1. "The Borden Cat"
Posted by Edisto on Sep-27th-02 at 11:12 AM

A long time ago, I was involved in a discussion on one of the Lizzie boards.  (I think it may have been the old LBMB.)  The topic, I believe, was that story about Lizzie's beheading a cat.  I commented that I'd read "somewhere" that the Bordens had a cat around the time of the murders.  When I tried to find my source for this tidbit, I came up empty.  Would you believe I've finally found something on the subject?  It's in Rebello, pages 32-33.  This is a very detailed account by a Boston Globe reporter who "visited" 92 Second Street on a Sunday morning after the trial.  (Rebello says it was two weeks after the trial, but that isn't correct, because he also says it was published less than a week after the trial ended.  Rebello also seems a mite confused about which paper the reporter worked for.)  This account, which makes delightful reading, was published on June 26, 1893, and includes the following:

     "Not a sign of life inside or outside!  The gate was closed,
      every door of the dwelling shut, the tiny barn offered no
      admittance to man or beast.  Even the cat had withdrawn from
      the steps of that side entrance which is so intimately
      connected with Bridget, screen door, hooks, etc."

Well, of course this says NO cat was there; however, it intimates that a cat had been seen there in the past.  I realize we can't trust contemporary newspaper accounts (especially those of THIS newspaper), but at least I didn't dream the reference to the cat, and the rest of the piece seems to be accurate.  I feel so much better!

Interesting that Lizzie is known to have at least three dogs at Maplecroft yet no cats are mentioned. Perhaps the reference was to a "proverbial cat," yet as you say the piece does sound realistic not fanciful. Perhaps the cat which this reporter seems to infer he saw before but which is now gone was a neighbor cat. Perhaps cats roved individually and in bunches preying upon the fresh milk deliveries in the a.m. and as the Borden's were gone there would not have been any then. I don't believe the story about Lizzie beheading a cat as that was tied into the cat being Abby's cat and Lizzie was supposed to hate her. Yet it has been PROVED Lizzie was an animal supporter, so it seems possible to me she would take in a stray once Abby was gone. Somehow the thought of a cat curled up waiting for her to reappear fits. 

Hi-I recently re-read "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" by Robert Sullivan who interviewed Abby's niece (Abby Whitehead, named for her) in 1971 when she was a very old woman who remembered all the Bordens. She told Sullivan the cat story. Very interesting. She was (understandably)unforgiving of Lizzie, whom she believed guilty, and I have to question the validity of the story.

When I first mentioned this cat, I recalled that in my childhood most cats I knew were "working animals."  They kept the premises free of rats, mice, and other pests, in exchange for which they got table scraps and maybe a sheltered place to sleep on wintry nights.  I doubt that this cat, if it even existed, was a pampered pet that lived inside the Borden house.  Incidentally, I do recall reading that there were cats and kittens at Maplecroft.  They  may have been less pampered than Lizzie's dogs, though.  There were also cats in the home where Emma lived her last days.  Someone who was lucky enough to visit that house in recent years reported having petted a cat that was descended from them.  I don't recall for sure whether this was posted on one of the boards or was in the LBQ.  It's a fairly recent report, whichever it was.  (Another year-long search?)

Eds-the cat was from Emma's house in New Hampshire?

Thanks for finding that, Edisto.
You know I've been looking off and on for a long time too.
In fact just last night I was looking at old cat posts from this Forum!
I DID say at the time you mentioned, that I thought it was from a reporter, and I guessed Stevens, but others denied that a reporter new around there would know about any cats habitually at the house  I figured since Stevens was more or less local, he just might.  (not saying it WAS Stevens...)  We're not crazy after all.

Edisto is referring to another reporter that knocked on Maplecroft's door and was ignored.  The cats were mentioned as "the back fence variety."

I tend to think Abby Borden Potter was just enjoying her moment in the sun when she told Robert Sullivan that nasty apochryphal story, but then I wonder - if Andrew really did slay Lizzie's pigeons (an equally mythical event?), could Lizzie have offed Abby's cat as an act of revenge?  If we do imagine the worst of Lizzie, we could suppose that, animal-lover or not, any pet of Abby's was an extension of Abby, to be treated with scorn, indifference, or, if the occasion presented itself ("That cat was annoying me!"), violence.

Hmm.  We'll never know, of course - but can you DISPROVE it?  

(Message last edited Sep-27th-02  5:13 PM.)

I'm really not sure it was a reporter who noted the cats and kittens at Maplecroft (at least not the report I recall).  It seems to me it was someone who had an opportunity to observe the surroundings on a longer-term basis.  A neighbor, maybe?  I'm still looking for the reference.  If it takes me as long to find as this one did, I hope nobody will hold his/her breath!

I could imagine the Bordens having a cat along the lines of what you have said, Edisto.  But, I can also imagine Lizzie wanting a cat and Andrew not letting her take it in the house, so, she may have been fed stray cats since she was so fond of animals.  I can even see Bridget getting into the act, especially since mice would be drawn to the kitchen where the food was.  If the Bordens got a mouse in the house I could see where maybe one was borrowed for this purpose. 

No, dear Edisto, I wouldn't DO that to you.
At the least I can tell you that My reference is in the "EMMA Interview"...Boston Sunday Post, April 13, 1913, by Edwin J. Maguire:
"Guilty - No!  No!"

"...Previously, The Sunday Post Reporter had visited the splendid 14-room house where Lizzie Borden lives with her four servants, two bull terriers and three cats of the ordinary back-fence variety."

[Edit here:  From "Lizzie's Inheritence" Thread, same source- originally transcribed by me-kk]
..."Another thing to be remembered is Lizzie's affection for dumb animals.  She fairly dotes on the dogs, cats and squirrels that are at the French street mansion.  She always was fond of pets.  Now, any person with a heart like that could never have committed the awful act for which Lizzie was tried and of which she was acquitted."   --these words attributted to Emma



(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  1:32 AM.)

For any such story or anecdote:
Was it printed in a newspaper (not an urban legend, altho that is no guarantee then or now)?
Did they provide the date, time, location, etc. so it could be checked out?

If Abby Borden Whitehead Potter gave specifics, it could be checked out. But this wouldn't make it true. Most newspapers ask for at least two independent sources (eye witnesses).

If this has already been posted forgive me as I have been gone since May.  I found in the "Knowlton Papers", FRHS 1994, two references to the killing of animals in regard to Lizzie.

One, page 242, is a letter from one L. Apthorp to Knowlton which says
someone told someone, etc., that a friend of a person named Titia
that while a friend of hers was visiting at Lizzies house a cat jumped up on her lap and she became frightened so Lizzie took the cat out of the room, came back and told the person that she didn't have to worry anymore she had chopped the cat's head off.  So now there is a new twist to the story, Lizzie is supposed to have killed an animal because she was so kind she didn't want her friend frightened anymore. Ha!! The beat goes on.

Next reference is page 297-298 which is a letter from Mrs. Geo. O. Walker to Knowlton dated June 22 (no year but assume it is l892 or l893).  This letter says this woman had visited an old conservative woman after the murders and she said that Lizzie had visited a family in Swansea when she was younger and Lizzie had taken a nest of robbins and chopped off their heads because she wanted to have a funeral. Then the lady repeated the story of the cat but said it was a kitten.

Neither of these stories come from the actual person who was present at the time of the alledged choppings.

If I told a story that Lizzie was know to kill horses, cows, sheep, and pigs with a single swing of her hatchet, would you consider it incriminating?
Did Knowlton note "the woman appears to be sane" on these letters? Was there ANY follow up at the time?
We do agree that if these letters were disregarded, it means the prosecutor himself decided they were worthless? And we should do the same.

The police considered Ellen Eagan's story worthless too. Shouldn't we all ignore that as well? 

The books written over the years, and the newspapers, letters and whatever else of the time, contain many factual errors, some merely mistaken, others deliberate. It is up to each of us on our own to decide what is believable or not. They are fascinating reading in any case.  Thanks Carol for entering them.

If you think the books are accurate you should realize most of them (not all) were drawn from the newspapers of the day.  Check the sources in most of these books and you will find that is so.  Only Rebello seems to have done extensive research, but even his book also relies heavily on the newspapers. 

This is not unusual.  Simple fact, no one was there except Lundy and Porter. Phillips' articles (if he wrote them) were published some 50 years after the crimes.  When Pearson began writing in the 1920's virtually all of the major players were deceased.  The Knowlton-Pearson correspondence shows how little primary sources were available at that time. We have, compared to the early writers, mountains of information avaiable.  Check the www.lizzieandrewborden.com website. It's all there.

This truly isn't the reference I remember.  I recall something that was more long-term, so it's probably from a different source.  I wouldn't vouch for its veracity, but I do recall some "cat" memories from someone other than a reporter.  Still haven't found the source, though.

The letters are hardly worthless although they may be inaccurate or even blatent lies.  I noted the Knowlton letters references not because I personally believed the writer's stories but, for one reason, because they have value in that they show that early on that this sort of story was circulating. These letters were way before the Whitehead girl was interviewed when she was in her 80's. The letters, if you read them in their entirety show that these two writer's are passing what I would consider "gossip" as no names are given as to the persons who were involved in the incidents they describe. Knowlton didn't call these two writers as witnesses and there is no note to say whether or not he did follow up to check on this information, yet I think Knowlton would have considered these letters "hearsay" and not admissable as evidence against the character of the defendant. There probably is more to pull out of these letters as each of us sees them differently.  I just threw them into the pot.

Those were very good *finds*, Carol.
I never noticed them before...Thanks!

See OUIJA, also, from Knowlton, transcribed (kk) here in Privy:
Section relevant provided...
Q.  Did Lizzie have a cat?
A..  Yes - yellow cat - departed - violent

Q.  Who killed it?
A. She - axe

Q.  Whose lap did it jump into?
A.  Jim Wilder - July 7 - 90.  *

Q.  Where did he live?
A.  No. 2 Second street, Fall River

Q.  Whom did he tell it to?
A.  Susy Wilder - she told it to Tish Thomas - manicure - at Rosalie Butler's - Tremont street.

Q.  What hotel?
A.  Fall River House

--Note "Titia" & "Tish", "Manicur"...pretty odd...like a conspiracy to get this story across?  Anybody have a theory?
Also note OUIJA gives the date as July 7, 1890--But Lizzie was in EUROPE at that time!

I believe that AR Brown solved the murders in theory. Based on the memories of Ellan Eagan and Henry Hawthorne. Nobody has said anything agains Henry, have they? The only weak point in Ellan's testimony is that she did NOT speak about a strange man at the time. Brown sort of explains away this weak point; how much better it would have been to have it documented (or printed) at the time!!! Could it be a "recovered memory" or something merged? Anyway, the solution works because of other events.

Yes, Henry was never there the day of the crime, and Ellan was never introduced to Wm S Borden (to know him by name).

"I believe that AR Brown solved the murders in theory. Based on the memories of Ellan Eagan and Henry Hawthorne."

Yes, we know.  We know.  We know.

So does ANYONE have a better solution?
Lizzie = not guilty by the jury. The others (Bridget, Uncle John) were never charged. And there were only a limited number of suspects.

Didn't D Kent write that there were about 6/7 probable suspects (Brayton, Carpenter, etc.) who were checked out?

Just this year M Skakel was convicted on the word of a dead man during a meeting of drunks and druggies from 20 years ago?

(Message last edited Sep-30th-02  4:11 PM.)

Since Mr. Brown himself admitted before his death to several other Bordenites (so I've heard) that some of the info he'd gotten was pretty spotty and questionable, no, I can't accept a so-far mythical relative as the killer (and yes, I've read the book, along with many others, including some you seem to be proud of ignoring).  That's your privilege, of course, but your hammering Brown into nearly every thread can be wearying for the rest of us.  And the notion that a solution or theory holds UNTIL it is disproved is pretty backwards - first, it's got to be supported by facts.  Facts, unfortunately, are hard to come by in an ongoing investigation into a double murder that took place more than a century ago, from which no one's statements may be taken entirely at face value, and where no particular care (as per the custom in those days) was taken to isolate the family/suspects from the crime scene, which was regrettably contaminated. 

