1. "Those trips to the cellar"
Posted by harry on Oct-19th-02 at 12:22 AM

Alice testified she did not remember which way they started to go to the cellar, whether by the front or rear stairs.

It appears from the testimony of Officer Hyde they went via the front stairs (pg 834):

Q.  Where were you standing when you saw her?
A.  I was standing on the east end of the house.
Q.  Will you describe what you saw them do?
A.  Miss Lizzie and Miss Russell came out of the sitting room. Miss Russell was carrying a small hand lamp.  Miss Lizzie had a toilet pail. They came through the kitchen into the entryway, down the cellar stairs, into the cellar. ........

If they had gone the back stairs, which would have been much shorter then there would have been no reason to come from the sitting room through the kitchen.

Lizzie in her solo trip had to come down the front steps as well. Alice testified she was unaware of the second trip (made about 10-15 minutes after the first) which means Lizzie did not pass through the senior Borden's bedroom where Alice was. Alice said the door between the bedrooms was closed at least some of the time.

I thought maybe Lizzie was so used to using the front stairs that it didn't occur to her to pass through the elder Borden's room on that first trip to the cellar.
Either that or:
A) She wanted to pick something up on her way down that necessitated her going through the sitting room
or
B) She already had it in her mind to go down unbeknownst (?) to Alice...just slip quietly down there but Alice noticed and joined her as they left Lizzie's room through her west door.

This exit doesn't make to much sense at all, because if one were not preoccupied with doing something secretly, then it seems as if a normal reaction would be to take those back stairs expressly to AVOID any proximity to those bodies in the dining room!

I've found that to be very odd too!  The first trip to the cellar where Alice went with Lizzie, what was the problem of using the short-cut?  Alice already saw that Lizzie was going down, why not use the back staircase?  I personally would have done that to avoid going through a murder room and being so near those mutilated bodies!  Yuck! 

The second trip for Lizzie to the cellar, whether secretive or innocent, seems to have had to be by the front stairs as Alice was bathing at the time and the connecting door from Lizzie's room was most probably shut.  No way to slip through unannounced.  And I have to wonder while all this was going on, where was Emma?  Yes, in her room, but, was she awake, was she asleep, was her door open or shut? 

It is so strange that nobody except Bridget was spooked by
being there. Surely they must have started to smell by the end
of that hot day, how could they stand it knowing what it was?
And Uncle John remained in the guest room, correct? Even if they
were not really squeamish about dead bodies it still seems like they would have been a little afraid of being killed by the maniac in their sleep. If it was Lizzie, would anyone expect her not to flip out again?

Where was Emma?
We seem to be asking this a lot.

I suppose if any of us were just a regular family for 40 years and then Something Like This happens to put us all under a microscope, not much would be known of us back then, either.

So I assume Emma lived nonchalantly, which the dictionary says means "casually indifferent, without warmth or enthusiasm."...and doesn't leave much of a trail.

As to being afraid, some people think the survivors were in the safest place in town that night, what with being guarded and surrounded by police!  (They may have changed their minds later, tho...)

I would think though with Alice there and her powers of observation, when it didn't come to a dress, would have something to say about Emma's whereabouts or state of being.  I'm sure at the time, that it really wasn't anything too important to Alice, an ordinary trip to the WC.  But, when she was asked about it, Alice was able to elaborate on the trip, but, nothing about what Emma was doing at the moment.  Was she crying over the loss of her father?  Was she dancing a jig because Abby was gone? 

Didn't the police stay outside? If Lizzie (or any of the
others) was capable of murder, that somebody was a nut. Who
would turn their back on them ever?
 

The police said that Uncle John was staying in the attic room next to Bridgets.

Maybe Alice was with Lizzie in her room when she decided to take the slop pail downstairs, so they went together down the front stairs. One thing I have wondered about was that in her inquest statement Lizzie says that a key was needed to enter the Borden's bedroom, because the lock on the door from their side required a key to open. I believe Alice Russell said she thought the police on Thursday opened that door and looked in to Lizzie's room before Lizzie went up at noon.  That would mean they would have needed a key or broke the lock by pulling it out, as Alice mentioned might have been done.

