The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "A Horse is A Horse of Course"
Posted by Kat on Apr-12th-02 at 5:01 PM

I've been wondering about that Borden horse.

Andrew had gotten rid of it, yet KEPT the carriage and a 1/2 ton of hay?  Why not keep the horse until the hay is gone, or sell the leftover hay to the stables across the way?

If he continued to use the carriage, say for infrequent trips to Swansea with Mrs. Borden, then he'd be required to rent a horse or two from the same stables.  If he used it only infrequently, why not sell the carriage as well, rather than let it fall apart eventually in the barn?

WHY get rid of the horse?  And does anybody know WHEN?

Could it be he got this horse from the *uncle of all horse traders*, John Morse, and was sold a *lemon*?  That would lead to some acrimony considering those two....

I was also noticing the proximity of the Borden barn WITH a horse to Mrs. Churchill's fine house.  I bet horse odor wafted over next door on a nice hot, humid day....

What an interesting subject! Having no sense of smell myself I would never have thought about the horses fragrance/order (depending on whether you like or dislike them)causing a problem with an immediate neighbor...neigh-bor.  Ha! 

Perhaps Mr. B.'s horse was getting too old and that was the reason to sell it.  Perhaps he intended to replace it someday and didn't that is why he kept the carriage and hay. 

I wonder what Mr. B. called the horse...horse, perhaps, or did he dignify it with a name? 

I'd love to hear from some of you Bordenites with solid information about this.  Did any of you have relations in the area at that time who had town horses and what did they do with them?

The horse!!  Ah yes the nag in the barn well now this is one that even I am going to pitch in on and try to dig up some info on.

If memory serves me correctly one author, can't remember which one though, wrote that Lizzie had mentioned that Father had done away with the horse because of the added expense.

Since no one in the Borden did much for travelling I guess the horse was an added burden, sort of a beast of burden.  Not too sure about all this but...back to the books!!!

I wonder what I would chose for a name if I were Andrew...Seabuscuit, Naggie Maggie, Easy Emma, Dizzie Lizzie, maybe Flabby Abby...mmmmmmm I wonder.........

BC

It seemed to me that a HORSE would be more of a *pet* to Lizzie than some pigeons...but maybe both...

Possibly Andrew sold the horse as punishment for some transgression of Lizzie's, and THAT was the nasty thing he did to her, rather than beheading birds for the pot.  (It has been remarked that Lizzie did not seem too affected by the pigeon-kill when testifying).

Of course, that *punishment* could have been combined with the "saving $" notion.  Still, why keep the carriage(s)?

Also, didn't we read (I'm trying to find it in Rebello), that Lizzie later, liked to tool around town in her own carriage, holding the reins herself?  One doesn't learn that trick in a day.  Maybe she Liked to "Drive" and learned on the Swansea farm when young.

Neigh (as Carol wouls say)..., selling the horse now seems cruel to Lizzie who may have enjoyed that activity at Second Street.
...just surmising...interjecting "horse" for "pigeons", in the legend

At age 70, it would be too much for Andy, or an uneccessary expense.
Why own when you can rent?
Why buy a cow when you can buy the milk?

He didn't BUY a horse, he HAD a horse.
Why sell the cow that makes your milk, and then buy your milk?
Same argument.
All he needed was to pay a neighbor kid, or Tom Boles (Boulds), or maybe one of the girls enjoyed caring for the horse...

Lizzie affection for the horse post-mortem is pointed out by a number of authors including Lincoln.  Not totally sure which authors do and do not mention it but those who do have stated that in her early years at Maplecroft Lizzie enjoyed tooling around town in her "pony cart".

I have yet to read of here she kept a "pony" or a horse for that cart on the French Street property.  I am inclined to believe she simply rented the pony and cart as she needed.  As time passed and gasoline powered vehicles came into play she traded in the pony for a model-T or something comparable.

Many authors all cite that Lizzie was seen often being driven about town with her chauffer driven auto.  She probably enjoyed the better horsepower under the hood.

I think we can but speculate as to the why's and why not's that caused the late Andrew J. to dispose of the horse.  Then there is still the NAGing question of: why throw out the horsey and not the carriage as well? 