Due to the information and questions I've read on the various Borden sites I've had my eyes opened and my mind changed.  I don't think, short of a confession hiding in a safe somewhere (and that would still have to be authenticated), we'll ever know in this world exactly what happened.  I still believe an unhinged young woman committed the crimes, and that her people closed ranks around her to protect her, but I have to admit there are some strange alliances and disputes in the Borden case which have me wondering.  My mind is open to many possibilities.       

YES, no one will ever know for sure who really did it. But just as with other unsolved cases, we can provide the "best evidence" for a particular suspect. And that's where all the fun is. As long as you keep your temper.

The facts remain: Lizzie was found not guilty. No one else was ever charged (the case was "spoilt"). Others have said Emma (Mrs L Howe), but this seems like a code word for "an unsuspected child of Andy". Lizzie said "look at Uncle Hiram" (whose stable could have been used as a rendezvous, as per A R Brown's sources). Brown alone (?) pointed out the question "How many children HAS your father?"; and that Uncle John's story of arriving by train (a dealer in horses!) was like a car dealer saying he took a taxi!!!


Yes, Brown admits in his book that certain evidence about Wm S Borden could not be obtained by him. That is part of his honesty; he doesn't pretend to have the complete facts. BTW, just who was "Jack the Ripper"?

My asking for it to be disproved is just a means to question the questioners. How good is YOUR proof?

The Borden Murders is small change. If you really want a challenge, read dozens of books on the JFK Assassination (out of over 500?).

Your library will have many, many books on other "True Crimes". Or an encyclopedic book on killers in America (reference section). You probably couldn't believe how many axe or hatchet murders there were in the last 150+ years.

Most serial killers operate in large cities, due to the many anonymous victims or perpetrators found there. Are serial killers only around in the 20th century? Murders for money go back to Cain and Abel.

I do have a theory, Kat. The person who reported the Ouija's findings to Knowlton simply made up the questions and answers, but he/she him/herself didn't know enough about the Borden case to create a convincing Q & A-style dialogue. Ergo, contradictions like the July 7, 1890 date appear. Or, the demon that spoke to the questioner through the Ouija board deliberately misled him/her by falsehood, and the devil and his demons do not always tell the truth when/if it suits their purpose (the end justify the means, as is part of their philosophy). They do know what really happened, as they were there and influenced the killer(s) and witnessed the murders, this is how they know the details and are able to give the information, but they also are capable of withholding some of it or deliberately falsifying it. When an Ouija board user asks the board questions and receive answers, he/she is actually communicating with a demon.

Since the Bible commands God's true followers to have nothing to do with witchcraft, magic (the occult kind, not the children's kind, and both black and white magic), sorcery, soothsaying, fortune telling, divination (e.g., tea leaves, psychics, astrology or star/planet-gazing, tarot card, palm, or candle reading, and necromancy---or the use of seances or Ouija boards or other devices to communicate with evil spirits and the dead), New Age healing alternatives such as colonic irrigation, feng shui, ancupuncture, aromatherapy (crystals and candles), transcedental mediation, chants/mantras, yoga, etc., and Satanism as they all are evil and come from Satan himself, not God (Genesis 30:27; Leviticus 19:26b; Deuteronomy 13:1-3, 18:10-11; Exodus 22:28; 1 Samuel 15:23a, 2 Kings 17:17, 23:24; 1 Chronicles 10:13; Isaiah 2:6, 8:19-20, 44:25, 47:13-14; Ezekiel 13:20-23; Daniel 2:27-28, 5:15-17; Acts 13:6-12, 16:16-40, 19:19; 1 Corinthians 1:27; Galatians 5:19-20, Revelations 22:15), I personally wouldn't go near an Ouija board or accept the answers therefrom. Even if I'm curious about the truth about the Borden murders.

(Message last edited Oct-1st-02  12:36 PM.)

Well, I don't know anything about the Bible so I can't comment.
But I did have some experience with OUIJA a long time ago, hypnosis, and have visited a psychic,  &read tarot cards (I was very good at that because I am "sensitive".) 

I would say from my perspective now, that it was all a waste of time...but kind of interesting at 20 years old.

I think some of this can be dangerous, especially to those who aren't aware of the dangers.  But I wouldn't not do it because a book said not to...I would want to make up my own mind.  Someone deciding personally not to go near this stuff is a choice...and probably wise at that.

It does seem that the OUIJA letter and the "Tish" letter may have been hoaxes, and in "cahoots".

The autor of the letter in Knowton Papers , pg 242, says:  "I beg and entreat you not to use my name..."
In the Glossary B, "...Efforts to obtain a positive identification for this individual within the Apthorp family have to date been unsuccessful."

You can provide, of course, what you FEEL is the best evidence, if you label it as your opinion.  I've held MY temper - from the number of exclamation points in your post, I'd say I'd struck a nerve.

It is a "fact" that Lizzie was found not guilty.  Does that mean she actually was not guilty?  Of course not.  A verdict is a group opinion, and many have said this case would have profitted from the jury having access to the Scottish verdict, "Not proven."  In any case, Lizzie being FOUND "not guilty" is not the same as saying: FACT - Lizzie was not guilty.  No one else was ever charged.  Is that further "proof" she was innocent?  Of course not.  Unlike Mr. Simpson, Lizzie wisely clammed up about the case; it wasn't HER duty to tie up any loose ends or look for the culprit, as much as some columnists of the time might have wanted her to do just that.  When Hiram Harrington died, Lizzie reportedly said that her one last chance to be cleared had been taken from her.  Note, she didn't say, the last chance to arrest the real murderer - she must have known, IMO, that the "not guilty" verdict had not absolved her in the eyes of the world.  But this is tangential.

Your statement about the "facts" goes on to use phrases such as "this SEEMS like" and "COULD have been used."  Do you see the inconsistency in this?  Asking me who "Jack the Ripper" really was or how good my proof is is more of your usual obfuscation and throwing of dust.  I don't insist on one particular theory, but I will insist that Brown's solution has as many holes as any of them, and no amount of wishful thinking (or relentless promotion) on your part will make it the one accepted truth.  In fact, to continue to claim that Arnold Brown "solved" the case, as you have done here and elsewhere in cyberspace without benefit of the disclaimer, "as I see it," or the like, begins to look like willful irresponsibility - at least, to me.

Whatever Kent said about *6 or 7* suspects...I have found 43 or so, BEFORE adding a Chimera named Wm. Borden.  There is also no "Brayton"...so I can't figure out where he comes in as a possible murderer.
This suspect list is 3 pages long, and reflects the amount of work the police and officials put in to run down leads and investigate many possiblities.
It must mean Something that so much time and manpower was spent trying to solve this case Correctly.
Rebello, pg. 274-5 states that the costs of all the trials (Preliminary, Grand Jury, Trial) was $15,758....in 1996 money it equated to $2.5 million.
Why would the county and State expend so much on a *lost cause* or a wrong prosecution?
They must have believed in their theory of the case, after winnowing out all other people.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/SuspectsList.htm

Wow!  So many suspects and nothing ever pinned on any of them! 

Whether you use Tarot cards, dice, chicken bones, or the entrails of a goat, the fact is that "the truth is in the eye of the beholder".

Based on the weather today, I predict that there will be a new senate candidate on the NJ ballot, and it will be a close election.

How I figured it out: I used the "entrails" from my local newspaper.




(I hope you liked this joke!)

The story of William Brayton was in Kent, as I remember. He was one of the Brayton family swindled by Andy. He alone did not want to sell, but the rest of the family INSISTED on it.
Or could it be another fact in Brown's book?

BTW, did anyone check their local college library to see if William Kunstler's book on the Trial of Lizzie Borden is there? Just turn to the last chapter and read if he splits the blame: Lizzie did Abby when Bridget was outdoors, and Bridget did Andy when Lizzie was outdoors. A very logical conclusion based on the known facts.

Those were just the KNOWN people swindled by Andy who were still around. I'll bet there were plenty more, but they moved away.

Joseph Carpenter, for example, was a suspect. He was the sole person known to have swindled Andy.

Since there is some confusion here on this matter, I will state here that I have not read a Tarot card in twenty-five years...half my life.

I have developed other better stronger portions of my brain & abilities.

Gee, even I have read a Tarot card more recently than that, and I don't even believe in 'em.  When I spent the weekend at the Borden house, there was a party, and someone was telling fortunes.   I believe she was using Tarot cards, and hoo! boy! was she off the mark.

Rays, I think I see your joke, because to you it is like believing in the Easter Bunny, a myth, so you have nothing to do with reading the clouds or tea leaves or false prophesy. I don't want to be a drip, but I have to inform you that involvement in the occult is not a matter for joking or laughter, no matter how light. There are a lot of people who really---and I mean REALLY---believe in AND practice this stuff and (wrongly) take celestial observations and readings as absolute truth, and God himself has expressedly forbidden it (read the Bible passages that I supplied) and he has reasons for this. One reason is that the occult is real and so do the devil and his demons, who seek to do harm to God's human creatures. Therefore, even if one dabbles in these things innocently, he/she opens him/herself up to physical, emotional and/or spiritual harm via deception (distortion of the objective truth) and demon possession, for example. That's why one needs to take these things very seriously (no joking) and, more importantly, to avoid any involvement with the occult, in any form.

Kat, familiar spirits (demons who know you personally via direct and daily observation) were at the original reading, so they have been following you since then, looking for opportunities to influence (draw you back into involvement with the occult) and/or harm you (perhaps by demon possession). But the longer time passes since the event the less likely you will fall back into the habit or become dominated by it. Twenty-five years is a long time, and you don't seem to have been affected by the original reading. So, if you have confessed all your sins to God, including the reading, and asked his forgiveness and also asked for his protection from the demons and as long as you continue to avoid all involvement with any and all forms of the occult, then you are OK; also, the devil and his minions can't touch you.

I also quit smoking and drinking so I guess I am doing O.K.

Kat, it is good that you don't have any bad habits, but it is most important that you DO have Jesus Christ. As 1 John 5:11-12 says,

Quote:

"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son [Jesus]. He who has the Son has [eternal] life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have [eternal] life" (New International Version).

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? If you do not have Christ, then the fact that you have no bad habits (left) will not count at the judgment, because you need justification before God in Jesus Christ in order to pass muster. Justification means that God accepts you on the basis of your faith in Jesus's shedding of innocent blood and death on the cross for your sins; in other words, because God put Christ's righteousness/blood on you the instant you put your faith on/in him, he will pass over your sins (will not punish).

A little bit of history....

Think back to the time of Moses, the Israelites were told to slay an unblemished lamb and wipe its blood over the beam and lintels of each door of the home of a first-born Israelite for when the Spirit of God came to kill the first-born of the Egyptians and he would pass over ANY home if he saw the blood on the beam and lintels. Of course, only the Egyptians were affected because they had no blood on their homes, in turn, because they would not believe in Moses/Israelites' God (the Pharaoh's heart had been hardened against Moses and his God). On the other hand, the Israelites were protected. Why? Because they believed in and worshipped God and thus were enabled to readily obey the instructions about slaying unblemished lambs and putting their blood on their doors. The slain lamb was a pre-figuration of Christ Jesus, who was without sin (unblemished) and who was slain on the cross.

Presently....

