1. "August 4, 2002"
Posted by Kat on Oct-4th-02 at 5:13 AM

From the Herald News, of Aug. 4, 2002.
This is a re-enactment at the B&B of *Lizzie settling her father down for a long...permanent nap*.
Note the position of the dining room door...as in, where IS it?
Do they believe (the curators) that the Borden's dining room door could push back flush against the dining room interior wall?  This would make the position of the assailant able to reach around the door frame after all,  to commit the attack and stay relatively out of the room...
Is this realistic?



http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4947406&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6
This link was provided in the Sept. 1 NEWZLETTER, now archived and available at the LABVM/L

(Message last edited Oct-4th-02  5:14 AM.)

From the angle of the photo I don't think you would be able to see the door if it was opened fully.  The door if perpendicular to the wall would not be seen from that angle.

Speaking of doors, I read that when the front door was opened it blocked the stairs leading to the second level.  The door had to be closed before you could start up the stairs.  i.e., a rather short distance to the steps.

"Realistic?"

Well, since I now have a hard time believing that Andy was attacked from that angle and that he ever reclined for a nap in the first place (I think he mighta been drifting off in a seated position, with the paper in his lap*), the photo doesn't work for me as it would have years ago.

*Lately, I've been wondering if Lizzie and Andrew had words ("Tell me the truth, Lizzie, where is Abby?") that led to Lizzie attacking her father - these are all just my personal reveries, o' course.

Found this in Trial Vol. 1, pg 749/i771, George F. Seaver is on the stand:

Q. How far was it from the head of the lounge to the dining room table?
A. I have got it just five feet.  I think it was just five feet, where the table stood at that time.

Q.(By Mr. Robinson.) From the head of the lounge to the dining room table?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Jennings-There is nothing here to show the position of the dining room table was the same as it was on the day of the murder.

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) State how the dining room table was at the time you made this measurement?  There is some evidence as to how it was on August fourth.
A.The end of the table was very near or flush with the right side of the door going in from the sitting room to the table that day that I took the measurement.

Don't know if that helps any, Kat.  But, I was trying to find the state of the furniture in the dining room to see how far that door could have been opened or not. 

(Message last edited Oct-4th-02  12:09 PM.)

I would assume that the table was far enough away so the door could be fully opened. Else it would be banging into the table and leave scars. This would never do, then or now.

I know we've all seen this depiction.
I know we Can't know just what furniture was where in the dining room at that time.
BUT
Isn't it a normal assumption that the dining room wall which was the flip side of the sitting room wall, would have a breakfront or bureau or lounge or something there to use up that wall space in Abby's day...
So is it not quite responsible, and more of *artistic License* for the curator's to change the probable position of the furniture to accomodate a THEORY of the crime which might just be outdated?  Or a misrepresentation of the dining room placement of furniture and the questionable ability of that door being able to open Flush to the wall--in order to enact a *play*?

BTW:  Did anyone read the article?

Yes, Kat, I read it, I'm like you, even when I don't respond to a post, which is rare in itself, I do still read it. 

I just did a quick little measuring thing with the floorplan, since we know that the sofa in the sitting room was like 7 feet long, I used that as my guide.  In the floorplan, the dining room table appears to be 5 feet exactly from the head of the lounge or sofa in the sitting room.  So, it would be a safe guess, even though the locations of the dining room table and lounge are not known exactly, that the floorplan would be pretty accurate.  The sofa would have blocked that door from opening all the way as it seems to be depicted in the news article.  So, maybe they aren't sticking to facts only with their depiction of the crime. 

You're speaking of the "lounge" Lizzie was reclining on in the dining room, at Alice's request?

Yes, I agree, ANYthing put there would impede that door from opening all the way as in that photo.

I thought maybe Edisto, who has been there or Bob G. who knows these people might comment, too...particularly on the story told by the reporter, as to what "facts" the guides impart to visitors.

Yes, the lounge in the dining room really wouldn't be able to be placed anywhere else in the room due to size constraints.  As I had stated before, the dining room table appears to be exactly 5 feet from the head of the sitting room sofa on the floorplan, which according to Mr. Seaver's measurements, was its normal placement.  I was thinking with that the only other place the dining room lounge could have gone was under the windows, but, then, the dining room table would have to be closer to the sitting room door and I don't know if it would open fully without being impeded. 

I'm replying to *myself* because this has to do with the *facts* that are written up in this Aug. news article.