BC

Kat:
To answer your question about the horsey:  "When did Andrew get rid of it?"

Bridget's Trial testimony, page 193:

Q. When did you go to work for Mr. Borden?
A. I was there two years and nine months.
Q. At the time of his death? A. Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q. While I am upon that subject I will ask you about the barn.
  While you were there was it used at all for anything?
A. They had a horse there while I was there.
Q. And when did they cease to have any horse there?
A. I guess it was a year before that, as far as I can remember.
Q. You mean before the homicides? A. Yes,sir.

From Kat's chronology on the LizzieAndrewBorden website, here are all the significant DOCUMENTED things that we know happened in 1891, the year before the murders. Do you suppose the horse goes around the time of the robbery? Interesting. Maybe that is her punishment? Taking something that she loved?

1890 - 1891   
Lizzie and Emma change bedrooms. (Lizzie to the larger one).

1891
Alice Russell moves to 33 Borden St.

June 24, 1891
Andrew and Abby have been at the farm in Swansea.

June 24, 1891
Daylight robbery at 92 Second St. (Emma, Lizzie, and Bridget at home).

June 24, 1891 Lizzie named Board Member of Good Samaritan Hospital.

June 24, 1891
Sometime after this date, all doors kept locked, at 92 Second St., inside and out.

July, 1891
Bridget receives key to side door.

Oct., 1891
Morse moves from R.I. to South Dartmouth to live with old friends Isaac Davis, and his son, William A. Davis. (butchers and slaughterhouse owners).

1891
Lizzie becomes Treasurer of Young Womans Christian Temperance Union, Fall River.

You need a carriage to ride around in; a horse can be rented.
A horse needs to be fed and shovelled up even if not in use.
If you don't need it every day, and at short notice, there's no need to keep a horse.
The Bordens received milk from their farm. Don't milk a cow if you can get it delivered.

By the way:
I meant to thank William and Stefani for their assistance , also.

See this photo. See the carriage ruts? Why would they still be there over a  year after the horse is gone?

Those ruts would remain until the earth was tilled and re-seeded.  It is a phenomon of nature.  You can see it when old railroad tracks have been removed and the earth was not re-seeded.  The "ghost" of the ties and once cleared land will remain forever, or until the land has been reworked.

At our home here we have four persons driving cars into the driveway which is asphalt.  Beyond the driveway "proper" one can drive across the grassy area in a semi-circular fashion around the above ground pool behind the storage barn and exit along side of the house opposite the driveway proper.

The earth has clearly visible "ruts" from the cars tires and until the "little lady" of the house, who loves gardening and yard work does her seeding in this season those ruts remain.

If seeding is missed, well you guessed it...the ruts are there for life...nature is a strange companion.

BC

OOOO  "Shades of horse and carriage gone by"
That was kind of strange seeing that picture and imaging the vehicle coming and going...

BTW:  Is that Dr. Bowen's house across the way?  When was this shot taken, do you know? 
Rebello has a vacant lot there in the "scheme", pg. 46, with Bowen's house more diagonally north.

Regarding that year old hay: wouldn't it have started to disintegrate and provide plenty of dust in the barn?

Yes, that is what i have read; not having any personal experience with it myself...

You'd think Andrew would sell that hay to the stable nearby. Do you think hay goes bad and it was too late by the time he may have wanted to? Or was hay used for other things besides feeding horses? Could it be used to start fires in the kitchen? Why keep it around for a year if he could make money from it?

Those of you with experience in such things: does hay go bad?

Hay is food for horses and cattle; it would be a waste to use it to start fires. Straw is a different thing; it could be used to start wood burning.

Did anyone see that PBS feature on using corn to fatten up cattle? Hay or grass means naturally lean beef. Corn fattens, and can create diseased cattle, they said (didn't watch it all).

I'm told by a keeper of farm animals that that hay will get dusty & brittle over the winter.  If a hot summer, it will start to disintegrate on the top, but turns yellow-blackish on the lower layers.  If it had ever been rained on before it got into the barn, while in the field, then it tends to mold fast and will lose its "green-ness".  Gets real yellow and loses nutrients.