That's why we need covering of the blood of Jesus Christ to be passed over (saved/spared from God's wrath and eternal punishment for your uncovered, unforgiven sins) and that's why the Israelities were commanded by the Lord GOD (the same God that had spoken to Moses via the burning bush) to celebrate Passover every year in remembrance of this event. Today Passover is celebrated by modern Jews---who, unfortunately, do not believe that Jesus Christ was/is, in fact, the Messiah and are still (misguidedly) looking forward to the Messiah's coming and are still (incorrectly) living by the outmoded laws of Moses, including the old ceremonial and sacrifical regulations---during the week before Good Friday (the memorial of Jesus' death on the cross), and Easter Sunday (the memorial of Jesus' resurrection on the third day of his burial).

What about you?

Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in your mind and heart that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord and the Son of God, and that God raised him up from the dead? If so, confess your belief to God in prayer and in public. "For," as Romans 10:10 says, "it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." This is really easy to do; you don't need to worry about changing your behavior or getting rid of bad habits right now, just come to God in prayer just as you are, wherever you are, even right now when you are sitting in front of your computer and reading this, and he will accept you. Once you believe in Christ in your mind and heart and confess it to God, God will continue to work in your life through his Holy Spirit who will be watching over you and protecting you from the devil as long as you allow him to, and eventually everything will fall into place. All you need to do on your part is simply read your Bible and follow its teachings and commands within (but not those in the Old Testament, which is in the first 2/3 of the Holy Bible comprising of Genesis through Malachi; they were for the ancient Jews and are not for us Christians---the old rules were very burdensome to the former and difficult to obey even though God had required them for justification, but under Christ, God's Son who had obeyed all of the Laws perfectly while on earth so that he could become righteousness for the latter and God could automatically impute Jesus's righteousness onto us the moment we believed on him, the rules are now changed---the new ones are very light on our shoulders and are easy to follow). Also, pray to God/Jesus daily, confessing all your sins, praising and thanking him for his gift of salvation, and regularly attend a true Bible-believing, Protestant church for formal albeit joyful worship of God, nourishment, and fellowship with other believers so that you may grow in grace and your faith be strengthened.

Do you believe?   DO YOU BELIEVE?

Believe, and be saved today!

(huh?) Miss Lizzie? The cat? Where the hell am I? Lizzieandrewborden.com?

Are you implying that my post above does not belong on this board AND thread due to its topic? If so, I am sorry, Kash, but I do not think I am out of order. I am replying to Kat, not you; furthermore, while my post may not be for everyone (because he/she has decided that it is not for him/her), I reserve the right to speak on this AND ANY OTHER board in most any fashion I deem appropriate AND germane to the topic. After all, I answer to an authority higher than the opinions of people and earthly authority figures, and I am only doing my religious duty, whether you like it or not. So, from now on, please refrain from denigrating my faith or my postings on here, if you don't agree with it or them. Show some respect and no attitude or lip (how would you like it if I did the same with YOUR postings?). Thank you.

Relax Dave, no offense intended. Just lost sight of the cat. Bless us!

Well, Kash, there are more important things than some old cat, you know. Like, for instance, the destiny of your soul.

Edisto, I tried that OUIJA board the other day.  Since it couldn't tell me the winning lottery numbers it's value was greatly diminished to me. 

On Borden questions it was very fuzzy.  I think we ought to hold a seance over the net and get Lizzie's butt down (or up) here and give her a good questioning.

I appreciate your concern for my soul Dave. Thank you .

Yes, I appreciate your concern, as well, David.
It is a kind and generous thing.  Thank you.

Now, we are dedicated to discussing the Borden case here, so we'll probably revert to that now.

Harry,
You are absolutely the Last person I can see at a seance...you're too reasonable and logical to get anywhere with that...

We are waiting, but not holding our breath cause it could be Another year...for Edisto to come up with those kittens.  That's all I remember of this topic anymore.

Possibly there are some here who aren't aware that most parts of this Forum (including this one) are available to the public.  Thus, if one wants to "speak" to only one person, it's necessary to send a personal email, rather than post that message on the board.  Every post, except those in the Privy, is available to anyone posting here, and anyone reading it and willing to register may reply to it, even if it's not specifically addressed to that person.  That's why there's a button labeled "Reply."  Also, I find it hard to understand why it's okay for one person posting here to denigrate the religions of others (Jews and Catholics, for example) but to go on a rant when it's perceived that someone else might be doing the same thing.  Like Kash, I thought this was a Forum for discussions about the Lizzie Borden case, and the Forum instructions seem to bear that out.  I feel sure there are other sites where it's appropriate, and even encouraged, to discuss theology.

Why Kat, I'm looking into my crystal ball right now.  Who is that that I see?  Could it be the murderer? 

Well, Edisto, my post is primarily for Kat but secondarily for the membership of this board and the general public. After all, the gospel message is meant for everyone to hear and can and should be posted anywhere, it is not necessarily limited to the church or the mail. Also, there are some people out there, in addition to Kat, who would be interested in my message. That's why, when I perceived that Kash was (illegitimately) offended by my message simply because of its religious nature, I told her that I was talking to Kat, not her. For these reasons, my message wasn't e-mailed privately to Kat. Truly personal/private discussion should be relegated to the e-mail, of course, not hung on the line for everyone to see. My post to Kat was not of a personal or private nature.

Anyone who reads a public posting is free to reply or join in the discussion, but that doesn't give him/her the right to put down any message to which he/she is responding (show a negative attitude) just he/she doesn't like or want to see the public message. With the language she used, Kash came off as having an attitude. It IS okay for one to criticize the beliefs of others civilly, politely, and rationally (give his/her support for his/her counter-beliefs), but it is NOT acceptable to be disrespectful or inflammatory in language or manner, e.g., slurs or attitude, to the person.

As for my postings being off topic, I personally feel that we shouldn't have to ALWAYS talk about Lizzie Borden or the Borden case, and be able to talk about anything else that might provide interesting insights into Lizzie or the case; this board needs spice and variety. After all, this board is a virtual community composed of live, thinking, and feeling humans with diverse interests, so when we go "off topic" we get the added benefit of getting to know one another when we discover that others have similar interests. Each of us is not interested in the Borden case only, but also in many other subjects. Some will express an interest in a certain aspect of something, so it is natural AND human that the discussion would lead to other, related discussion, the information therein that would link us back to the original subject. For example, it is interesting that Nance O'Neil appeared in at least two full-length color "talkie" movies, one filmed partly in Technicolor and another entirely in Technicolor. It is equally interesting and natural that a discussion of the findings of some Ouija board in 1892-3 would lead to a discussion of the Ouija board itself and the occult and religion. If all we talked about was Lizzie Borden and peripherals or we restricted ourselves to talking about the same, we would seem like insipid dullards to the outside world, i.e., potential members, who are lurking on these boards. That's why I don't feel that the Forum instructions regarding off-topic subjects is reasonable and does not exactly encourage freedom of speech (unferreted exchange of ideas in a democracy), either. I see many posts on here apologetically saying, "I know this is off post (or OT), but...." That's their trying to let out some seams in this restrictive environment. Well, let's allow them the freedom to be themselves; they shouldn't have to apologize for going off topic. I have the right to expect the administrator of this Forum to not restrict my discussion to only Lizzie Borden and order me to avoid subjects as religion and politics.

The following is something that I wrote in response to the administrator, i.e., Stefani's, post of June 24th (I think), in the topic "I want you to wash these windows today...". Here I quote directly and in part from her post:

Quote:

David, you seem to base your understanding of the negativity of gossip, judgment, and speculation on what you call God's law-----which comes from your faith and religious beliefs. You must remember that not everyone here shares your beliefs. Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes in God. Those who disagree with you may also consider themselves to be Christian, but do not interpret the Bible as strictly as you do. Since religious belief is an UNDEBATABLE topic, please, in the future, stick to secular opinions and do not preach to us or warn us of our fate in the hereafter. These kinds of comments are inflammatory and flaming is not allowed on this forum.... David, you are welcome to continue to discuss this case on this forum. So far, I have not thrown anybody off. But just like before, I must insist that you consider that you are in a community of people quite different than yourself. The only thing most of us have in common is our interest in this case. Everyone, keep your religious beliefs to yourself, keep your profanity to yourself, keep your political beliefs to yourself. This is not the place for them as all of that is fodder for catfights and flame wars.

I beg her pardon, but I disagree. Religious belief IS debatable, precisely because there are many differences among religious belief systems. But since there exists objective truth, only one belief system is the correct one. Which one is it? In order for us to discover, we need to discuss them and talk it out in a calm, civil, polite, rational, and mature manner, and without slurring or showing any attitude or cussing. Merely raising objections to or challenging or questioning someone else's beliefs or preaching at him/her is not itself a sign of disrespect or trying to be superior, and it is not itself offensive or inflammatory, either, so the other person who accuses his/her opponent of being disrespectful or inflammatory simply because he/she doesn't like or agree with the message (or messenger) is not legitimately offended---as long as the opponent did not use any TRULY inflammatory or hurtful words, such as insults, cussing, or "attitude". So, if, after a certain amount of discussion, we still have not reached agreement, we can either mutually and respectfully agree to disagree (simply drop discussion and continue friendly relations) or to part company with each other, depending on our feelings or conscience.

Whether this board is of a secular or religious nature is moot, since this community is comprised of live humans who have or lack religious beliefs or some sort, so their beliefs (or lack thereof) must necessarily influence their response to the "secular" stimuli, e.g., the facts of the Borden case (a good example of this is the self-application of the "judge not by mere appearance" instruction), and to the beliefs (right or wrong) or absence of beliefs of other members. Also, most religions have a moral code of their own and their codes are very similar. Even atheists and agnostics have an innate moral conscience, whether they acknowledge or are aware of it or not, and they inwardly know they have done something wrong as soon as they do it. Why? Because God put it in their hearts. Also, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, most of our criminal laws spring from God's laws. Besides, it is my Christian duty to correct or at least attempt to correct behaviors of other people, spiritual/religious or heathen (more so for the former than for the latter), and the administrator of this site does not have a right to dictate whether her members will disobey the dictates of their own respective religions or go against their own religious beliefs or to interfere with their moral conscience (think civil disobedience, something that the Bible sanctions). In other words, she must respect and not cramp the rights of her members to air their religious views, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or what have you, on her message board IF THEY (not she) deem them germane to the immediate topic or discussion. Also, she must respect their right to debate the merits of their religious views with each other publicly as long as their comments remain civil and respectful and don't stray too far off topic (at this point they can move their discussion to email or IM if only for the reason of saving her bandwith). After all, what they have to say may actually be interesting/stimulating to at least SOME of her membership and the general lurking public, even though they may not be to you all personally or to the other half of her membership. If she/you don't care for the religious or political discussion, she/you can always STOP reading the "offending" post and then click on/open another one and read it or start a new thread or go visit another web site or turn on their TV or read a newspaper or go outside and play. No one is holding a gun against the head of anyone to read them, and no one need gripe about these discussions. This is called "democracy", where the majority or the external absolute, i.e., God, rules. Thank you for hearing me out.

Kash:
I think I must have totally overlooked your post asking whether "the cat" (I'm not sure which one) was from Emma's house in New Hampshire.  As I recall, the account I read about Emma's cats was from somebody who had gone to New Hampshire and managed to gain admittance to the house where Emma lived her last days.  About the place were some cats, and the narrator was told they were descended from Emma Borden's cats.  I may not be remembering this with total accuracy, because I haven't seen this story in a while.  The person who wrote it said he (I believe it was a male) had been admitted to the house only because he was accompanied by someone known to the current owner.  It could even have been written by someone posting on a board like this one.  I'm not going to try to locate that account, because I have no idea where I read it.  What I read about Lizzie's cats at Maplecroft was a separate narrative, describing Lizzie's life after the trial. The cats mentioned there had (as far as I know) nothing to do with Emma's home in New Hampshire.  I've been trying to find that tale in one of my books, but no luck so far.  Sorry for ignoring your question, but there seems to be a lot of extraneous material on this thread, and I've sorta lost track of things.