I am supposing this is the current story being told at the B&B by the guides.  Or else the reporter got it wrong?

"Andrew J. Borden, played by Ed Thibault, was considered a wealthy man at the time of the murders. He was worth more than $300,000, according to museum tour guide Jennifer Messier. She said that matches up to $12 million today.'
--Does it really equate to $12 million?  Rebello, pg. 280, says = $59 million, in 1996.  I believe there is controversy over this figure also...so can someone clarify this?

"According to what the museum called the factual account of events, Andrew Borden had left the family breakfast that hot summer morning to conduct business in downtown Fall River. He returned soon afterward, complaining he was sick. The whole family had said it was sick, Messier said, and it was probably from the 3-day-old mutton broth house maid Bridget Sullivan had prepared. Messier said Abby Borden had even suspected her milk had been poisoned."
--They are still saying "Hot"?
--Andrew returned home but no testimony says he complained of being sick on Thursday, though he may have still felt the affects of being sick the previous day from the Tuesday nite.
--The mutton was first served either Saturday or Sunday, but the first time mutton broth is mentioned is Wednesday, Aug. 3, at the noon meal.
-- It was the baker's bread that was suspected by Abby (Inquest Bowen, 115).  It was Lizzie that mentioned the milk. (Knowlton Papers, 228)

..".Lizzie Borden told investigators she then went to the barn to look for sinkers, because she was to go fishing the next day. Borden told investigators she spent about 20 minutes there, and grabbed three pears from the pear tree in the yard."
--Lizzie was supposed to leave on the Monday, after Sunday's roll call.  (Inquest, Lizzie, 56).  We won't mention Lizzie grabbing pears from the "tree in the yard" because the way it reads, she could have picked the pears off the ground "from the tree in the yard", which is what she says she did.  (She's explicit at least about that)

...."Sullivan, the house maid, eight years later bought a farm for her parents in Ireland."  --Do we know this?  Do they know this?





(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  12:56 AM.)

When I was at the B&B four years ago, I believe (though I can't swear to this) there was something like a sideboard or server in the dining room, in the position where the lounge was in the Bordens' day.  There was a practical reason for that -- the B&B guests are fed breakfast in that room, and it's not large enough for several huge pieces of furniture plus a full table of people.  I wonder why on earth there was a "lounge" in the dining room anyway.  Isn't that rather odd?  There were two separate rooms on the first floor that were devoted to seating (parlor and sitting room).  Why on earth did they need seating (or lying) space in the dining room, other than the usual straight chairs?  Also, that diagram does have inaccuracies in it.  The sitting room and parlor sofas appear to have "coffee tables" in front of them, but that piece of furniture wasn't used in the 1890s, so that's probably wrong.  We do know, of course, that the sitting room sofa had a small table "nigh" to it, but I've never been sure what table that was.  Surely not a coffee table, though. Sorry I can't add anything more useful.  The info fed to the guests at the B&B in 1998 has proven to be largely inaccurate, I'm afraid. 

Thanks for the response and the recollections.
Yes, I can imagine the room set up for different diners.  And then the room would be arranged differently.
But then they shouldn't have taken advantage of that by *re-creating* a scene that could not be possible in Abby's day.

I thought maybe a lounge in the dining room was for when someone was taken ill when eating, or swooned at the table?  (Like they had a lot of swooning guests, to dinner, right?)  But with those corsets maybe females did swoon or become dizzy at dinner?  (Not necessarily at the Borden's, but if that was the mode of furniture fashion, maybe Abby wanted one too.)

To estimate the relative value of dollars, consider these: price of gold, price of average house, price of average wages, etc. You will get various ranges. Don't forget: NO income or sales taxes then!!!

Given the types of menus served at the Bordens', I can imagine that they may have needed a fainting couch (the name of an actual piece of Victorian furniture, as you probably know) in their dining room.  A barf bowl would have been a good idea too.  But couldn't guests who were feeling poorly have staggered a few steps into the sitting room?  Lizzie would have been happy to help them off with their shoes and cover them with an afghan.

I was quite disappointed at all the misinformation that was given out at the B&B in 1998.  I hope the situation has improved, but I have a feeling it hasn't.  It appeared to me that the management there felt it was to their advantage to portray Lizzie as a bloodthirsty fiend --never mind the actual facts of the case.

That's what seems odd to me.  That is IT exactly.

With a couple of curators and pretty knowledgeable people at that, why would they stray from the facts?  People have their own good imaginations, at least those interested in these crimes.