We doubt that there were hay balers back then, so hay was piled in the fields or pitchforked onto a big trailer.  The best person to answer this question is an Amish farmer.
J

Keeping loose hay around is a fire hazard, then or now.
Maybe old hay wasn't worth much except to a miser?

Dry hay/straw was as much a fire hazard then as it is today..but there is one element missing from then that we have today...fire prevention knowledge.

It wouldn't be until nearly the mid-20th century before Massachusetts had strict fire codes.  Most of them were created only as the result of horrific fires with loss of life.  Farms suffered fires but few caused conflagrations and loss of human life.

There were of course livestock deaths but if the property owner was paid up on his insurance he had little to worry about. 

Believe or not it took the horrible death of 492 patrons at the Cocoanut Grove in Boston to bring about significant changes in fire codes in Massachusetts and that was in 1942! 

In order for the hay/straw to self-ignite (spontaneous combustion) it needs a prime ingredient...H2O, aqua, water. Alone dry hay/straw will not self-ignite at that stage it needs help...ie, a match, carelessly disgarded smokes, source of heat, etc.

But add dampness and under the "right conditions" self generating heat from the evaporating water has been known to spark 'em up.  This is what happens to a human who has a B.S. degree in Fire Science from Providence College, SCE Class of '01.

Am I pathetic or what???????


BC

That was very informative and definetly worth posting.
It's only *pathetic* if you mean you're of the Class of 1901 !!!

So now we're back to the question of why a "miser" would store until disintergration, 1/2 TON of hay.

When Lizzie went to Alice's Wednesday night, she implied the house could be burned down around them.

Wouldn't that be a good way to disguise the murders?

I just had another wild thought while looking at the photograph Stefani put up regarding those carriage ruts on the side of the Borden house.

It looks to me like under those steps going up to the side entrance of the house is a place that is large enough to be a place for a person, even a man-size one, to hide.  I don't know either when the photo was taken, perhaps there was some sort of lattice work covering it on the date of the murders, but if not, what would stop someone from hiding underneath there?  Bridget would have been going along that side to do only those three windows on that side so would not have been there very long. 

Didn't a witness say they saw a strange man inside the Borden's gate pacing along the path near the steps that morning?  He could have easily slipped out of under the steps when he heard the screen door open when Lizzie went outside, and slipped back in the house to kill Andrew.  Perhaps he was even under there when Andrew walked up to the back door and couldn't get in, so he knew the man had returned home that morning.  So perhaps the killer wasn't inside the house all the time after all, (if it wasn't Lizzie and was an intruder).

 

Actually the hay would not "disintegrate" in fact hay/straw is at the time of its baling or in this case piling a dried inorganic vegetable matter.  Since it is dry it cannot decay any further.

As kid growing up in rural Illinois we had on our property a barn where bales of hay would be stored for up to two years.  The bales were produced during the fall and stored in huge piles, some of them being twenty feet high.

The hay/straw was as dry as a bone, so to speak, and could not without added moisture begin to decay.  As to why A.J. kept the hay stack in the loft one can only speculate.  I would submit that he owned it and since only a year had passed since the horse was trotted out he probably felt he needed to wait until he found someone in serious need of it.  At which time he would sell it at a profit.

With respect to the "hiding" place under the steps.  At present those steps only exit to one side, the front (westerly) side.  The back section was taken off some time ago, probably when the modern brick building was added to the northeast corner of the house.

Today there is a lattice on the northerly and easterly sides of the steps.  The picture was, I would suggest, taken within a short time of the murders to be used as an exhibit in court.  The house directly across the street at the end of the "driveway" is the Miller/Bowen home.  Torn down in the mid 50's to make way for of all things a parking lot.

Today that parking lot has been replaced, for the most part with the bus terminal for the city transit authority and Bonanza Bus Lines has an office there as well.

Back to the steps I would surmise that an adult male could hide under those steps and lie in wait of his victims, but I would also surmise that the good Mrs. Churchill would have seen him at some point prior to her trip downstreet.

Of course there is always the chance that the hiding man and Mrs. Churchill might have passed one another on Second Street, one never knowing the other or what the other was up to.

Good theory...

