The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Andrew  and Clegg"
Posted by Kat on May-10th-02 at 2:58 PM

In the Trial, pg. 171, we find out Jonathan Clegg is Hard of Hearing, in his own admission.

It's possible that Andrew was also hard a bit of hearing, as Bridget descibes Lizzie talking to him in a SLOW voice.

Thus, we have a man coming about a store, and Lizzie OVERHEARS loud talking which she construes as an argument (?).

Clegg says he came to Second street on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd & 3rd. (pg. 174)

Can you imagine the Loud-Voiced Racket 2 hard-of-hearing men would make simply dicussing business?

(Also:  Clegg says he waited for a sight of Andrew in the town Thursday in order to talk to him.  Of course the court doesn't want to know what they talked about!)

Trial, pg.178:

It was Andrew's property, this new Clegg store.
Andrew picked up a the lock, put it down, went upstairs, came back down and picked up the lock and left with it.

Since it was his property, then that old lock from that store which was "all broken to pieces" that had "been on the front store door", would fit his key.

Andrew may have wanted to fit his old key to that old lock, so he could then dispose of BOTH, as now useless.

Dr. Dolan was asked about these keys at the Preliminary Hearing, but I still don't get what the concern was:

Pg. 183-
A: I took some keys (from Andrew's body)
Q: ...A bunch?
A: Yes Sir
Q: That is to say, they were on a key ring?
A: Yes Sir
(The undertaker gave them to him)
-----------------------------
Pg. 184
A: There is a big key there, like a shop key
Q:...I understand you have not altered these keys as to their arrangement since you received them?
A: No Sir
Q:...Whatever keys there are, are precisely the same collection that they were when you received them?
A: Yes Sir

--What do you suppose they were getting at?  (This is all Cross-examination by Adams)

Jonathan Clegg pops up as a viable suspect for the crimes in Masterton's LIZZIE DIDN'T DO IT!  (at least to the author...)

I haven't read it in a while, and wondered if anyone thought Clegg was *a possible*, or why not?

It seems Lizzie told Fleet "a man came" Thursday morning that "spoke English", around 9 a.m.  (W.S., and Case Book pg.19).

If we believe Lizzie, that puts Clegg at the scene around the time Abby was killed .

If J Clegg was hard of hearing then he wouldn't have heard anything.
Maybe Bridget told him that Andy had gone out? So he left.
But why did he expect Andy to be home? Did something come up so Andy went to the bank unexpectedly? Could that tie in with a visit from 'somebody'? Did Uncle John stay the night because he needed the time to convince Andy to get money for the visitor?

You know I believe A R Brown's solution as the "best evidence".

I believe Masterton puts Clegg at the crime scene as the MURDERER, not as an "ear-witness" that heard nothing.

I guess no one is interested in Clegg as a suspect.  Or no one has read Masterton...(I thought bobcookbobcook had, recently)

Oh, well. 

I haven't read Masterton so I'm not familiar with his theory. What would be Clegg's reasons according to this theory?

In Clegg's obituary (see Feb. 18th message, under "Stay to Tea") Clegg states that Andrew promised "Never" to raise the rent in the new store that was being prepared for him. If that is true, then there doesn't seem to be any ill feeling between the two, in fact the opposite.

Wouldn't promising "never" to raise the rent be out of character for Andy? Was there any corroboration?
Or just another self-serving statement? Keep 'cui bono' in mind!

I read Masterton's book over a year ago. He "solved" the crime by reading old newspapers, and coming up with a novel idea (one that no one else at the time ever thought of). He claimed Andy died first, then Abby came home and was killed afterwards!!! Totally wrong.

His solution seems to have been induced by a more recent case. One in which the red liquid blood said the murders occurred after 11:30PM. If you ever butchered a pig or cow, or field-dressed a deer, you'd know what I meant. You can ask someone with experience about this.

If you ever cut yourself so you bled some, you could time the effect. There must be something in the textbooks on this.

Masterton's 200+ page book is worth reading, if you can borrow a copy. It adds nothing new to the solution. It is less interesting than Spiering, who adds background material (padding) on the times.

You can read it and see for yourself.

Well, it may sound rude or it may sound funny (as in ha-ha) but how could Clegg tell in his Own Obit that Andrew never would raise his rent in "whomevers" lifetime?

I truly do appreciate being pointed to this archival material, Harry.  Thanks.  But, where DO they get this stuff?

Anyway, Masterton admits his speculation of Clegg as murderer is somewhat flimsey.  He bases his suspicions on the facts that Clegg was so insistent upon seeing Andrew so MANY times that murder week--wondering if there was more going on than talk of renting a store--that he might have been the man at the door Thursday morning, which places him at the scene, and that Abby probably knew or had met him, and would unquestionably have let him in the house that morning.  Also that he sort-of fit Dr, Handy's description of a pale-faced man he claims to have seen loitering about the outside gate...etc.

No Kat, it's not rude. It does read funny the way I phrased it. A voice from the grave!!

The theory sounds very shaky to me. Thanks for the info.

I found Masterton's book quite compelling, actually.  I think it's well worth the read.  He presents his theories in an easily followed and well supported manner-- cites trial testimony to bolster his arguments,etc.  He retired as a full professor at the University of Connecticut with a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry .. and has obviously spend a great deal of time re-thinking the case in the light of more recent forensic knowledge. I would definitely recommend adding this to your reading list!

He puts forward three choices as suspects for the murder.  Clegg is just one of them.

Yes, Masterton did do a lot of homework on the case...and since his book IS called "Lizzie Didn't Do It", he names 3 possibilities as to who may HAVE:
Henry Palmer
Joseph Carpenter
Jonathan Clegg...
The first two are embezzelers.

But he does not seem to be committed to anyone in particular.  He is more interested in his digestion theory, which is unique to say the least.

He asks the reader which character named seems a more likely suspect and then adds, "I look forward to other suggestions concerning the identity of 'NEMESIS.' "

He says he is convinced Lizzie is innocent, but really his theory as to HOW and WHEN takes precedence over WHO...

'Never to raise the rent'? Maybe Clegg saw 'somebody' and this was a payback to keep his mouth shut? The Misses Borden would have control over the building and its rent by then.

You should know that its an old ploy to raise the rent on any business that is doing well. 'Taking advantage of the situation'.