Maybe after the "script" was re-written (Which I had heard had been done), the guides slip back into old habits?

The thought that comes to my mind is that the more scary and horrible Lizzie is made out to be, the more people want to come and stay at the B&B, and more money goes into their pockets.  Would people be as apt to stay in her room if she was an innocent, much maligned woman?  Yes, two horrible murders did take place there, but, I believe that Lizzie is the crux of the matter.  Her being a blood-thirsty killer makes good copy, whether there is truth or fact to the matter or not. 

When Joe writes up his stay there, maybe we'll find out it's not so bad.
The article I was quoting had easily researchable mistakes, but nothing that really maligned anyone unduly.

I suppose I expect the people who run the show to be experts...and they are more actors, maybe.

Well, I guess we have to sit tight and wait until we get Joe's report. 

Aw geez!  You're waiting for me?  I've been busy trying to find a new job.  State of Mich cutbacks has forced me out.  Anyhow, I'll get to the write-up pretty soon.  Be virtuous, y'all.
j

Well, David Lilly and family are there now...due back this upcoming weekend?
Maybe he could make a preliminary report.
It would have been extra-interesting if he had taken that article with him...to compare.

Were'nt the tight corsets etc worn by some women the source of "fainting" in those times? Or being underfed? I've read in books using these costumes as an example of poor health caused by dress.

Hi Susan,
According to the diagram, the dining room table and the sofa are the only items of furniture known to be in the dining room.  The position of both items is guesswork.  The diagram shows other items in the room that are not documented.  Conceivably, the table and the sofa could have been located in other places.  Viewing this diagram, the sofa could have been moved further to the left, thus providing more room for the door to swing open. 

I really don't think any of this is too important. What would have prevented Lizzie from whipping into the room and placing a few well placed blows on Andrew's cranium. Maybe he saw her, maybe he didn't.  So what?
All of this is assuming, of course, that Lizzie did the dastardly deed to Dad. We must dangle that assumption since, after all is said and done, she was acquitted of the crime by a jury of her peers.

I read too quickly, and I thought you wrote "a jury of her pears!"

Oh, I thoroughly agree with you, William, that whether the sitting room door into the dining room could swing wide or not is a moot point.

But, from the measurements given at the trial and if the furnishings in relation to room sizes on the diagrams are to scale, the dining room table would pretty much have to be where it is on the diagram.  I resized the first floor plan so that it was up to dollhouse proportions, 1 inch = a foot.  This was printed out on paper so that I could cut out the furniture that was there and try to fit it differently in the room.  The only other configuration I could come up with would be the lounge beneath the dining room windows and the table closer to the sitting room side of the room, which as Rays pointed out, would get hit with the sitting room door.  But, bottom line is that all this is just my opinion working with what we have at hand to study.

Yes, as to date, we really can't be sure whether Lizzie actually did the deed or not and basically what we have is circumstantial evidence built up against her.  So, I tend to sway one way and then change my mind and go the other. 

Good one, Bob!  Jury of her "pears"! 

What I was objecting to was the photographic depiction of August 4, 2002 dining room door opening flush to wall (It has to be flush in that picture) with Miss Lizzie standing there...and then we speculate.  What it reminds me of, are all the tales I read or heard in youth as to Lizzie using that door or the frame of the door to Shield herself from blood spatter as she conked her father. 
This story was rife when I was growing up and I read it everywhere...that dining room door or frame became an important clue to the mystery....how to Not get blood on you while you wield a hatchet...you reach around that door.
It wasn't until we had a free access to each others imaginations and the benefit of others knowledge, on forums, that it was even made clear to me which way that door opened.  And Since that door was found to open from the opposite direction than I had thought all along, I object to false impressions still being given this late in the game.

Has anyone a door in their house or living place that opens flush to the wall?  Isn't there always something in the way?

I have 2 doors in my apartment, 3 if you count the one closet, but, the 2 doors open all the way and hit the wall.  Or, at least the door stop.  Bad Feng Shui to put stuff behind doors and keep them from opening all the way. 

180 degrees?  Really?

But then are you decorated Victorian with excess furniture and doo-dads?

(I know--no fair question...that wasn't a "caveat" to my original query)
But really, 180 degrees?

Uh, actually only one opens the full 180 degrees, the front door is more like a 45 degree opening.  No, no Victorian excesses for me unless you count my small drop leaf table, late 1890s.