Edisto, et al., does this help.  From Spiering, pages 218-219:

"Animals became Lizzie's passion, especially the helpless, the orphaned, the abused. There were always several cats and litters of kittens around Maplecroft. She purchased peanuts regularly and put them on the lawn for the squirrels. She took in stray dogs and when they died had them buried in Pine Ridge Cemetery of the Animal Rescue League, near a marker she erected which read SLEEPING AWHILE."

No cats are mentioned re Emma.

Is this the story y'all are looking for about Emma's cats?
It is on the other message board.
http://www.bdshost.com/cgi-bin/ib3a/ikonboard.cgi?s=3d9d1d205814ffff;act=ST;f=18;t=132;hl=newmarket

I like that picture in Frank Spiering's book of Emma's house
in Newmarket, I like it more than Maplecroft.

(Message last edited Oct-4th-02  12:59 AM.)

Harry,
That is a beautiful picture.
Thanks.

It reminded me of one of my favorite rides at Disneyland, the Haunted Mansion!  Now, if Lizzie replaced Madame Leota, what tales would she tell, what spirits would she conjure up and what instruments would she have hanging around her room?

Kimberly:
Thank you!  That's exactly what I was looking for with regard to Emma's cats, apparently filtered through two different sites!  It certainly is a bit confusing, as I thought at first the poster was talking about the Borden farmhouse at Swansea, but it does appear the New Hampshire property is the one being described.  Believe me, I don't accept this as definitive at all (filtered through too many sources), but there it is, for what it's worth.  Now if only someone can find the reference to cats and kittens at Maplecroft.  I'm still looking.  I'm sure that one isn't in Internet archives.

Harry:
That's precisely the citation I was looking for.  Thanks!
You saved me from having to read Spiering again (not that I would have done so).  I did go through his book again a few months ago, and I guess that stuck in my mind.  He probably didn't care to share his sources (if any) with us.

Frank Spiering's book has numerous and extensive notes. I can't say how good they are. Note that he repeats the story of Lizzie's 1897 (?) typed confession in the text. But in the notes he admits it was exposed as a forgery by E Radin!!!
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?

They all say Lizzie loved animals in her later years. But if she like to feed birds and squirrels, maybe she didn't like cats.
Real world knowledge will tell you why.

Feeding birds and squirrels and being fond of cats aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  We have two cats in our household, and I also have feeders for the birds and (by accident) squirrels.  I also enjoy the chipmunks on our property.  Our cats get to watch this zoo all they want -- from the windows.  One cat is taken out to walk on a leash, but we have a "catch and release" program.  Actually, the leash cramps his style considerably.

Your welcome Edisto.  Usually if it has to do with Maplecroft I check Spiering first.  Not that I believe half of what he wrote but its a starting point.

Its funny, I've been trying to re-find something myself that I just read. This concerns Emma in Newmarket.  Spiering wrote that she had a secret stairway built, etc.   I just read (but where?) that all that was untrue. Boy, I got to start taking something for my memory.

Hey Har,
If it seems like new research, check your LBQ's.

Also, I remember a thread about this:
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=1&topid=291

It is called "Emma Borden's Assumed Name"
See posts # 9 , 10   &  13, 14 15

(Message last edited Oct-4th-02  10:26 PM.)

Thanks Kat, I do believe it is in one of the LBQ's I was was just reading.  I never did believe that Spiering yarn about Emma remodeling the house in Newmarket nor her falling down the "secret staircase".  Makes a good story but that article I read refuted it.

Now it's going to bug me till I find it again. Drat!

(Message last edited Oct-4th-02  11:05 PM.)

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BibliographyLBQIssue.htm#vol7no4

I've looked at the annotated issues from current back to and including Oct.'98.  Not there.
Here's the link to the rest.

A "secret staircase"? Maybe not, if it was enclosed and against an outer wall. Experience a winter in NH to tell why.
But if a secret door?

Oh, thats too bad, I thought that whole story of Emma remodeling the house with those odd embellishments was true and I loved reading of it!  But, now only to find that it is not?  I wish someone who had been to Emma's old home would visit our forum and tell us what they have seen inside. 

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding as to just what this forum is all about and just who is in charge. For that I apologize for not making that clear to one and all.

The Lizzie Borden Society Forum is not a public place, a street corner, a college quad, or a town square. One has to sign up to post here, and in doing so joins the community and agrees to abide by its rules. I have been very careful and sensitive to members who feel the need to invoke the "free speech" argument in regards to off topic postings. But I must reiterate what I have said before, namely, that flaming is not allowed on this forum. Flaming is poor netiquette.

As creator and moderator of the Lizzie Borden Society Forum, I am ultimately responsible for its content, upkeep and care. If things get out of hand or go in offensive directions, it is up to me to step in and clarify the rules so misunderstandings do not occur. For instance, if we were to go off the deep end and start posting profanity, it is I who would be in trouble with Arborwood. It is I who would pay the price for members acting up. It is I who would not be allowed to create another forum. Since I bear all the responsibility, I also get to make the rules and, unfortunately, enforce them. I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions that may be out there.

When I said that religion was UNDEBATABLE, I meant that there is no answer to the question that all can agree on, hence we will avoid the issue so as not to rile up angry debates and hurt feelings and name-calling. It is not debatable on THIS FORUM.

You may consider starting your own free Arborwood forum to have a place of to debate/discuss religious matters. Simply click on the "Create New Forum" link at the top of this page and the directions will help you set one up. You can invite us over to your forum when you get it up and running.

Please, everyone, read my netiquette post in admin and consider it law.

"Flaming is not allowed on this forum. Flaming is poor netiquette."

Stefani aka the Administrator, where in any of my posts did I flame anyone? Where was I offensive? Nowhere on both counts! Simply registering my disagreement or complaint or merely discussing religion or politics is obviously not flaming or offensive, but being disrespectful to a poster simply because of the content of his/her post IS flaming AND offensive. Calling a member on his/her's flaming or online behavior or merely disagreeing with his/her beliefs or opinions IS not and SHOULD not BE itself flaming or offensive, either. I don't agree in part with YOUR personal definition of "flaming" in the latest posting in the Administration thread. There will be times when attempts to put certain persons in their "proper place" becomes necessary and are appropriate. For example, those who denigrate one's faith by calling it or me names or making jokes at its expense or showing "attitude" with their choice of words or language certainly deserves to be put in their proper place. Or, if anyone goes beyond the generally accepted bounds, such as cussing, OF COURSE it is always and obviously appropriate and right to put this person in his/her place. Also, sometimes it is appropriate to save people from themselves; that is where preaching comes in. After all, preaching the gospel for salvation ALWAYS has its place on ANY Internet forum and is beneficial (not inherently harmful) to everyone. Some may not (want to) listen, that is their right to do so, as it is their right to ignore the warnings of the surgeon general (who knows better than them) and put poisons, e.g., alcohol or nicotine, into their bodies. On the other hand, it is not always appropriate to save people from themselves by trying to prevent them from committing a sin or hurting themselves, because they have a right to and are old enough to make their own moral choices/decisions or deal with their own temptations and if God respects that and he DOES, so, too, we should. For example: throwing away or making laws against possession and use of alcohol or drugs or insisting on (requiring) seat belts or chaperons. We should not treat them like children or criminals who have not yet proven themselves to be unworthy of our trust. The obvious exception to this rule is when the person is contemplating or has the potential to harm himself or other people in a very gross way, like suicide or murder or child molestation (adult molestation does not apply because both persons are adults who are sane and perfectly capable of making their own decisions and should always be given the benefit of the doubt). I'm disgressing a bit. These above situations are themselves NOT flaming or offensive or rude. After all, Jesus went into the Temple and turned the moneychangers' tables over and freed the birds and animals being sold there for the convenience of the Jewish worshippers (who, under the Old Testament or old covenant/agreement with God of salvation in return for obedience, were observing the burdensome Jewish ceremonial and sacrificial laws that Jesus's (the Unblemished Lamb of God, the Son of God) death on the cross made obsolete, once and forever, and ushered in the New Testament, or new covenant/agreement with God of salvation in return for obedience with attendant new and now-unburdensome rules that replaced the old ones). He did so because the moneychangers were being dishonest in their money-handling and using false weights. He said, and I quote: "It is written [in the Jewish scriptures]: 'My house will be called a house of prayer', but you are making a 'den of robbers' " (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46 in the New Testament; see also Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 in the Old Testament or Jewish Bible). The Pharisees, a group of Jewish religious leaders, considered Jesus' behavior in the Temple and declarations very rude or offensive, but Jesus' words and deeds themselves were not really or actually rude or offensive, obviously, because he was responding to actual wrongdoing that was occurring within his line of sight (more on this shortly). So when I'm calling on anyone on here for inappropriate behavior or words---things that genuinely give offense, I'm actually following Jesus' example as well as following his commands (e.g., John 7:24; Ephesians 5:3-5, 11-14a)---this is not "flaming" in the usual sense of the word or "violating netiquette". But if Jesus was (rightly) flaming those Pharisees, then I was (rightly) flaming here, too.

In defining "flaming" and "offensive", Stefani, you must remember that whether you or any of your members like it or not, there is an external standard of what is considered offensive or morally wrong, one that is absolute, and if you know me, you know what that is. Therefore, you cannot go against this standard, not even if you happen to be the administrator (yes, you can, because you have free will or freedom to choose good or evil or right or wrong, but the person that chooses good or right is allowing the Christian God to have or be in charge of his/her life, including his/her message board, if any). That's why your statement

Quote:

When I said that religion was UNDEBATABLE, I meant that there is no answer to the question that all can agree on, hence we will avoid the issue so as not to rile up angry debates and hurt feelings and name-calling. It is not debatable on THIS FORUM.

is absurd. There IS an absolute answer to the question that everybody is supposed to agree on---it does exist, in the Christian Bible---that's why the question is non-debatable. It is just the heart of the person disagreeing with the Christian, getting angry, cussing, calling names, etc., that is the real problem, not the answer or the discussion or his/her opponent per se (unless, of course, the opponent was inflicting real or actual harm). Now we return to Jesus and the Pharisees. They became angry at what Jesus had done and said about their certain teachings and religious practices, e.g., the observance of the Sabbath, and sought to kill him. The disciples called to Jesus's attention the fact that the Pharisees were "offended" (exact word) (Matthew 15:12). Jesus answered by dismissively calling them "blind leaders of the blind" (he called them names--surprise!--he was making a RIGHT or CORRECT judgment of them; after all, that was PRECISELY what they were). As far as he was concerned, they were not legitimately offended or he did not give them any legitimate offense when he acted or said as he did. They were the ones TAKING offense as opposed to being GIVEN real offense, you see. By the same token, I have not given you or anyone else on this board any legitimate offense and you are judging me according to appearances, just as the Pharisees and certain other people judged Jesus and John the Baptist, respectively, by appearances or they labelled him wrong or incorrectly (see Luke 7:33-34; John 7:20-24). Therefore, your rules don't apply to me, and I will not desist and cease from my preaching or religious teaching on your board. In accord with God's dictates, I will continue to do it whenever an opportunity arises (I don't do it simply for its own sake, only when an opportunity presents itself to me; I know when to speak up and when to keep my mouth shut...er, hands tied). YOU as a moderator and ARBORWOOD as a message board provider must respect that; don't ask me to respect your rules if doing so would mean going against my own religious beliefs. The authority of God must supersede that of yours and Arborwood's, but if there is any rule that you or Arborwood has set that is not already addressed in the Christian Bible, I am free to and shall observe it.