If the connecting door was re-locked maybe Lizzie didn't have a key in her room to open it so that would mean she would HAVE to go down the front to get to the basement. Was there any testimony that was given that stated that door was kept open when Alice stayed in the Borden bedroom?

The testimony also told that the door between the sitting room and dining room was closed off during the night and the bodies were in there, weren't they?

Inquest
Lizzie
Pg. 57+
A. Father's bedroom door was kept locked, and his door into my room was locked and hooked too I think, and I had no keys.
Q. That was the custom of the establishment?
A. It had always been so.
Q. It was so Wednesday, and so Thursday?
A. It was so Wednesday, but Thursday they broke the door open.
Q. That was after the crowd came; before the crowd came?
A. It was so.
Q. There was no access, except one had a key, and one would have to have two keys?
A. They would have to have two keys if they went up the back way to get into my room. If they were in my room, they would have to have a key to get into his room, and another to get into the back stairs.
................
Inquest
Alice
Pg. 153
Q.  When you went into the daughters room, did you have to go down stairs and come up?
A.  You dont have to if the other side was unlocked.
Q.  After the tragedy was it unlocked, so you could go through?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  It was open then?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  After the tragedy the door was  unlocked?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  So when you wanted to go to Lizzie or Emma's, you went in through?
A.  Yes Sir.
......
Preliminary
Alice
Pg. 295
A.  I remember being up in Mr. And Mrs. Borden's rooms with some officer, I remember their asking me about the rooms that went out of it. The door into Miss Lizzie's room was hooked. They pulled the screw out, I judged. I remember I asked them to let me look in first; I did not know what the condition of the room was. I pulled the portiere aside, and looked in, and said it is all right, and they went in. I do not recollect whether I went in or not.
..............
Trial, Alice, Pg. 386+:
Alice says the police "pulled it open"...[the door between Lizzie's bedroom and the elder Bordens]...there was a "hook and screw eye" on Lizzie's side..."it was pulled out"...and that later in the afternoon she saw Lizzie "screwing it in."

Uncle John in the room next to Bridget? But didn't she then refuse to spend another night in that house? Maybe that's the reason?

That's the testimony I remember except for Alice stating the doors were then always open after the murder.  I wonder why the police broke into the door instead of asking Lizzie or Emma for a key to the Borden bedroom side? 

I also would like to know where that key was kept.  Did Andrew keep it in his bedroom on yet another chain of keys. We all know he kept the key to his bedroom from the back hall separate because he placed it on the mantel downstairs when not in use. This means that Andrew had control of the locks in the bedroom area, not Lizzie.

I have no good answer now as to why the ladies went down the front stairs with the slop pail unless it was out of force of habit on Lizzie's part.

I am not sure that Bridget would have considered Uncle John sleeping in the room next to her a threat because after the murders the police were all over the house all day and she had a lock on her door too.
Maybe, of course, he snored profusely.

Trial
Bridget
Pg. approx. 331
Q.  Did you remain at the house after the homicide any length of time?
A.  I stayed there. I went out Thursday night and slept out in Mrs. Miller's girl's house, and Friday night I slept in the house.
Q.  You mean Mrs. Miller's house with the girl?
A.  With the servant. I slept with her Thursday night.
Q.  On Thursday night?
A.  Yes, sir, and I came back Friday morning, stayed there all through the time and did the work and Friday night I went out and came back and slept in the house.
Q.  In the Borden house?
A.  Yes, sir, and Saturday night I left for good as I thought, and came back Monday and Mr. Miller said I should not leave the house until he came and took me out.
Q.  You did not stay there Saturday night?
A.  No, sir, -- or Sunday night.
Q.  You were not there Sunday morning?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Were you there Sunday at all for any part of the day?
A.  No, sir, I came there Monday morning.

--I wonder where Bridget went Friday night to visit?
--The authorities took Andrew's keys Thursday
--Lizzie said earlier she had no key to her common door with the elder Bordens.  [Inquest, 57, "I had no keys..."]
--It might be, since Lizzie screwed that hook back in, that she DID intend to keep that door "locked" in the future.  I tried to think why?  Because of Emma, who may have moved to that larger room after Alice left for good?  Or because Morse was still there?
Trying to figure out why she put the hook back up again...