BC

I don't recall "a stranger" being seen INSIDE the fence of the Borden premises, that Thursday, other than the *pear-snatcher* from Crowes yard... I don't think he ever left the fence.

Here's something confusing:
Hoffman, pg. 233-4 says Mrs. Chase apparently said Patrick McGowan was the man who stole the pears...but Hoffman says:  "It turned out that Mrs. Chase was incorrect.  Patrick McDonald stole the pears."

Derosier, the Frenchman who was cutting wood in Crowe's yard identified Patrick McGowan as the pear culprit.

Derosier was even called back specifically for that purpose. Page 1212 of the trial.

(Message last edited Apr-23rd-02  4:08 PM.)

I have found several "errors" in Mr. Hoffman's book when compared to earlier authors.  Something tells me Mr. Hoffman didn't write down his facts correctly.  Just an observation...that's all.

BC

Thanks guys.
Now Carol wants to know if anyone else was "inside the fence" that morning?
I only could think of Patrick McGowan as *on* the fence....

Desrosiers was a Frenchman whose English was not discernable, according to Hoffman his testimony at the trial was given in French and was translated by Officer Adelard Perron of the police department.

Is it possible that Perron might have mis-interpeted?

Further I am not convinced that the "pear snatching" episode was commited on the Borden property.  All drawings of the Borden backyard show a very spare number of pear trees while the lot directly behind the Borden lot was in 1892 an orchard of pear trees.

It is possible that the trees in the Borden yard were orginally from those in the orchard.  I believe that orchard was owned by Dr. Chagnon whose house was on the north side of orchard.

Today the Chagnon house is non-existent, the land is part of the high rise building where Third Street terminates.  The orchard lot is now filled with a house and garage and shed.

I believe that the workers in the Crowe stone yard "didn't see anyone" in the Borden yard or on Third Street because from where they were working they couldn't see anyone.



BC

Something I've been wondering about this also:
Wasn't the top of the Borden back fence covered with barbed wire?
I realize now it may have been there BECAUSE of the diverse group of laborers working in Crowe's yard....

Yea, what would make the Borden pears better than the *orchard* pears?

I seem to recall that someone testified at one of the proceedings (trial?) that the pears in the orchard weren't any good to eat, and that's why the Borden pears were so tempting.  Despite the barbed wire on the fence, Deputy Frank Wixon was able to scale it easily on the day of the murders.  He walked along the fence's riser to the corner near one of the Crowe outbuildings, having used a pile of lumber in the Borden yard as a staircase.  I have wondered if he was high enough up to have been able to see onto the roof of the shed.  Supposedly that's where that "other" hatchet was found ten months  later. However, a newspaper account about the discovery of the hatchet makes it sound as if it was actually found on the pitched roof of one of the buildings nearer Third Street.  The shed nearest the Borden house appears in drawings to have a flat roof.  Incidentally, for those who didn't post on the Lizzie Borden Message Board, Dr. Paul Dennis Hoffman used that Board as a resource while preparing his book for publication.  Unfortunately, there are still a great many errors in it.  He was made aware of most of them after the book was published.  An example: He states that Deputy Wixon climbed a "six foot high wire fence."  It was actually a substantial board fence.

I haven't yet read that the pears in the orchard were bad or not ripe but it would occur to me that if the pears in the Borden yard were ripe and edible so to would those, or at least many, in the orchard.

I am inclined to believe that the pears trees in Borden's yard were incidental to the orchard.  Meaning that over the years persons tossing unwanted pears over the fence into the Borden's yard would dry to seeds and plant themselves into new starts.

Not an arborist but I like the chain of generational vegetational growth...mmmm...I seem to have coined yet another new word...hey Edisto us Virgos are pretty good about making up new words, uh?

BC

Oh, I agree that the Borden pears and the orchard pears would probably ripen about the same time (unless they were of different varieties).  I wondered if the orchard pears weren't well tended and perhaps were wormy.  I once lived in a house that had an apple tree on the premises.  If the tree wasn't sprayed regularly, the fruit was wormy.

I don't know much about pears but I found the answer to my own question in post 23 above.