In response to another part of your response/post, I reiterate that this board does NOT and should NOT have to always be about Lizzie Borden or the Borden case, just as a Christian church does not always have to be about God/Jesus (yes, the Jewish/Christian God is a jealous God, but not THAT jealous). As human beings, we are likely to have interests other than Lizzie Borden and we should be free to discuss them and to participate in such discussion without being accused of going off topic or having to apologize for doing so. This is and should be true of ANY community, public or private. This is, after all, an AMERICAN message board and a COMMUNITY OR FELLOWSHIP OF KINDRED SPIRITS, not some desolate vacuum where nothing or no one grows. In other words, a message board is a message board, and this one happens to be American, a place where the right to freedom of speech is and should be always the rule as long as the right is not abused or is exercised responsibly. In America and also in Christianity there is and should be no rule against speaking freely about any topic that is not necessarily Lizzie Borden-related or against tuning out the speaker. Yes, the emphasis or focus of this board is on Lizzie Borden, but simply because of this emphasis, the membership should not be restricted to talking about Lizzie Borden and the case alone/only. As the Bible says, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). And religion and politics are not themselves inappropriate subjects, it is ALWAYS good and ALWAYS right/appropriate to talk about them ANYWHERE and ANYTIME; therefore, no one is legitimately offended when somebody starts talking about these things if he/she personally doesn't care for them I don't think I have ever insisted that anyone thought or felt as I do about religious subjects; I simply told them like it is, and if anyone didn't care for it, it is their choice and I will be disappointed albeit not surprised (just as God is disappointed but not surprised when somebody he created and gave life to won't listen to his gospel message and give him his/her own life and heart but God respects the freedom of choice that he gave this creature in this life), and if anyone objected to my speaking upon these things out of prejudice or malevolence, it is their problem, not mine. I am simply a humble messenger of God and I am only doing my job, so they can take their objections to God.

If you try to cramp our religious or political speech and our right to speak, Stefani, then you are ultimately and ironically anti-Christian and unpatriotic and genuinely rude/flaming, as well. I don't want to be walking on egg-shells in here and don't want to see anyone else doing so, either. If as a result of this post you DO take any official action against me, i.e., flame me and order me to stop discussing religion or non-Lizzie things, simply because you are the owner/moderator of this board or because Arborwood eschews such discussion, I will be compelled to withdraw my membership from your message board because I do not believe in or agree with your rules and will not abide by them. You are free to proactively cancel my membership immediately, of course. But if you do, I will simply find another Lizzie Borden board whose rules are more in line with my personal beliefs, if any exists, or create a new one with a message board company similar to Arborwood or Bravenet that shares my philosophy (one that acknowledges that the freedom-loving Christian God ALONE is in charge of the board and that any member, including the owner/administrator him/herself, is subject to censure or discipline once he/she goes outside the bounds defined in and by the Christian Bible). If none exists, I'll simply keep my opinions or theories about the Borden murders to myself and likely won't start a Lizzie Borden board of my own; besides, my whole life isn't revolving around Lizzie or the case; also, I don't want to spend a lot of time administering/moderating a message board.

I don't think anyone shows up here to be criticized
for their religion or lack of it. It is not fun to be
griped at by anyone, even if they mean well. It will
probably never win anyone over, it will only cause hostility.
I'm sure you are following your heart, but alot of people
will feel picked on. You can decide what peoples mistakes
are & point them out but that will always hurt more than it
will help.

David said, "....withdraw my membership from your message board because I do not believe in or agree with your rules and will not abide by them."

That sounds like a wonderful solution.

I guess we're really, truly O/T here, but Carol, I couldn't agree with your more!

Kimberly, what do you have got against religion or the discussion thereof anyway? How can that hurt? Of course, those who don't like to hear about it are "hurt", but that is not the fault of the messenger. Also, it does hurt to be corrected, doesn't it? It always does. Nobody likes to be corrected; you may not realize it then or now, but it is for your own good.

As for you, Carol Pedersen and Annette Baker, I would think that as a published author and as a 65-ish year old woman, respectively, you would be mature enough to respect Christians' beliefs, but you are not being respectful. Perhaps the real issue is not my "off-topic" postings, it is that you have an issue against Christianity and religion in general because you are an unbeliever. If so, that is your problem, not mine.

And, for the last time, no, we are not being off topic here!!! SO SAY I, not you (Edisto), not Stefani Koorey, not Arborwood, not anybody else here!!! None of you is the final judge of what is appropriate for posting to any Internet message board. If you don't like me, then you don't like my posts, on topic or off topic, either. So then maybe you are right about me leaving. I'm gone because I don't feel welcomed here anymore nor respected and valued. You will have to answer to Stefani and utimately to God for that for the way you have treated me. In addition to my leaving, I'm going through the entire site and deleting all of my posts in here (except for those on this thread) because you guys don't deserve my ideas re the Borden case! I don't want to have anything to do with idiots!!! AND YES, YOU ARE IDIOTIC as well as BLIND because you are rejecting my religious messages, and they come not from me, but from God!!!!!! Having published books and holding Ph.D's and teaching positions at universities do not make you right, nor does it impress me or God, for he is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34)---you must have Christ, or you are going bye-bye. Since I am withdrawing my membership, per Carol and Edisto's urging, I offer you my FINAL warning. You must receive Christ into your heart and life and repent of your sins now, before it is too late. For once you die and pass into eternity, you will not have a second chance to repent and be saved (Hebrews 9:27-28). You will and must be judged AND punished for your sins, including your mocking posts to me. When you are sent to hell, you will not be seen or heard from again; as a matter of fact, you will be forgotten because God will have thrown the keys away and you will remain in that desolate place, alone with the demons and the worms and the soul-shattering screams and that relentless, intense, unbelievable burning pain (from having been literally THROWN INTO the lake of fire) forever, and I do mean AN ENDLESS FOREVER and you will never be able to get out!!! You may laugh now, but you will be sorry when you find yourself there; you may want to repent and apologize for calling my posts "off topic" then because the suffering will be unbearable, but it will be too late; you chose to reject God/Jesus, so you must live with your choice forever. Simultaneously, true believers will live with God and Jesus in heaven and they will be freed of all sin, all pain, all sorrow, all limitations associated with living in physical bodies; there will be nothing but endless joy and happiness and music and and song and color and dining and playing and flying. Don't be foolish, people. Choose Jesus now, and without further delay, and live for him every day!!! Turn or burn. Fly or fry. Choose, and choose wisely!

You are assuming alot, I never said I had anything
against religion, you don't know me, this is a casual
situation. How do you know I lack Christianity? What
have I said? When have I even discussed my beliefs? Do you
think you are putting me in my place by saying that Carol &
Annette should be "mature enough to respect Christians' beliefs"?
If we were all grown-up enough we would do what you tell us?
And I didn't feel corrected, I was just commenting that I
didn't think anyone was here because they needed instruction.
Have any of my posts offended you? Did I need correction?
My reply to you was quite respectful & I thought your reply
to me was quite smug.

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:37 PM.)

Deja Vu all over again.

You are wrong, Kimberly. It is YOU yourself who are assuming a lot, not me. In my previous post, I NEVER said that YOU, "Kimberly", lack Christianity. I was careful to put the name of the person(s) to whom I'm responding and then make the following message apply to him/her alone. My comments about Christianity apply to those who put me down for being "off topic" or who wish me gone from these boards simply because he/she doesn't like the content or message of my postings, not to you. Go re-read my last post, and then take a chill pill with water.

Kimberly, {{that is me}} what do you have got against religion or
the discussion thereof anyway? {{implies I lack religion}}
How can that hurt? Of course, those who don't like to hear about
it are "hurt", but that is not the fault of the messenger. {{I
didn't say nobody wanted to hear it, I said nobody seems to be enjoying hearing about it here}} Also, it does hurt to be corrected, doesn't it? {{I didn't say it 'hurt' I said it didn't help, insult people & nobody will listen to the message}} It always does. Nobody likes to be corrected; you may not realize it then or now, but it is for your own good. {{I can take care of 'my own good'}} {{I
think you were nagging everyone & trying to get yourself
removed so you would have more to complain about & so you could
feel holier-than-thou while you are damning everyone to hell}}

"Implies that I lack religion." OK, you are right.  Having reread it, I realize now that post of yours was general; I was assuming that you were lacking Christianity simply because I perceived that you were attacking me. However, now that I have read your latest "feel holier-than-thou" post, I stand by my original statement next to your name. You must be truly lacking Christ if you say now, "I can take care of 'my own good'" That is exactly what people tell God, when they hear a preacher in church or wherever and summarily reject his message by saying to God inwardly, "I don't need or want You; I can take care of myself." If that is your intention, it is so sad that you don't see your need for God and salvation through Jesus Christ. Do you know what you are doing? Maybe, maybe not. But know this now: If you should persist in your pride and stubbornness and die, you will be sorry; it will be too late for you to change your mind.

There are other things you said in your latest post that also confirm my original assumption about you, Kimberly.

"I didn't say nobody wanted to hear it, I said nobody seems to be enjoying hearing about it here." Too bad; I am only doing my job---don't complain to me about it, you take it up with God! If you are truly Christian, you would not be criticizing me for posting my messages here---you would be supporting me, even posting similar messages on here.

"I didn't say it 'hurt' I said it didn't help, insult people & nobody will listen to the message." Same difference. When you say, "insult people", that is the same as "hurting people". But the question is: Have I insulted people? No. I GAVE NO OFFENSE, I HURT NO ONE, used no grossly insulting words, no cussing, no wrong that people can rightly accuse me of. Rather, it is the person that is TAKING OFFENSE by the message because of an ego issue or because of a mistaken perception that he was hurt who is the problem, not me. I reiterate, people won't listen to the message precisely because they CHOOSE not to. I have no control over people's response to MY, well, God's, message, it is just my job to tell them like it is, whether they like it or not, whether they get angry or upset or "offended" or "hurt" or not.

"I think you were nagging everyone & trying to get yourself removed so you would have more to complain about & so you could feel holier-than-thou while you are damning everyone to hell." That is just your opinion. You are entitled to it. But I don't think that you are right because you are wrong about my motives, and since you don't know me or my motives, you are not in a position to judge me. And I am not subject to your judgment or that of Edisto or Harry or Stefani, for as Scripture says: "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment" (1 Corinthians 2:15).

LOL!!! So you think that all the Christ talk is a bad dream! You heathen, wake up and smell the coffee!!! (That's a double message if you didn't see it!)

You must be truly lacking Christ if you say now, "I can take care of 'my own good'" {You are assuming alot aren't you? And, I'm
sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't say anything
about not needing God, I said I didn't need you}

If you are truly Christian, you would not be criticizing me for posting my messages here---you would be supporting me, even posting similar messages on here. {I did support you, see my first post}

and since you don't know me or my motives, you are not in a position to judge me {that is what everyone is trying to tell you}

Deja Vu again!  All right!

Wonder why Lizzie didn't have "Sleeping Awhile" etched into the Borden monument.(Ouch!)
Got my copy of Cimmarron-forgettable except for Nance. You get an inkling of how powerful a stage presence she must have been. Her comic flair and timing show professionalism as well. Made my day to see her and hear her (finally) Thanks for the link, Kat.
Oh and thanks Edisto about the cats. Wouldn't it be cool to have a Maplesauce cat? If it was a descendant of Lizzie's it'd have to be a money cat (Oof!)
Rats-looks like I'm going to hell in a hand-cart; room for one more!

(Message last edited Oct-7th-02  8:15 AM.)

Lizzie had human names for her dogs.  I wonder what she named her cats. No mention of any burial sites for them either.  Anybody want to go and dig up the back yard at Maplecroft?  Might even find a hatchet or two.

Ooooo, forget the backyard, I want to get inside Maplecroft and dig around! 

Apparently it's true what I've heard: "Some good can come of anything."  As annoying as all of this is, at least I now know that, even if my family doesn't follow my instructions, I WILL be cremated!

I think the cat that Lizzie decapitated was probably named "Abby Durfee Borden."

But, what I want to know is was the decapitated cat made into a pie like the #$@$%%^# pigeons?  Sprinkle a little rose water on it and its perfectly delectable, just ask Abby. 

