1. "You've just inherited a large chunk of Lizzie's estate..."
Posted by Tina-Kate on Aug-14th-03 at 7:13 AM

"Woo-Hoo...Yee-Haw!"

Cool pictures T-K.  The cat in the middle should be named Dracula.

Today's FR Herald News has an article on a new animal shelter that they want to build in FR.  It's the no-kill type and I hope it gets enough funding to be completed.

I was just reading that portion of Lizzie's will. She donated $30,000 in cash plus about another $20,000 in stock and dividends. Using the inflation calculator, that $50,000 (from 1927 to 2002) would be worth about $490,000 today.  Generous indeed.  Good for you Lizzie!

Emma wasn't a piker, either, when it came to the animals.
She left $20,000 to the Providence Animal League, and $6000 to to the Fall River Animal Rescue League.

I've always wondered if that money was still around.  Is that possible?

The photograph in the middle looks like a furry snake about to strike at some helpless prey.  It gives me the creeps. 

Unless Lizzie and Emma left their money in trust with specific disbursement instructions via their respective wills, it is probably long gone.  I am all for helping animals and preventing their abuse.  And I support my local SPCA and other groups devoted to assisting neglected animals.  However,  I have sometimes wondered about the bequests left by Lizzie and Emma.  The amounts of money they left to various animal service groups was significant in the 1920's.  I do not know how it would transfer to 2003 dollars, but I suspect it would be the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

It has struck me as somewhat odd they would give so much for the care of animals yet seem so distant and aloof from other people.  In fact, they had a reclusive quality to their lives in the final years.  I suspect that some of their contemporaries viewed them as downright anti-social.  Those hefty bequests for animals, when seen in contrast to the personal baggage and emotional struggles of both women, speaks volumes about their inability to truly connect to other people.  They did not distribute their money to a variety of organizations to help a variety of elements of Fall River life.  They gave every cent to animal causes.  Certainly, this is their choice and there is nothing wrong with their decision to do so.  However, I wonder if this was some sort of a final snub to the people who spurned them in the years after the trial.  Furthermore, because such bequests are a matter of public record, I wonder of their wills did not further add to the perception that these were two very strange women who lead mysterious lives and had secrets to keep.

Didn't Emma leave money for the Boyscouts or something like that?  For some reason I don't seem to have their wills anymore, will have find them again. 

From Emma's Will --

Ninth Street Day Nursery $ 4,000
Rescue Mission of Fall River $ 2,000
Children's Home of Fall River $ 4,000
Fall River Women's Union $ 2,000
Home for Aged People $10,000
Ass'n for Community Welfare $ 6,000
Animal Rescue League $20,000
Deaconess Home of Fall River $ 3,000
YMCA of Fall River $10,000
Salvation Army of MA $ 6,000
MA Girl Scouts $ 5,000
District Nursing Ass'n $10,000
Bishop Stang Day Nursery $ 3,000
St Vincent's Home $ 4,000
Boy's Club of Fall River $ 5,000
MA Soc. for Prevention of
Cruelty to Children $ 5,000
Rhode Island Animal Rescue $ 5,000
Boy Scout Movement $ 5,000

Total $109K

As far as I can ascertain, the majority of funds to benefit specific groups --

Miscellaneous $35K (Community of Fall River)
Children $31K
Animals $25K
Elderly $10K
Religious $ 6K
Women $ 2K

Total $109K

Kids' interests came out on top.

She also provided for friends & relatives.  One friend, Josephine Ridlon, was bequeathed $2K, plus all of Emma's clothes(!)

(Message last edited Aug-17th-03  7:12 AM.)

Thanks, Tina-Kate!  It looks like ol' Emma left her money to a lot of really good causes.  It really must have been quite the windfall for all these groups! 

Susan:

http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/lizzie/images/documents/L0038F01.html

Lizzie’s Will

From UMASS.edu
................
I was there all day today.
................
Thanks for the overview of Emma's bequests, Tina-Kate!  That was really good- figuring out who came out ahead.  Very interesting.

I wonder how she decided?  She wasn't affiliated with all these places was she?  I get the picture in my mind of either charity or committee directors visiting Emmer over time, asking for her contributions, or maybe she left all that in the hands of Cook or whomever her man of business was, to decide?
(After she had nominated her special interests...)

Anyway, I still don't see why charity did not begin at home.  There was family in the shape of Morses and Bordens

Thanks, Kat.  Well, it looks like Lizzie wasn't as beneficent with her will as Emma was.  Perhaps Emma went over it with her lawyer, she had alot of money to leave and not many people in her life to leave it to? 