Well, I was thinking, even innocently, Lizzie could have wanted privacy in her room.  If she couldn't lock the door between Andrew's bedroom and her own, would she feel comfortable using the chamberpot at night or such?

Then, on a sinister level, perhaps Lizzie had more things to do, to hide, to do away with, and wanted to be able to secure her room as best she could, that extra door without a lock was a hindrance to that. 

If Emma moved to the master bedroom, but previously had occupied a room adjacent to, and Part Of Lizzie's room for the past 20 years (and vice-versa as they switched rooms), I don't think Lizzie especially needed privacy from Emma.  They'd probably had adjoining rooms,( if not Sharing a room at FerryStreet), their whole lives.
I also don't think Lizzie needed to worry about hiding something from Emma.  I think Emma had a good idea of what had been going on.
Maybe it was because of Morse, but I can't see him barging in on her those (possibly) few days he stayed there.
Maybe it was just because that door had *always* had a lock, that it made her feel more back to normal, and comfortable, to have that hook there?
Maybe she put it back in anticipation of new hired help, knowing Bridget wouldn't be back after Monday?
Well, Lizzie wasn't back home alone with Emma very long, herself, was she, before being incarcerated.
Imagine being the new housekeeper (Hannah?)...taking a job there?
Wouldn't the press slip her $ to look in drawers and report back?
Would YOU take that job?

(Message last edited Oct-23rd-02  7:06 AM.)

At first I thought, no, I wouldn't take that job, but, on second thought, yes, I would!  As a true Bordenite, I would have gotten in there and dug around, befriended Emmer and try to get her to talk!

Yes, I agree with you, Kat, I don't think that Lizzie had anything to hide from Emma, what I was thinking was Alice staying there.  She was a loose cannon!  If Lizzie had anything to hide it would be from Alice.

And, maybe it did make Lizzie feel more comfortable and back to normal with her door rehooked, it had been that way for so many years.  Maybe Lizzie was afraid of John Morse and thought that if she could lock that door, her room would be more secure, though the police certainly had no problem yanking out that hook! 

It is strange that none of their maids (or friends for that
matter) ever cashed in & wrote a tell all. I don't think
Victoria Lincoln counts, even if she did live close by. It's
not like they didn't write gossipy books back then. Why were
they being so loyal? Most of Lizzie's 'friends' left her
after the trial, that wasn't loyal in the least. You would think
someone would have had a little something to tell on her/them.

I not old enough to know the real facts; didn't live there either.
But do any of you know of friends or family who suffered a murder in the family? Didn't this have some effect on these? Staying away during the mourning period, etc?

I once read about some old boyhood friend; their young son died in an at home accident. A year or so later they were divorced, altho neither were at home at the time.

Rays, the closest I can come to that is a friend of a friend commited suicide at her parent's house (she didn't live there) and anyone who knew her or the family, flew to the family's side during the horrible aftermath.

To my way of thinking, I would want to be there for my friends or family immediately after, thats when they need the love and support the most.

That's because you are kind and compassionate.

But, people DO often divorce after the death of a child.
A simple example would be John Walsh.

Susan were that friend's friends parents divorced or seperated when the suicide happened?  Are the parents still together?

I was reading about GRIEF in "Our Bodies Ourselves" last week and it states that people tend to stay away after a bereavement.  They don't know what to say or do, and they feel the family may need time alone.  Whether this is right or wrong, probably depends on each family's needs...but it was considered normal for people to stay away, and cautioned those in grief to try and understand that reaction.

(Message last edited Oct-25th-02  2:04 AM.)

The parents of the girl are still together as of this date, poor things.  I personally had only met her once, so, was not involved with the family.

I understand that about a bereavement, but, I fight it conciously because I know thats when people need someone to lean on, or a hand to hold or just a hug.  Sometimes they need to talk about what happened, sometimes they need the distraction of talking about other things, it all depends on the situation.