In Arnold Brown's book on page 8, he says, "No, the maid was not in sight, but Ellan saw a man in the Borden yard, just standing there.  She started to do the ladylike thing and avert her eyes when, for the first time in her life, she found herself staring at a stranger.  There was something about this man that was wrong!  HE WAS ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN THE GATE AND THE BACK STOOP (my emphasis),and he was facing her.  He turned as if to go back.  His left side and his back were all that she could see now.  His clothes were dirty and coarse, but what had caught her eye was that he was wearing an overcoat...and on one of the hottest days of the year! At first Ellan thought his coat was burlap, then she realized he had a burlap bag over his shoulder and partially tucked under his arm.  The overcoat, she could see, was a long duster-type like nothing she had ever seen...."

In the introduction Brown says that his research came from reading what Henry Hawthorne (Ellan Egan's husband) had written down in l978. So it is not first hand evidence, and my memory of reading that this was real evidence from a trial witness wasn't correct.

Never the less, if that place under the steps on the side of the house was open at the time, it might explain why the man's coat was "dirty" as Ellan had seen.  If this is true and if (a big if) this fellow was Mr. B's murderer then the folded up coat on the couch probably wasn't used to keep the murderer from getting blood spots on him as he was already wearing his own coat.  The scene inspired by this possibility..to think of the strange man appearing suddenly in the room, asking Mr. B. for a moment while he put down the hatchet, took off his coat, put on Mr. B's and then continued with his crime....is rather comical.

Also interesting in this account is that Ellan says that it was one of the hottest days of the year. So even if the weather report said it was not that hot, many the people in the city felt like it was.  So perhaps the accounts of it being one of the hottest days of the year was just a matter of how people felt and doesn't need to be made such a big deal of, except for statistical accuracy.

Ellen Eagan does not appear as a witness to the crimes in the OFFICIAL Stenographic Minutes of the Inquest, at least the *Partial* one we work with now.

She is not listed as a witness in the Preliminary Hearing, nor the Trial.

She MAY BE incorrectly listed in the Witness Statements, page 14, as "Allen Eagan."

In Rebello, page 129, the Boston Herald of Aug. 11 says Ellen Eagan was at the Inquest, and that..."Mrs. Eagan was put on the stand and after the first three questions had been asked her, the authorities were satisfied that her evidence had no bearing on the case. " (Emphasis mine).

In Rebello, pg. 128, The Boston Daily Advertiser of August 11 says..."There was a witness at todays inquest..."

The Witness Statements show "Allen Eagan" as being brought to testify along with Mrs. Churchill, and Hiram Harrington, at 4 P.M. on WEDNESDAY, Aug.10th., most probably by Doherty.

Where do we have proof of actual sworn testimony as to anything she may have said, seen or done?

Remember: Arnold Brown's book is but one of many theories.  He was convinced that Andrew J. Borden was the father of an illegitmate son, in the person of William Borden.  It is from the "memories" of Henry Hawthorne who was the son-in-law of Ellen Eagan who supposedly saw this evil man at the side of the house that morning.

When I met Rebello in March at the B&B he told me that the story of Ellen Eagan was not valid and further there was no "illegitmate" son.

The William Borden referred to in all accounts was actually the legal son of Deacon Charles Borden and his Phebe (Phoebe) Hathaway. 

BC

Precisely.
We're dealing with OLD *memories*, no proof, and second or third generation information.

It would be hard for me to discount the whole Brown book as a "theory" and harder still for anyone to "invalidate" his material although they may disagree with it.  To do so one would have to prove there was no Billy Borden and prove that Ellan Egan's story (which she wrote down) was false.  She was there the day of the murders, she did talk to the police, wrote down what she saw (even though it was much later, and I have no reason to think she deliberately lied about all those details.  I have also no reason to think that all of her memories were exactly correct. Memories do fade with time but memories are also part of evidence.  Don't lawyers often ask, "What was your memory of this or that," etc. 

I read the Brown book with a "willing suspension of disbelief."  I find it difficult to believe a man would spend so many years of his life to write a book he deliberately felt was inaccurate. I like to keep the information in the book in my memory bank just like the other material I gather about the case. His book opens up many things to consider.