Very interesting to see the specifics of both wills.  These women were loaded.  I still think that Lizzie's will speaks volumes about her view of Fall River and the people who she believed had snubbed her.   

Also, is there any way to understand the truth about the falling out between Lizzie and Emma?  It is interesting that Lizzie specifically mentioned that Emma was not to receive anything.  While not unusual, it is a bitter statement to put in her will and it did not have to be written.  What are the theories as to what caused the break between Lizzie and Emma?

If the YMCA received $10,000.00 from Emma's will, maybe that IS our "Mrs. Andrew J. Borden" who was in charge of "Membership". in 1891 the first annual meeting.
That would be interesting Emma leaving that organization that much money if she was involved somehow in Abby's murder!

Anyway, Emma's bequests are too widely scattered and show no real deep interest in any of these organizations.  I'd need a dart and the yellow pages to pick out this many groups to inherit!
Besides as I said, there were cousins and aunts and such all over the place for the girls to leave money to--Lizzie left $ to friends and relatives and servants--that makes sense. 

We don't know that they were shunned by their relations...the girls may have done the shunning in those cases, on Abby's side..

It sounds selfish and self-aggrandizing to leave Andrew's fortune to outsiders, charitable or not.  Emma could leave a bit you see, but to leave so much, makes her look like she was showing off more than that she was  intimately concered with these institutions...at least that's what it looks like to me.
She must have had some advice on this.  I think someone may have made a bundle off this list.

(Message last edited Aug-18th-03  12:46 AM.)

The info I provided in Post 7 was from Clauses 9 & 10 of Emma's original will.  However, I wasn't thorough.  In 1920, Emma declared a Codicil.  Clause 6 of the Codicil provides the Providence Animal Rescue League with an additional $15K.  So, animals did come out on top in the end! (40K!!!)

As far as I know, there's no mention of Emma ever having a special affinity with animals, or even having a pet.  Makes me wonder if she heard of Lizzie's involvement with the Fall River Animal Rescue League & either followed suit, or decided to lend her support as a kind of peace offering/message of love to Lizzie...

Incidently, Clause 5 of the Codicil states --

If Andrew J. Jennings, of Fall River, Massachusetts, shall survive me, I give and bequeath to him the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000), as a remembrance of his many acts of kindness and of devotion to my interest and those of my father and mother during a long period of years, and in appreciation of all that he has done for me.

Hmmm...a little extra insurance, perhaps?

BTW, Rebello adds a note:  Andrew Jackson Jennings died October 19, 1923.

(Message last edited Aug-18th-03  5:30 AM.)

"...as a remembrance of his many acts of kindness and of devotion to my interest and those of my father and mother during a long period of years."...

--Do you think she is referring to Andrew & Sarah   or  Andrew & Abby?

You know something, I wondered exactly the same thing.

After the fuss made re Lizzie announcing "...not my mother; she's my step-mother", Emma may have been thereafter careful about watching her "step".

Depending on when Andrew Jennings started working for the family, it could mean either one.

(Message last edited Aug-19th-03  2:48 AM.)

I think Jennings said he had known the family since Emma was young.
It had had me wondering if Emma was the reason Jennings was so involved with that family.
Emma was sent away to *School* sometime after Andrew's remarriage in 1865 up until sometime 1869...somewhere between those two dates...for a year and a half.  I thought maybe it was advised.

Also, it's hard to realize that Andrew's marriage to Sarah lasted from 1845/6
(Christmas) to  March,1863 = 17 years and like 3 months (check my math), and his marriage to Abby lasted from June, 1865 until August, 1892, whereupon someone ended it prematurely...=27 years!  (check my math)
--That seems long enough to be *Mother*.

Kat, do you know off-hand the source of the info of Emma being sent away to school?  I don't think I have it in any of my collection.

Thanks!

Perhaps both. Or another possible pay-off for services rendered?
AR Brown comments on the lawyer sequestering evidence "in case of any future police investigation". Or what they did to get Lizzie off.

Inquest, Emma, 107:
Q.  What is your age?
A.  Forty- one.
Q.  How old were you, as near as you can recollect, when your father married the second time?
A.  Just a trifle over fourteen.
Q.  So that you probably remember your Mother?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Have you lived at home most of the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q.  H ave  you ever lived away from home?
A.  I was away at school about a year and a half.
Q.  That was sometime ago?
A.  Yes Sir.

When I was making a timeline I used Rebello. Knowlton Papers, Terrence's unpublished timeline, and Caplain's timeline from the LBQ for reference.
I don't recall how it was determined when Emma was away at school.
We had discussed that on here before, too.  We thought it might have coincided with the Borden family's visit to Chicago, because that was during Emma's school age days and she might have been taken out there and left.
That was speculation.