The John Walsh of television fame, America's Most Wanted, who had a son murdered, did stay with his wife, they just had a period of turmoil which then led to their television mission on behalf of victims of such crimes.

I think that the door between the Borden's bedroom and Lizzie's wasn't locked, nor were all the other doors locked up, except only after the house break-in when Mrs. B's things were taken, at least that is what I have read.  Maybe what I have read is just what people presume to have been true and the locks were on from the time they moved in 20 some years previous to the murders?

Robinson went on about the police interrogating Lizzie during her time of mourning on Thursday, that it was "impertinent," etc. but the judge in his charge to the jury told the jury to not hold against the defendant the words of her counsel in that matter. Interesting.

http://www2.amw.com/site/walsh_bio.html
Cool.  I'm glad you pointed that out, Carol!

As to all the doors locked before the robbery, I have never been assured of that as standard proceedure.
Morse does specify the front door and I believe implies the side door were always locked and that the family was careful about that. [Inq. 102]
Lizzie does say about locking her bedroom door that's shared with the elder Borden's "It had always been so." [Inq. 57]

As to the rest of the doors, I never knew for sure, either.

(Message last edited Oct-26th-02  3:09 AM.)

From Bridget's testimony in the Preliminary Hearing, Volume 1:

Page 4
(on the door between the elder Borden's room and Lizzie's.)
Q. Do you know how the arrangement of that house was, whether it was usual to go through -- was there any way of going from the back stairs to the front part of the house?
A. I don't know anything about it; but there was a door there; I do not know whether it was kept locked or not.

Q. Where was that?
A. The door going from Mr. Borden's room into Miss Lizzie's.

Page 5

Q. You had to go through that door?
A. The door was there.  I went through the afternoon of the murder.

Q. After the murder, it was open then?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see it open before?
A. No.  I did not have any business there before.

(on the cellar door.)

Page 16

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Borden had anything to do about seeing that the back door was shut up?
A. Yes, sir.  He was always seen a Monday, or whatever day the clothes would be taken in, that it was locked; for he always took in the clothes line himself.

Q. And saw that the door was locked?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 17

Q. You did shut up the door yourself on Tuesday, and locked it by a bolt inside?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Anythingelse (sic) besides a bolt?
A. No, sir.

(on Andrew and Abby's room)

Page 22

Q. That room was kept locked?
A. Yes, sir.

(on the rooms in the attic)

Page 51

Q. You slept up stairs in the attic, the back side of the house, overlooking the back yard?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. There are other rooms in the attic?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. All locked up?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Been in the habit of being locked up since you lived there?
A. Yes, sir.

It sounds to me as though every door in that house that could be locked or bolted, was so.   

(Message last edited Nov-3rd-02  3:33 PM.)

I forgot about that cellar door!
Thanks Susan.
Well, we know that Bridget says the doors were locked to the rooms to the attic since she was there, specifically.
She implies she doesn't know anything about the second floor doors.
I do remember she says at one point that she had seen the girls coming down the back stairs and it was turned into am implication that there was at least sometimes free passage from the second floor down to the first floor.
I always thought that maybe the girls were just coming from Mrs. Borden's room...we couldn't know if they came all the way THRU.

Yes, I agree, we don't know for sure if Lizzie and Emma came through the connecting door to the elder Borden's room to use the back stairs.  My thought was perhaps they had gone to the attic, it sounds as though they kept things up there, clothing, dress patterns and such, and Bridget may have seen them after they had come down.

The only door on the second floor that Bridget seems to be specific about being locked is Andrew and Abby's bedroom door.  But, she gives no time line on that, was it always so, or, just so after the robbery? 

Oh, the attic.
That's an interesting observation.
I don't think anyone mentioned that before.
Bridget seemed to be trying to be VERY literal, I wonder why she didn't say that about the attic...maybe too literal?
Now I'm going to have to find where she said that about the back stairs, to see if the attic fits.

Kat, I think I found what you were refering to, Trial Vol. 1, Bridget Sullivan on the stand, Page 209/i230:

Q. Have you ever known people to go to the front part by way of the back stairs, or to the back part by way of the front stairs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. When?
A. Once in a while I used to see the girls, Miss Lizzie and Miss Emma, coming down the back stairs.