Does anyone really bother to name 'outside' cats?
Are they really around enough to learn that is them?
Over the summer there was a mamma cat, four kittens,
her boyfriend & her brother coming here to be fed, none
had names but they all 'belonged' here, well, they thought
they belonged here. Is it mentioned anywhere what Lizzie
named her dogs? While visiting the Lizzie landmarks, has anyone
been to visit their graves? It seems like you have to claim stray
dogs & give them a proper name or the neighbors will call
the pound on them. I've never seen the dog catcher chasing
any cats.

Rebello pg. 358 shows the Borden pet monument:
Boston Bull Terriers

Donald Stuart
Royal Nelson
Laddie Miller

Speaking of stray dogs, in Mrs. Chagnon's testimony she points out that there are stray dogs roaming the Second Street neighborhood.

In my huge county, if there are a large number of stray catz that enough people complain about, they do come and trap as many of a colony as they can.

(Message last edited Oct-8th-02  1:08 AM.)

Donald Stuart? Oh man, that is funny! That is a better
name than most people get stuck with!

I hope we never have so many strays over in here that everyone
starts complaining about them, there is only one kitten left, the other three were engine sleepers & got killed. They sure clear the birds out quick enough. They say it doesn't take long for them to turn things into endangered species, I don't know how they end up here, I guess they just know a sucker when they seen it.

Oh, all the stray cats in the back alley behind my apartment building are feral.  I've tried coaxing them, but, they want no human contact.  All I wanted to do was whisper in their grubby little, mite filled ears and tell them to get the pigeons, eat them or just kill them, but, do away with them and you'll get real cream and fresh tuna from yours truly!  My new nextdoor neighbor feels the same way about those darn birds, pigeon poop for days on everyone's car!!! 

Susan, when you said "All I wanted to do was whisper in their
grubby little, mite filled ears" it reminded me of some of the
men I've known.

  Ohmigawd!  You're a stitch, Kimberly!  My biggest pet peeve I've seen with some guys out here, where sandals and flip-flops are de riguer, is the uncut toenail syndrome!  Ewwwwww!  If you can cut your fingernails, you can do your toes too! 

Is there any nice way of telling someone they are a pig? That
is why men are cuter if they have someone, she has already
cleaned out their ears & chewed off their toenails.

  Kimberly, you are too funny!  That sounds like what a momma cat does for her kittens!  But, I hear ya'! 

Hey! You got back onto the main topic, cats!
I forgot what the first question was, something
about the cat at #92, I think. It could have just
been a neighbors cat who went everywhere to eat.

But, which makes me wonder how much happier the Bordens would have been if they just had a dog?  Abby would have someone to baby and lavish her love on (just ask my mom now that all her kids are grown and no one lives at home with her except for her dog!), Andrew would have someone to watch over him so that he could take naps, safely!  Lizzie and Emma would have something to occupy their lives with instead of bickering over Andrew's money.  And Bridget would have someone to feed all the leftover table scraps to so that the family didn't get sick!  See, all happy! 

Tell the truth, would you have wanted to live in that
house? I think their dog would have run away. You know the
dog would have heard about what happened to Abby's cat &
Lizzie's pigeons.

Don't forget: dog meat tastes like pork! (That's why they're called 'hot dogs', a name banned in some places.)

I wouldn't doubt that Andy would be collecting stray dogs if he owned a butcher shop!

[Decades ago I worked with a man who spent time in Europe. He said that rabbits always had to be sold w/ ears attached, because it was too easy to substitute a cat (skinned, gutted, and legless they appear the same).

Did any of you ever hear about the story (mid-1980s) about putting Kangaroo meat into a well-known brand of hamburgers?

(Message last edited Oct-9th-02  4:37 PM.)

I don't want to think about that.

Rays, I had heard something vague about that, was it Kangaroo meat?  I don't recall the full story.  I think the strangest thing that I've eaten, that I know about, is a buffalo burger, it was so good! 

My husband is away hunting buffalo (or I should say bison) this week.  (No kidding!)  I guess we'll be having lots of those buffalo burgers...not to mention meatloaf, spaghetti sauce, meatballs, etc.  I think there's a lot of meat on a bison.  It does taste pretty much like beef.  Everything else tastes like chicken, of course.

Edisto, I was pleasantly surprised when I ate it, very juicy, no gamey taste and it didn't seem quite as greasy as beef.  I guess it was bison, but, on the menu it was listed as buffalo.  Bison sounds so cave paintingesque, doesn't it? 

Many decades ago I talked with a WW2 veteran, who ate horse meat in France. "It tastes just like beef if done right". Horse meat is higher in iron than beef, and often less fatty (not force fed to put on weight for a higher price).

The book "Dieting Makes You Fat" (and others) say game meat is healthier for you: more vitamins, less fat, etc. But this has been known to cause gout (from over eating). Centuries of doing this in the past may be one reason people were less obese. Also, they generally walked everywhere. Look how gaunt Andy was!

The buffalo (or bison) is naturally able to withstand the winters cold of the Dakota plains, etc. Some say raising more of these undomesticated beasts would be better. NEVER approach one of these on foot unless your life insurance policy is up to date.

Yeah, but what do pigeons taste like?

Pigeon tastes like a cross between chicken and bison.  Luckily, however, a pigeon is a good deal smaller than a bison.

Oh, okay.

I would think that pigeon tasted like pheasant or quail?  I do wish the practice of eating them would come back into vogue! 

Don't people eat doves? Aren't they almost the
same bird? They have dove hunting season, I guess
they are hunted for food. Why would anyone kill their
child's pets & then bring them in & serve them for
dinner? I'm sure it happens on farms, but still....
I wonder why she liked keeping pigeons? It seems an odd
thing for a woman.

Well, no dog or cat allowed in the Borden house that we know of, so what other animals can Lizzie have for a pet?  The horse got sold off, so, not much left but those damn pigeons kept in the barn.  Ya' know, Andrew probably killed the little buggers because they pooped all over the windows of the house and thats why Abby had to send Bridget out to clean them the day of the murders! 

It is strange that they never seemed to have any
pets. I wonder what that says about them? It seems
like it shows, I don't know, a lack of warmth, perhaps?
How cuddly are pigeons? Were they really 'pets' or
were they to be eaten & maybe Lizzie just liked them? It
shows that she had some feelings, but what about dear old
dad? Growing up I was always bringing home stray dogs & we
always had several at one time, some of my friends
couldn't have any at all & some just couldn't bring them
inside, I remember those parents as being more grouchy &
strict. If Andrew was like any of them I could see
not winning any friends & getting knocked in the head.

My husband and I had a pet parrot, if you raise certain types of birds as chicks they bond with you and think that you are their parents!  Pigeons may be like that too if you hand feed them?  But, my question is were the pigeons the carrier type, were they free to come and go, or were they locked up as pets or potential food? 

(Message last edited Oct-11th-02  3:07 AM.)

I hatched & raised two quail when I was a young'un & they
were never tame at all, they would peck the daylights of
of you & each other. Maybe they were food pigeons and
she just got attached to them. If they didn't have any
other pets on record it seems strange he would have let her
keep pigeons.

I don't remember any real evidence that the pigeons were Lizzie's pets or even that she was attached to them.  She mentions them in her inquest testimony, and she doesn't sound very emotional about them.  In the "Legend" movie, they were turned into her pets, and she was very upset when they were killed.  But that was largely fiction.  I mentioned before that my father used to raise carrier pigeons and that he sold young ones (squabs) as food.  They're all dark meat, so they're nothing like pheasant or quail.  I never cared for squab, but some people love it.

I think there was a discussion of the Lizzie/pet scenario not too long ago. I never thought they were pets but might have even been wild ones who found an entrance into the barn.  Lizzie may have taken a likening to them (sorry Susan). The exit/entrance for the pigeons must have been in the rear of the barn because no picture that I know of shows it. 

I would have loved to have seen what was behind that barn.  How big the area was.  Wasn't that where Andy threw the bad pears?  It was also where the bloody clothes were buried at least for awhile.

You say the clothes were buried there for awhile, when
were they dug up?

I don't know the exact time but they were originally buried by orders of Morse the first time.  Dr. Dolan had them dug up.  I believe there were several burials but I would have to check.

This from Rebello, pg.s 110-111

"The clothes worn by the deceased persond were buried near the house. Yesterday (the 11th?) afternoon, under the direction of Officer Chace, the blood-stained clothes, which the family were anxious to dispose of, together with portions of skull which had been cut from the head of Mrs. Borden, were buried near the house. Just what Medical Examiner Dolan will say when he hears of this is not known. Earlier in the day he had forbidden any such interment.

John V. Morse wanted the bloody clothing buried. However, he discovered later that afternoon that. David P. Keefe, a letter carrier, had hired William B. Niles, owner of a restaurant on South Main Street, to bury the clothing and pieces of the skull behind the barn. Mr. Keefe had charged $5.00, a fee John Morse felt was too high. He finally agreed to pay $3.00. Mr. Niles was later ordered by Marshal Hilliard to retrieve the clothing and skull pieces behind the barn....

The clothes were examined on Tuesday by Dr. Dolan, Medical Examiner. He took hairs from Mrs. Borden's clothing. He ordered the remaining articles be placed in a shoe case and buried four feet below ground."

On the same page (111)

"The police patrol wagon rattled up to the Central Station last night and a police officer carried a big box into the cell room. Investigation showed that the clothing which had been buried in the back yard at the Borden house had for the second time been dug up and it is probable that this time the garments will be held by the police. In the station house, Dr. Dolan made another examination...."

Reminds me of the country song:  "I got my education out behind the barn".  Little Jimmy Dickens

(Message last edited Oct-11th-02  1:21 PM.)

Isn't it nice to know the police don't throw evidence
away anymore?

Why has hunting for the pot gone out of style? Could it be that the rise of powerful supermarket corporations don't want it? Think of the meat you get from one deer, and the money lost to the supermarket owner? That's just my opinion.
Note that in rural areas, where the relative power of supermarkets is less, you do have more hunting. Also more land per landowner? How many areas have seen the loss of hunting lands and their replacement by shopping malls?

Not to disagree with you, but what value is the bloody clothes in those days? No DNA or even blood typing. It was just a disagreeable mess to dispose of.

There's been some discussion, here and elsewhere I believe, about the possibility that Lizzie wore Andrew's frock coat, front-to-back, while committing at least one of the murders.  I've never been able to track down what happened to that coat, which was found folded on the arm of the sofa after Andrew's murder.  I don't think it was among the pieces of clothing buried behind the barn (we have a list of those), but if it had been, it would have been useful to the police in determining whether it had blood spatters consistent with its having been worn as an apron.  I suspect some of the other clothing might have revealed such secrets too.  --And I should think it would have been more respectful to bury the pieces of poor Abby's skull along with the rest of her remains.  In fact, I would have thought the police would have wanted them kept with the rest of the skull.  With regard to Andrew's coat, I've wondered if somebody cleaned it up for him to wear into eternity.  He doesn't sound like a man who had an extensive wardrobe.

At Lizzie's Inquest, pg. 82, she says Andrew "killed some pigeons in the barn".
Then, pg. 88:
Q. The pears you ate you got from under the tree in the yard?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

I always wondered if it was a pigeon cote (or dove cote) made especially for feeding and housing pigeons.  That's what it sounded like to me.  I didn't think that necassarily meant the cote or house was in the barn.

But why would Alice specifically dismiss the barn-break-ins as intruders after the pigeons, unless it had become common knowledge, or a story going around the neighborhood?

I believe there is also testimony by an officer as to checking the pigeon house or at least a mention of it?


OR


--my own surmisings as to what a pigeon house would look like...

Thanks Kat, good post.  I think my memory keeps going back to the Liz Montgomery movie where Andrew comes out of the barn after whacking the pigeons.