So what was the school, Emma's age, and the relevance to the solution?
I believe that Emma was also innocent before the facts.

Ever know of a family where one member is in trouble? Don't they all hang together against the outsiders (police)? Doesn't this explain the actions of Lizzie, Uncle John, and Emma?

Just comparing the present to the past.

Brown, 96:
"For whatever reason, Mr. Phillips in 1941 elected to comment on Mr. Jennings' collected hoard of evidence and the continued sequestration of 'the mass of documents' by saying, 'Mr. Jennings considered their secrecy important to her defense should there be any new phases of police investigation.' "
Brown, Arnold R. Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1991.
-(Brown says Phillips said this quote in 1941, but that was not the year of the news article on the case quoted below, nor was it the year Phillips book was published.)

Phillips, pg. 12 of break-out article:
"The mass of documents and other evidence collected by the defence have never been disclosed or discussed, due to the fact that until the recent death of Miss Borden their secrecy was, in the opinion of Mr. Jennings, important to her defence.  He considered that reservation of such facts as would meet any new phases of police investigation was necessary, and that during her life it was improper to disclose or to discuss facts which were gathered in her interest, and which might by any possiblity be important if crime should be reconsidered by the District Attorney."
Phillips, Arthur Sherman. The Borden Murder Mystery: In Defence of Lizzie Borden. ME: King Philip Pub., 1986.
An abstract from The Phillips History of Fall River (Fall River, MA: Dover Press, 1944-6, 3 vols.)

--The part in italics, transcribed above, was added to the book and was not part of the newspaper article which Phillips wrote himself, published May 13, 1934, New Bedford Evening [Sunday] Standard Times
The part in italics was very possibly written by Phillips' brother-in-law, as Phillips died in 1941.
--Now you all can make up your own minds as to what Brown was quoting and whether it was quoted properly.
(And whether Brown was inadvertantly relying on Mr. Easton's words on the case).

--And whether Rays quote is even accurate:
"... 'in case of any future police investigation'."

(Message last edited Aug-19th-03  7:24 PM.)

Thanks again, Kat for your eagle-eyed reviews. I quoted from memory, and "new phases" does seem equivalent to the "future".
If Phillips died in 1941, that would be the last year he could write these comments. Newspaper do edit articles to fit the space, etc.
Was Dover Press in business in 1944-46? Is it around today? They used to reprint out-of-print books; the extension of copyrights might have put them out of business.
Don't we all know of statements made by important people that do not become public until years after they die? Think of Harry Truman's offer to step down as President in 1948 if Ike ran in his place.
As far as I know, nether E Pearson's or E Radin's books are in print, or available to me in the Public Library.

I think Brown got the date wrong when he attributed the same statement to Phillips, 1941, as was made in the news article or in the book.
It would be printed in either 1934, newspaper, or Brown got it from the History of Fall River, 1944-6.
Otherwise you are assuming that Phillips made the same remarks the year of his death, in what venue, exactly?
Do you see what I mean?  It makes more sense to say there probably was an error.
I think maybe Mr. Brown had not-quite-qualified researchers working for him to speed the writing/publishing process.  I've always thought that when I find interesting books that have improper citations.  I can't claim Brown made these kinds of mistakes, though he is ultimately responsibe, right?

I'm sorry you no longer have your copy.  I guess I will bone up on Brown now and follow you around if you *quote* from old notes.  It's not my favorite thing.
Maybe if you ditched the quotes and paraphrased, claiming you are paraphrasing?  Or saying, As My Memory tells me.... or something like that-- which you have done successfully in the past.
I don't want to tell you how to post, but I wouldn't be checking you often either... maybe.  I mean I don't mind if you don't.

(Message last edited Aug-20th-03  8:20 PM.)

Thanks for your eagle-eyed reviews.
I don't mind if you chose to check up on my messages. Its your choice. And if you find very little that is wrong, that verifies my statements.
I can't speak for AR Brown or his researchers; he does give them credit in the "Acknowledgments" (which few? other do). Since Brown lists Phillips' book in his references, we can assume that is the source. Brown, like any other top manager, would delegate this work to those closer to Fall River IMO. It provides some objectivity, and, a way to blame others for any mistakes (you must have seen this when working for a corporation?). Its like Pres Bush blaming CIA director for those 16 words; JFK simply fired his CIA director. That's why this "blame" seems like another poor excuse.

Those who have written a book (like Brown did) can best judge his results, or the other non-professional authors.
...
I'm pretty sure that the book I read in 1965 was the updated version of E Pearson's "Trial of Lizzie Borden" (published in 1963?).

(Message last edited Aug-21st-03  1:10 PM.)