name John Maddock & Son, Ltd, England, Royal Vitreous.  It has numbers 11x150 engraved into the porcelain.


(Message last edited Jan-7th-04  1:48 AM.)

PS--

(disclaimer-- this is merely an opinion)

Anyone looking at a photo of Lizzie knows the girl liked her gravy.

Very interesting homework regarding the porcelain marks, for which I am thankful.  Re, Pixs and Gravy...this I don't understand.

Hi John and welcome to the forum.

This is definitely not my area of expertise.  As Audrey states the markings indicate the items are after 1892 and that would mean perhaps from Lizzie's estate.

In Lizzie's Will, Helen Leighton was given first choice of Lizzie's china.  Grace Howe was given second choice.

According to Rebello, Mrs. Leighton left Fall River in 1918 and moved to Boston.  Grace Howe was married to Louis Howe, Secretary of the Navy under FDR.  He died in 1936 and she was appointed postmaster of Fall River in 1937.  She apparently was very active in Fall River and State affairs and died in Fall River in 1955.



(Message last edited Jan-7th-04  7:41 AM.)

Thanks you two, those were good posts!

Audrey the site was great!

John, welcome.
Did you check the marks against the site?
That should be very helpful.
http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/m/maddock.html

I guess it might be true that the china came from Maplecroft, as that was where Lizzie and Emma were living in 1896, when the "ltd." mark was assigned.  But why would a Borden girl give away a new piece of tableware?
Suppose it was much later that the pieces were given?

Here is a speculative theory:

That Emma chose the china when the girls moved to Maplecroft.
That after Emma left in 1905, Lizzie gave away pieces which Emma did not take because they no longer made a set.
Then Lizzie bought her own, new, set of China to her liking?
-No basis in proof.

I recall a mention of tableware from the Borden house before.
John, did you ever contact Dr. Koorey as LizzieAndrewBorden.com Admin?

I recall a mention of tableware from the Borden house before.
John, did you ever contact Dr. Koorey as LizzieAndrewBorden.com Admin?

No, I am unaware of Dr. Koorey.  This is all new to me.  All I vaguely remember is my mother speaking about Ms. Borden.  She had a close connection in some odd way, which she honestly spoke little of.  Whatever she knew she took to her grave.  I shall contact my brothers and sisters and ask them if mom ever spoke to them regarding Ms Borden.  Mom was a professional singer, but kept her personal life to herself. I am not sure what she might have revealed to my younger siblings.  But I shall ask.  I am interested in knowing more about whom the mystery woman was that they befriended, why she lived in the house, how long.  A name would be nice.  I recall their saying she was 'a Borden'.  My younger brother is quite sure this mystery person was a female with the last name of Borden.  She would have lived in this house in the forties.  Does that make sense to anyone?  I really am not well read at all on Ms. Borden.

Mom met relatives via my father.  Dad knew the home quite well and actually did work on the house.  My brother Marc knows more of the story and I shall solicit his input here.

What interest me is 1) who was the woman who lived in the house that my father, then mother befriended; and 2) what was the motive behind the gift, which was clearly said to have been given from the house in Fall River.

I shall contact Dr. Koorey, and I shall do cursory research now.  My interest is awakening. I guess mysteries are like puzzles.  You are never sure of the final picture until all the pieces are found and put in their right place.  Seems to me that there are many missing pieces leading to more guess work then proof positive here. Conjecture by any other name is conjecture.

Best to you,

John

I do not have these two pieces in my hands.  They are in the possession of my brother, who lives in New Mexico.  I shall call him and have him verify the precise marks on the bottom of 'both' pieces. I believe [not sure] my sister-in-law as cups from that same collection.  I shall verify this, and if cups exist I shall ask for the marks to be verified.  This is the best I can do.

Again, I am more facinated by the fact that these items were physically in the house, and the fact that they were given away pro-bono.  This is what makes no sense to me right now.  This and the fact that they were said to be given by a "Borden". 

Probably nothing here.  But I am interested in better understanding what mom may have known and said to my brothers and sisters regarding this matter.  I shall ask and respond in one way or another.

Best,

John

PS We are sort of getting away from the 'arsenic' question here.  But roads cross.  I want to explore where this trail leads.  Maybe a dead end.  Let us see.