Q. So they must have gone through, of course, in order to have done that?
A. Yes, sir.

But, it is still my supposition here that 'the girls' may have gone up the back stairs to the attic and come down and thats when Bridget spied them.  Just because they were coming down the back stairs did not mean that they also didn't go up them in the first place.  And, that would mean 2 doors would have to have been unlocked, the door between Lizzie's room and the elder Borden's and the door from Andrew and Abby's bedroom into the hall.  Maybe this was so before the robbery? 

I think you're right in your supposition.
I thought similarly...just because they were seen coming down doesn't mean they *went through*.  Now I see the testimony it is the Questioner who places that thought in peoples minds!  Thanks.

I would think that connecting door was always locked. Period.
2 girls versus the elder's bedroom?
Maybe when they were children it was unlocked...but somehow I can't see Emma ever as a *child*.

(Message last edited Nov-5th-02  9:34 PM.)

But, Kat, I'm right here, young Emmer, in the flesh!

I recall someone mentioning that on the forum, this type of questioning, I don't recall who or their exact words, maybe it was even you?

I'm thinking since "baby Lizzie" had Emmer to tuck her in at night just off of her bedroom, there wouldn't be a reason to have that door unlocked for Andrew or Abby to come through.  Didn't Lizzie have Scarlet fever or something that Abby nursed her through?  In a situation like that I could see that door being unlocked for convenience. 

Emma wasn't a child in that house. Wasn't she already about 20 or 21 years old when they moved into the 92nd Street house? She was born in 1851 and they moved in in 1872.

Ok, a thought and a question.

Thought: Perhaps Lizzie's passage through the sitting room without Alice that occurred 10-15 minutes after she and Alice went down to the cellar went like this: Lizzie wanted a private moment with her father, for whatever reason (to apologize for it all, to say goodbye, to have a conversation with him) and she started down the front way so as not to get Alice into it or let her know what she was doing because she wanted to be alone. So Alice happens to come into the room as Lizzie is getting ready to go down and she asks Lizzie where she is going and Lizzie says the cellar and Alice says I will come with you (being the friendly gal she was) and so they go down. They come up and Lizzie still didn't have her private time so she waits for Alice to go into the master bedroom and close the door and she sneaks back down and has her private moment. Two trips.

Question: Susan, I had never heard of Lizzie having scarlett fever. That could be big news. Can't scarlett fever have an affect on you your whole life? Where did you read that? Do you remember?

Stefani, I don't recall if it was something I saw on one of the Lizzie shows or read, but, I seem to recall that Scarlet fever was mentioned in relation to her.  I wish I had a better answer for you. 

But, aside from that, unless Emma or Lizzie was afflicted with any of the childhood diseases, I don't see any reason for that door between the elder Borden's bedroom and Lizzie's to be unlocked.

That sort of jogged my memory Susan. Now that I think about it, I have a vague memory of seeing and hearing Michael Martins talking about this on some documentary. Does anyone else have a more precise reading of this?

That is an interesting thought, but considering Alice's temperament I wonder if she would volunteer to go into the basement, a dark place, where she would have to pass by the closed up sitting room where the bodies were. Lizzie didn't need any help in carrying the slop pail, she had done it for years. I believe a police officer testified that he thought Alice was trembling or seeeming to be very scared downstairs in the basement so that would indicate she was frightened. I just don't see her motivation for wanting to go down with Lizzie, especially as it seems Alice didn't use the facilities down there.

Well just because Alice didn't want to go doesn't mean she didn't out of friendship. I realize I am totally speculating here, but we know she did go, and that Lizzie went again alone. The fact that the first trip was with Alice, who you said was frightened, means she went when she was fearful. Why go if you are fearful? To help a friend in need. Two people walking past the dead body is less scary than one, and maybe Alice didn't want Lizzie to have to do that alone.

I fits with her personality, in my opinion. She apparently struggled over revealing the dress burning incident. She had to choose between her friendship and her conscious. She knew she would have to live with herself for the rest of her life, while Lizzie's fickle (my characterization entirely) manner may blow their friendship away in a few weeks or years.