I thought one of the reasons Andrew killed them was that he thought boys were breaking into the barn to steal them.  It's been a while since I read anything on the pigeons.  Will have to do some research.

I was half joking about the police taking better care
of evidence now, but it seems like the clothes would
have shown how far the blood had splattered. They got the
measurements from the door & wherever, but the splatters
on the clothes might show if there really was much
spurting to get on the killer. If Andrew was standing up
when was first hit wouldn't some have dripped down his
front or onto his shoes? If he was laying down the shoes
should have stayed clean.

Thanks, Kat!  Oooo, theres another one of those ubiquitous "theys" from Lizzie again. 

I have seen pigeon coops in New York on the rooftops of buildings, 2 in fact, and they were big, like the size of one of those aluminum sheds you can buy for your backyard.  Wood frame with wire mesh and a door, big enough for a person to stand up in.  But, I don't think that the Borden's had something quite so grand, so, where was this pigeon house?  On the ground behind the barn with a door going from the barn into the coop, which would give the reason for the boys to break into the barn to get to the birds.  Or, was it something upstairs on the back of the barn?

I checked the Preliminary for pigeons.  Harrington when testifying about what was in the barn (page 395) said:

"A.  Yes Sir. There was a pidgeon (sic) loft on the east end of the barn, up above the window."

The east end would have been the rear of the barn, facing Dr. Chagnons and Third Street. 

Additional pigeon info.  This is from Lincoln (middle of chapter 1):

"In May, a minor incident took place that must have disturbed Lizzie at a fairly deep level, for she was passionately fond of birds and animals. She kept pigeons in the barn loft, and after the horse was sold boys twice broke into the barn to steal a few. Andrew decided to put temptation out of their way, which he did by decapitating them with a hatchet. Where property or infringement of his rights was concerned, Andrew did not think widely, or think twice.

Strangely enough, I have never seen this mentioned by anyone who has written on the case. The protracted unimaginative cruelty of that bedroom key, daily used and plunked down on the mantelpiece, is mentioned; it is mentioned as one of Andrew's inexplicable little eccentricities, though never as a too-often-repeated wordless word to Lizzie. But the slaughter of Lizzie's pigeons doesn't rate a line."

I don't know where she gets the information that Andrew used a hatchet. Lizzie in her inquest statement said they looked as if their heads had been twisted off. 

Lizzie in her Aug. 3 visit to Alice told Alice of the barn break-ins.  Alice said (I'm paraphrasing) "That is was just some boys after pigeons."  (Alice's trial testimony)  So maybe it was Alice who originated the story of the boys breaking into the barn.

This could be a simple, similiar rendition, then, of what was in back and attached to the east end of the barn by the window.
For all we know it was dilapidated and built by a boy who was a former tenant of the house....and the pigeons just kept coming back to where they were born.
We also don't know that they had any sentimental value to Lizzie at all....(I think Edisto has said this, correct me if I'm wrong...)

--I think we would have to dig to be really sure of the beginning of the story about barn-break-ins being boys after pigeons.

[Edit here:  That means that Lizzie was very near The Back Of The Barn for 5 minutes, not in the middle of the yard as I had envisioned.]

(Message last edited Oct-12th-02  1:19 AM.)

I was thinking the same thing Kat, about where Lizzie would have to be to see the east end of the barn.  The attached picture shows the side of the barn and the yard.

She would have had to be standing to the left of the trees else they would have blocked her view.  She also would have had to be pretty far back toward the rear fence, at least past the end of the barn.

I also found this in Hixson (pg 56)

"Although she apparently would have preferred poison, Lizzie may have rationalized the choice of the hatchet by recalling her father's own willingness to decapitate pigeons that Lizzie had fed and nurtured in their roosts around the house and barn. Andrew had killed the birds, only weeks before his own murder, despite Lizzie's pleas that they be spared."

No source is cited and it sounds more like assumptions than facts. I find almost none of this anywhere else.  Lizzie's attitude toward the pigeons in everything I have read seems very matter of fact and unemotional. Or to use the expression of the time "just as it happened."

(Message last edited Oct-12th-02  10:03 AM.)

William Dolan says in his trial testimony that Andrews head was on a pillow, that was on a folded coat (the Prince Albert)that was on a  afghan sofa cover. So if this is true the pillow would have, I would think have absorbed the blood before it got to the coat.  So I then think that if they would have opened up the coat then and looked to see if there were any spatters on it (perhaps in addition to one big spot from any drench) that would have been a big clue, of course, to someone having had worn the coat as a cover-up. But they hadn't seen the Elizabeth Montgomery movie. Dolan does say in addition that he thinks he might have moved the coat! So we can go round in circles again about that.

Another interesting thing about your post regarding blood on Andrews shoes is that I have always remembered that Patrick Harrington, that man of great observation, said he saw "laced" shoes on Andrew when he viewed the body.  He is sure about that because in the trial testimony he is requestioned about it and told the photo shoes the Congress shoes, but he says that the photo is WRONG. 

There are several times the police say opposite things.

Thanks, Kat and Harry.  So, the pigeon coop was something that was upstairs on the rear of the barn.  Maybe Lizzie used to go out there and feed them like she fed the birds in later life at Maplecroft, no specific attachment to them directly, just that they were there and she could give them seed to eat?  Not pets, but, like someone who would throw out bread crumbs or whatever in their yard for the birds to eat.

Perhaps the barn break-ins was something Lizzie told Alice over time, 'oh, the barn was broken into last night, though nothing was taken.  Father thinks its boys after the pigeons'.  It doesn't sound like something that would have been newsworthy or important enough to notify the police about, so, Alice may be the only source for these break-ins.

Good find, Kat.  I never really thought about that before with Lizzie in the yard looking around at things like the pigeon coop, she would have had to be way back in the yard to do that.  Perhaps the "they" that closed off the coop was Andrew?  He killed what pigeons he found there and closed off the opening (or hired someone to do it) to keep more pigeons from coming back to roost.

And then they all migrated to California to hang out where I park my car! 

The area behind the barn is much larger than I had imagined it it be. There is a drawing in Rebello (pg 45) that if you assume the measurements to be correct would indicate there was approx. 19 feet between the back of the barn and the Chagnon fence.  It was about 17 feet wide, from the Churchill fence to the south edge of the barn.  So this was not a small confined area.

I wonder if Lizzie could have gone back there to pick up her pears and look up at the pigeon loft. That same drawing also shows a pear tree back there but I don't know whether that is accurate or a guess. 

It also indicates the clothes were buried in the north-west corner of that area behind the barn, near the Churchill fence.  Addie must have loved that.

(Message last edited Oct-12th-02  2:26 PM.)

  Poor Addie!  Thank you, Harry!  Every diagram I've ever seen of the Borden lot shows that the barn is almost right up against the back fence. So, 19 feet between, that is quite spacious, it almost sounds like that would have been a good area to have a home garden and grow vegetables and stuff instead of having another pear tree.

I still can't believe that John Morse took it upon himself to have the Borden's clothing and Abby's skull chunks buried.  As Edisto had stated, I think that the skull bits should have gone with the rest of Abby.  Strange that they treated them that way. 



(Message last edited Oct-12th-02  5:11 PM.)

This is a better layout of the barn area drawn to scale. The treea may or may not be in those exact spots.

Thanks to Len Rebello's book we have such great maps and pages like this. It's the ultimate resource when you are trying to solve something.  Now to get him to work on a better index and it would be a Rembrandt!

See next message for map.

(Message last edited Oct-12th-02  6:03 PM.)

Map of the Borden back yard (partial)

Harry, thank you so much!  I realize this doesn't help us solve the crime any better, but, being able to see the layout as it was at that time just does wonders, like seeing exactly where the clothing and such was buried!  Is that the Chagnon's doghouse to the left of the barn or Mrs. Churchill's?  What is that line of v....., is it a line of view from a neighbor's standpoint?  Its just so cool to see how big the Borden yard really was, I can almost imagine being there, feeling the heat, the smells of old wood from the barn, pears ripening, wilting grass.  Thank you again! 

The dotted line is a line of vision.  Thomas Kieran, the fellow who drew up the plans and blueprints testified to it at the trial (Part 1, pages 95-99).

It's somewhat complicated to explain but essentially it's what you could see of the barn door from a certain point on Second street (the Kelly house side).  Way too long to list. 

If you want I can e-mail you a full map which makes it somewhat easier to see.

Yes, please do, Harry!  Do you still have my email addy?  I would love to see the full pic!  Thank you! 

When you wrote that Susan, about the birds migrating to your place, it all became clear.

It seems simple now.

The pigeons are killed (and eaten) because they are FOWLING (fouling) the barn and the wood of the barn.  (All that years of pigeon excrement!)

Then Andrew contracts to have the house painted, and the barn and the fences.

The possible break-ins after pigeons may be just one more excuse for Andrew to do away with them before the barn gets a renovation.  This may also be at the same time the "loft" is closed up.

In a timeline, these things all happened  April/May/June of 1892.

If those pigeons were mucking up the place, and Andrew either had just painted or was just about to paint, he would have to slaughter the whole related colony to keep them from returning!

It sounds like you are on to something, Kat!  I had forgotten that the pigeon massacre and house painting were so close in time, that totally makes sense.  And I can testify, 10 pigeons can cover the back end of my car with droppings in like 15 minutes, I can imagine what they can do in however many years time!!!  Off with their heads! 

Now we need to figure out why it was put about that neighbor boys were breaking into the barn after pigeons.

-Maybe there were no barn breakins, and it was just *info* leaked to Bridget to spead the tale.  She mentions it in testimony (?) but knows no details.  This leak of info could be to *set up* what came later.
-Other than that, if true, why would kids bother the pigeons?
Could it have been something Else Someone was after?

They could have been stealing the birds to sell.
I saw that in the Marilyn Monroe book Goddess, she
found little boys catching pigeons to sell & she would
show up every week to pay them to let them go.

(Message last edited Oct-13th-02  9:25 PM.)

That sounds reasonable.
You'd think ole Andrew would ask the kids to take the pigeons...
But I suppose he didn't want Any Kida or Any Pigeons on his property.
Maybe that's why there was barbed wire on the back fence?
Now that we know the loft was in the rear of the barn, the back fence would be a sure and sneaky way to get at the pigeons, if by *boy*.
Gosh, if boys even snuck around back there they could really be a hazzard!

Well, if this helps any, when my twin and I were about 3 and a half, we went exploring in the basement of a neighboring apartment building, it was a garden apartment complex.  While in the basement we found a cage with 3 carrier pigeons in it, we felt sorry for them locked up in the dark basement and my brother decided we would free them.  As we were leaving the basement with the birds the owner saw us and gave chase with us running with these damn pigeons hanging on to us for dear life.  My mom heard us screaming and came running out to see what was going on.  The guy got back his pigeons, my mom and the guy thought that the pigeons had gotten out of the cage and on us and that we were terrified of them and thats why we ran shrieking home.

Bottom line in my opinion is, where there are pigeons and small kids, trouble will abound.  Its too enticing knowing that they are there!  Oh, and we did go and visit the pigeons on occasion after that incident, with the owner's knowledge and blessing. 

Awwww, Susan, how sweet. That explains so much, the pigeons
hang out by your apartment now because they like you!

Sorry folks, I double posted.

(Message last edited Oct-14th-02  11:48 PM.)

I thought *boys* might be trouble.
I pictured them congregating behind the barn, (kids like "Me & Brownie", maybe) smoking cigarettes.  I suppose that's because Lizzie anticipated *They might burn the house down around us*...and that may be where she got the idea to add that catastrophe to her *littany of doom*.

But, of all the places in Fall River, what would be so attractive about hanging out behind old man Borden's barn?  A thought struck me, Miss Bridget's bedroom up on the third floor, window facing out back.  Perhaps the boys gathered in the evening to get a peep at our Bridget and stood back there smoking and daring each other to break into the barn and grab some birds.  Boys will be boys. 