If my father did work on the Borden house, then there may be old contract books listing the name of the person who contracted the work.  Right now the name "Grace Howe" is the one I want to follow up on.  She seems to fit the right profile.  I shall ask my family if they are familiar that name.  First I must identify the giver, then I want to better understand the motive if it exists in written or spoken record.

I am less and less convinced that this is headed anywhere.  But worth my time to explore.

Is there an inventory of the items found in the dining room and kitchen that was recorded and filed away?  I am interested to understand if there were items of the nature we are speaking about in the first place.  If 'arsenic' is the question, then the delivery vehicle should be of substantial interest.

Dr. Koorey is my sister and web-creator of
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com

I spoke to her today about the plates or whatever we could recall and it turns out to be a different private message which came to her via her website.
The person thought they might have decorative plates from #92 Second Street.
The white ones used for decorating, as yet un-painted.
She was going to find out more but forgot.
She was very charming about it.

So your china is a seperate issue.

The immediate Borden family died out with Emma Borden.
Andrew had only 2 daughters who lived to adulthood, and they both died in 1927.  Emma, the last of this line, on June 10, 1927 and Lizzie (by now "Lizbeth") earlier on June 1, 1927.
Then we would go to their wills, as Harry described.


This link will take you to a page where you can choose a PDF download of Lizzie's will and Emma's will.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources/OfficialDocuments.htm

Andrew Borden had no brothers.
His father Abraham had brothers, and one nephew is mentioned in Jenning's notebook.  No name.
The closest Borden would be descended from the seventh generation of a brother of Abraham, after 1927.

Thanks for keeping us informed.  You can ask anything here and we will continue to try to help you solve your mystery.


(Message last edited Jan-7th-04  8:42 PM.)

We have a good resource book which we use a lot which we call by the author's name : Rebello.
On pages 34-35  there is information on who owned #92 Second Street (the house number has changed a few times):

"Residents of 92 Second Street

1845 to 1849 House built for Charles Trafton by Southard H. Miller
1850 to 1871 Charles Trafton, overseer of carding
1872 to 1894 Andrew J. Borden, businessman, Emma and Lizzie
1895 to 1897 Asa Gifford, janitor, Music Hall
1899 to 1920 Marcus A. Townsend, carpenter
1921 to 1948 Mendel Mark, manufacturing / stationary
1948 to 1995 John R. and Josephine McGinn
1996 -- Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast / Museum
1998 -- William Pavao, Jr., Archivist

There were no city directories prior to 1853 to show who occupied the home from 1845-1853. However, the 1850 atlas shows the Borden home with Charles Trafton as owner. The Registry of Deeds in Fall River shows Mr. Charles Trafton purchased the property in 1845 and built the Second Street home. Records at the Registry of Deeds listed the sale of the property to Andrew J. Borden in 1872. There were many other residents who were tenants at the Second Street home but are not listed."

--You may have a Borden connection or a house connection, I don't know which.

Regarding the marks on the two dining room pieces that were claimed to be in the home of Ms. Borden "prior to 1896".

I have had the marks on the bottom of the two pieces reviewed again.
Quite to my surprise the marks are quite close to the 1896 mark, but not identical.

On the manufacture's mark the "dot" appears "below" the word "England".  On the two pieces in my brother's collection the "dot" appears "ABOVE!!!" the word "England".

This might indicate that these pieces were produced in a very limited number "before" 1896 as an initial test of the new brand.  The company - assumption - might have initially tested the mark with the dot above the centered word "England" and found that they liked it "below" the word and opted to adopt this design.

Again, the marks on both pieces, the gravy dish and the serving bowl do not match the copy right designs introduced in 1896.  The single difference is the placement of the dot which appears above the center of the word "England.  Quite odd. 

This being the case there is no reason to assume or not assume that the pieces were produced ON or AFTER 1896.  They may indeed have been in that house the day of the murders.

The next step is to contact the factory and inquire about this off-beat marking. 

ASSUMPTION:  Would a wealthy family with an eye on beautiful china be trend setters and have bought these two peices as one of the first runs BEFORE the factory finally decided on what the new brand would be.  If the answer is yes, if the mark was a "test" mark, then it is probable that these items were in deed in the home the day of the crime, and may have been used to serve up unhealthy treats BEFORE the murder of both victims.

More curious then ever right now..

Intersting...

As a collector of glass ware and antique china I have reviewed several of my pieces.  Some of them have dots or markings and others do not-- even some in sets that match identically.  Obviously these sets are not from original "sets" but paired up in my collection after I bought them at separate times.

The "ltd" is the key.  If the company was not using "ltd" prior to 1896 they would not have marked any piece with "ltd" prior to that time. 

I am not assuming these pieces do not have a Borden connection as they very well may have.  I, for one-- based on a 16 year hobby of buying, selling and collecting antiques--including pottery and glass ware-- think it is 100% clear these pieces came along after 1896.

Likewise, I think a man who failed to see the necessities of running water or electricity would not be very enchanted with idea of being a china trend setter.  Mr Borden was a very frugal man.  He did not aspire to impressing other people with his belongings, but rather with his holdings.



(Message last edited Jan-8th-04  1:01 PM.)

All the points you speak to are interesting, but conjecture.  Give me the opportunity to contact the factory.  Lets see what the factory has to offer regarding these markings.  While you may be right, and your thoughts are well constructed based on a collector's experience,let us see what the factory has to say on this matter. I shall run this down to insure there is no possibility that the unusual markings have any unusual significance.  OK?

"Studium discendi voluntate quae cogi non potest constat." (Study depends on the good will of the student, a quality which cannot be secured by compulsion."  Let's be sure here. 

and err on the side of caution!  Tel qui rit vendredi dimanche pleurera!!

(I am originally from France)

Mais je suis français aussi. Mon nom exact est jean robert gange de bon ville de les vallieres. Je devine il y a plus alors rencontre l'oeil avec ce mystère. C'est au lion affamé qui reçoit la fête.  Le vendredi est arrivé. Nous verrons ce qu'arrive dimanche. Mais merci pour vos mots gentils de prudence. jean robert

I spoke to my sister Claire in Rhode Island.  She believes the name of the woman who gave my mother the two pieces was Ms. Howe.  I think my sister Rita, who lives in Connecticut, will know.  If she identifies the name, independent of Claire, then I will assume it was Howe and try to find a descendant who can verify the authenticity of the two items.  If she is the woman, IF, and if the unusual marks on these items have significance beyond an obvious mistake by the craftsperson who initialed the pieces, and if the small alteration precedes the 1896 date, and if Mr. Borden was frugal, but with an eye on value, then IF IF IF , there is an outside shot these pieces were in the house in question before 1896.  I am convinced they came from the house in question.  What I am not convinced of in any way is 1)when they were there, 2) why they were kept and passed on by Ms Borden, and 3) why the benefactor gave them to my mother.  I sure wish mom had kept a diary. 

You know all I really wanted to do initially was verify that the pieces were from the home.  Now I am getting into this mystery in a more involved and personal way. Go figure

Audrey there are other marks on the pieces that I shall also ask the factory to explain.  All in all this may be a meaningless hunt.  But the process is beginning to interest me more then just casually.

John, here's some information on Grace Howe. From Rebello, page 333:

"Mrs. Grace Hartley Howe was born in Fall River, November 9, 1874. She was the daughter of Dr. James W. Hartley of Darwin, England, and Mary Jane (Borden) Hartley. She attended public schools in Fall River, graduated from B.M.C. Durfee High School and attended Vassar College. Grace (Hartley) Howe married Col. Louis McHenry Howe....on November 9, 1889, in a small Vermont village. The Howe's had two children, Hartley Edward Howe and Mary Baker."

"Mrs. Grace (Hartley) Howe died in Fall River, Massachusetts, on June 14, 1955, at the age of eighty....She was survived by a son, Hartley Edward Howe, and a daughter, Mrs. Mary (Howe) Baker. Funeral services were held at the Church of the Ascension on Rock Street where she was a member. She was buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Fall River.

Note: Mr. Hartley Edward Howe, son of Mr. and Mrs. Howe, died in Westport, Massachusetts, December 17, 1996, and was buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Fall River."

"Those who laugh today cry tomorrow?"? Pardon my French.

I find that Mary Jane Borden (232) married Dr. James W Hartley, May 1, 1853.
She was daughter of Cook Borden(214), "Lumber Dealer".


Cook Borden was son of Richard Borden (120) and brother of Abraham Borden (208), father of Andrew Borden (218).

That makes Mary Jane Borden(232) niece of Abraham(208), and first cousin of Andrew Borden.

Does this imply that those who laugh last laugh best?

It means.... More or less... To play it close to the vest.  be careful and do not give too much away until you are sure...