Tell the truth, who would peep at Bridget when the heavenly
Miss Chagnon was right in the next house? Are there windows in
the barn looking over the Chagnon's?

LOL. There was a window in the rear of the barn.  Maybe they even seen an ankle or two.

She was reported to have made a "sensation" at the trial.  Kept the old guys on the jury awake anyway.

I would love to see a picture or a sketch of her, anybody
know of any? I wonder what a babe circa 1893 looked like?
If she caused a sensation then, could she cause one now?
Since there was a window overlooking the house, that seems like
it might be a good reason for 'boys to be boys'.

(Message last edited Oct-15th-02  9:31 PM.)

In Rebello there are courtroom sketches of most of the witnesses. The Chagnons (step-mother and daughter) are shown.  She doesn't look exactly like a babe but I have found few of the sketches resemble the person.

Lizzie is shown in numerous sketches and I don't think she looks alike in any two and few if any resemble her photographs.

The written descriptions of Miss Chagnon describe her as quite pretty but absence of a photo we'll never know.

One intriguing thing is that Mlle. Chagnon is described as having on makeup.  That probably meant she ws somewhat "fast."  Someone said she was "A very well-looking young lady."  I agree with Harry that you couldn't tell it from her picture.  She looks kinda studious.  Mrs. Dr. Kelly looks more attractive in her courtroom sketch.  I can see how Lizzie herself got a lot of fun out of the sketches of her.  In some she looks like a gargoyle (I know the feeling!), while in others she's quite attractive.  Eyewitnesses seemed to have a problem describing Lizzie too.  One of the newspaper stories described her on the day of the funeral as "fresh-looking," and there were some flattering comments on her figure, but then there was that statement about her "massive jaw."  The poor woman was on trial for murder.  That's gotta ruin your day.  Couldn't they cut her some slack?

I agree, the sketches of Lizzie were usually awful, they never
took pictures at the trial did they? Even a few candid shots
from outside the courthouse would do. Maybe someone did & they
will surface eventually. It was such a popular case even then, it would be nice to have a real look at everyone, it seems like you really get to know them & it is a shame not to know who looked
like what.

I wish I knew more of the state of photography in 1892-93.  There didn't seem to be much progress from the stylized Civil War photos at least in the studio shots.

I don't think newspapers could print photos but I may be wrong.  Photos probably had to be staged pretty carefully with hardly any movement.  I don't think Lizzie would stand around and pose for them.  It would be fantastic though if we did have some of all these people.

Porter's book has a lot of head photos of the police officers and some of the main characters.

Where is Tracie?

She's our photography expert...


I did find a drawing advertising KODAK and the female looks garbed in 1890's fashion.  She's holding, I THINK, a box camera like a BROWNIE, but this can't be, can it?  The site from which I captured the print had no date or explanation...

(Message last edited Oct-16th-02  2:16 AM.)

I do recall one photograph that's entitled, "Arrival of Miss Lizxie Borden at the Police Station," on page 88 in Porter.  It shows a bunch of carriages and people milling around, but I've never been able to pick out Lizzie.  It appears that Porter judiciously avoided using pictures of the live members of the Borden family.  Maybe he was afraid of a lawsuit.  I think this picture was taken in Fall River at the time of the preliminary hearing, because it appears in that section of the book.  On page 144 in Rebello, there's a photo of the Fall River Central Police Station, supposedly taken about 1892. Porter has another, closer view of the police station (p. 95).  It's quite a candid shot and shows a street sweeper, among other people.   I think you're probably right that the printing processes of the time didn't allow the newspapers to print photos, although I believe I've seen some that were printed in the papers a short time later.  Is it the rotogravure process that permitted the printing of photos?  There's probably some good info on the Net about this.

Kodak manufactured about 200 models of folding cameras, from 1890 untill about 1960. Many of them were similar in appearance. If you wish to establish when the picture was taken, it would probably be more accurate if you fixed the date of her dress.

From what I am aware photos taken during that age were an investment and took a lot of time so people tried to look their best.  And a photo is a matter of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Newspaper sketches during the trial were made by male reporters, I believe, who had a stake on portraying women so they didn't appear to be intelligent or have as much importance as the men in the trial. The temper of the times was even more gender related than today. Even Justice Dewey in his charge to the jury described a female witness as not having as much weight as a man because she was a woman. All through the trial transcript there are continual references to women being of lesser value, it seems a very chauvinistic document. So I am not surprised to see women in the sketches as lacking the same strength as is given to men. 

The populace did not want to believe a woman did the crime, that would place her above a man for her to have committed an even more heinous crime than a man ever did.

That doesn't mean that little boys didn't peep in windows and men didn't traffic in prostitution. They had the best of both worlds. They kept women either as a flower of domesticity or sex objects. So this is why it is not surprising for me to see the illustrations such as they are during the trial.   

The slow speed of film then, and the inability (?) of printing photographs may have prevented any photographs.
The "right of privacy" was created by a Supreme Court decision circa 1902 (?). That's why "true life" candid photos only show the "down and out"; they won't sue for invasion of privacy, or, can be bought off cheaply.

What I'm wondering though is does someone who is in jail and on trial for murder have the same rights as all others?  I'm thinking of the OJ trial, remember how quickly his mug shot picture was broadcast?  Would it be the same in Lizzie's era, would any photos taken of her at the time become public property until she was proven innocent?  I'm am very curious what the ruling was on that for prisoners! 

That's a really interesting question, Susan.  Of course, O. J. Simpson was a public person before he got into trouble with the law, and I know the rules with regard to public persons are different from those that apply to me, for example.  I recall a couple of occasions when I was photographed in a public setting and then asked to sign a release in case the pix were published somewhere.  However, if I had been (for example) Winona Ryder, the same rule wouldn't have applied.  Winona seems to be getting her picture taken a lot these days, and I doubt if she's terribly happy about it. 

Rebello
pg. 359
"Edwin Porter Served Notice by Andrew J. Jennings"

Edwin H. Porter, a reporter for the Fall River Daily Globe, published his book, The Fall River Tragedy, in 1893 and was sold by subscription.  The subscription copy, bound like the original, included 48 pages of the book, a photograph of Andrew J. Borden, and order form listing the names of subscribers.  (Fall River Historical Society Archives).  Victoria Lincoln, in A Private Disgrace (1967), wrote, 'Lizzie bought off the printer, a local, and the books were destroyed before they hit the shop.'  It has been rumored Lizzie bought all the books and burned them.

It is known that Lizzie, through her attorney, made an attempt to cease publication of Porter's book if it was published before the trial, contained any false statements and photographs she did not want published.  Local newspapers, except the Fall River Daily Globe, reported on January 31, 1893, that Edwin H. Porter, George H. Buffinton and John D. Monroe had been served with a formal notice by Lizzie's attorney, Andrew J. Jennings.  Jennings objected to the use of any pictures of Lizzie Borden, Emma Borden, John V. Morse, Andrew J. Borden or himself.  It was thought by Jennings that Porter's book was to be published before the trial and would prejudice his client's case.
     
'You are therefore hereby notified that you will be held directly accountable for all statements published in such book or pamphlet, and for any false statements or colorful description you will be promptly prosecuted;  and you are also hereby forbidden to publish or print any likeness or pretended likeness in any form, or to reproduce any photograph or portrait of said Andrew J, Borden or of said Lizzie A. Borden or of Emma L. Borden, of John V. Morse, of myself or any attorney connected with the defense, and that in case of any publication an injunction will be promptly applied for, and such other legal proceedings taken as may be deemed expedient.'

The notice was sent to Porter, Buffinton and Monroe by Deputy Sheriff Samuel Hadfield.  Curiously, Abby D. Borden's name did not appear on the list of photographs.  According to the Fall River Daily Herald, Mr. Porter met with Att. Jennings on Monday and explained to him that his book would not be published until after Lizzie's trial.  The photographs were not used in the book."

Sources:  Fall River Daily Herald, January 31, 1893: 7
New Bedford Daily Mercury, January 31, 1893: 2
New Bedford Evening Journal, January 31, 1893: 3  [etc]

Thank you, Edisto and Kat!  From your two posts it sounds as though if you were some sort of celebrity, people could photograph you and publish it to their heart's content.  But, if you were a private citizen such as Lizzie, you could successfully sue the publishers of photographs without your consent.  I have experienced that when out at our local nightclubs, they have photographers that snap pics all night and they get you to sign a release as soon as your photo is taken.

I totally understood that with Emmer and John Morse as they were not the ones one trial.  How sad that poor Abby's name was not included, not even for pretense. 

I've wondered if "George Buffinton" (who isn't mentioned in Hoffman's book) was related to Mrs. Churchill. 

WHY before the trial? Certainly the newspapers were apperently doing just that. Unless there were different laws concerning "news" rather than a book? Did Porter's book contain pictures of Lizzie, Uncle John, or Andy and Abby? In this country's laws, the dead have no rights to privacy.

If I were to say some ordinary citizen was a "serial killer" I could be sued; after his conviction it would be different. Or why the press always say "the alleged killer". You can't always tell about juries, as Judge Dewey said.

I don't remember much about the TIME cover of OJ but that they darkened his complexion (to hide the fact that he had no bruises or scratches on his face). I did read that they photo-edited his face to create a scowl; anyone here know for sure?

Rays said, "In this country's laws, the dead have no rights to privacy."  Then why is it that we failed to get the undisclosed Robinson papers released?

OMYGOSH!  And the autopsy photo's of Dale Earnhardt are no longer public property in Florida though we paid for it!

Ray, I just happen to have my list right here of whose photo was Excluded from Porter:

No Jubb
No Sarah Borden
No Morse
No Lizzie
No Emma
No Ed Wood
No Dewey
No Blodgett
No Moody
No Adams
No Jennings

--don't know why

I wonder if it had something to do with the threat of the lawsuit? Yet, Porter did manage to put in his picture of Andrew!  That was one of the ones that Lizzie, Emma, and John did not want in there, hmmm, curiouser and curiouser! 

Sort of to Edisto & Susan:

Rebello, 359
"Note:  George H. Buffinton was the manager of the Fall River Daily Globe.  John D. Monroe was the owner of J. D. Monroe, Job Printer, 21 Bedford Street in Fall River.  The photograph of Att. Robinson in Porter's book is actually Oliver Ames of Easton, Massachusetts.  (See Chafflin, History of Easton, p. 258).  *Andrew Borden's photograph does not appear in all copies of Porter's book."

-*-Whatever that means...
--George H. Buffinton is not in either Glossary of Knowlton Papers.  This "Note" is the only cite for him in Rebello, as well.  I wonder if he is in Victorian Vistas?
--Remember in the Privy, from the news items transcribed in Rebello?  There's an article that's almost like an interview *off the record* with Andrew, about his business vision?
Because of his name, wealth and finacial acumen, he may have been considered a public figure after all?

(Message last edited Oct-18th-02  3:46 AM.)

Thank you, Kat.  Perhaps you are right with Andrew being a public figure, that picture looks like it was taken for something other than a home display photo, which may be why it was allowed to be used?

As for all the Porter books not having the Andrew pic in it, maybe it was in the immediate vicinity, Massachusetts and the surrounding states that didn't have it? 

Please think about your question. The "papers" are legal property and belong to a LIVING firm. That's my answer.
What if they went out of business? Would it become publicly available if it were donated to a public institution.

From what I learned the papers are protected by the Robinson firm not just because they are legal papers but because the client/attorney relationship is honored at the expense of public knowledge and time, and that relationship is covered even though the client is dead.  Therefore the dead have rights, at least in Massachusetts.

Your other two questions you will have to address to the firm, and I would really like to know what kind of response you get. I believe William Masterson of "Lizzie Didn't Do It" wrote several articles about this issue in the LBQ. Ask him.