If doing the right thing is so important to Alice in the end, as is evidenced by her telling on Lizzie about the dress, then her accompanying Lizzie down to the cellar so she would not have be alone with the dead body of her father seems quite in character. At least to me.

Coming from the point of view that Alice was doing this out of friendship and concern for Lizzie I can see how you can come to those conclusions or thoughts.

But, you say in your proposition that it was Alice who brought it up that she accompany Lizzie down cellar. Therefore we are assuming here then that Alice is a woman of integrity, ethics and extreme sensitivity, willing to put herself in discomfort and even fright in order to make Lizzie more comfortable on the trip to the cellar. And doing the right thing, according to her conscience, is important to Alice, so important that she will sacrifice friendship for it later regarding the burning of the dress.

I am not sure I ascribe lofty motivations to Alice. You say in your proposition story that it was Alice who brought it up to Lizzie that she accompany her down cellar. I'm not sure Alice Russell's motiviations weren't those of, not actually a spy, but one who thought she needed to keep her eye on Lizzie's movements perhaps not in a nosy or controlling way. 

Alice was older than Lizzie, knew her for years and years, yet from what I understand, was more Emma's friend than Lizzie's. Perhaps she had adopted the same attitude toward Lizzie as Emma had, that of a sort of type of mother figure.  Mother figures need to have control over their charges.  Not all control is blatent, a lot of it is covert manipulation over time.

Alice's telling on Lizzie of the dress burning also could appear to me to operate possibly so that instead of conscience, it could  have been more a matter of exercising authority over Lizzie.

Also, just thinking along this tack, it could have been that Alice was relieved when at the Inquest and Preliminary Hearing she wasn't asked a question which would make her reveal her knowledge of the burning of the dress. So she didn't exactly conceal evidence.  She would have no reason to think that the matter would be brought up on its own in trial either. So instead of conscience perhaps the motivation was desire to release information that could be used by the prosecution against Lizzie. Perfect cover, because everyone would think she was a really good soul. I have to laugh at that because it reminds me of what Knowlton said of women....they are cunning, etc. etc.  I would like to think friendships were all loyalty and good feelings but human beings are not always nice to one another.

By Grand Jury time I would assume that the Borden girls had made it a point that the friendship was over so that was the last opportunity Alice had to release that information. Her motivations could have come about from revenge against the sisters for not appreciating her four day stay. The four day stay ended right after the dress burning, it ended on a somber sad note and at that point I think they went their separate ways.

I think Alice chose what information she released.

I have more thoughts but they aren't manifesting right now. Later,

     

I would only like to remark here that I have "collected" a lot on Alice in a Word Doc. for study, and have found from her own testimony that Alice believed herself to be *equal* friends with Lizzie and with Emma.
And that Alice left the Borden home on Monday, probably due to having to go back to work, but that was 24 hours after the *dress-burning* (of which we have no direct witness), and not right away.
Alice is also asked, at the Inquest:  "Anything Else?" but she doesn't tell of the dress.  "Any fact you can tell me?", and she doesn't tell about the dress.  "Is there any other that I have not asked you about?"  and she doesn't mention the dress.
For whatever reason....

The reason sounds to me as Stefani supposed, that Alice initially felt she was doing the right thing by standing by her friend.  I may have dawned on her over time just how important that dress was to the prosecution and she alone held the key to it.  Alice doesn't appear to be someone who liked to be in the spotlight and telling her story did just that to her, put her in the spotlight!  Poor Alice was most probably brought up with that ideal from the era that a lady composes herself in such a way that the 'breath of scandal' never touches her.  And here she is thrust right into this maelstrom of scandal, the crime of the century!

I always thought that 'the girls' dropped Alice as a friend after this testimony, but, do we know that for sure?  Look at how Lizzie dropped Emma out of her life and not once looked back, she does sound fickle to me too. 

We don't know which sister dropped the other out of her life or if it was mutual. What happened at Maplecroft to caused the separation between the sisters was never clear.  We do know that Emma left and was quoted as saying that she would not have left if things had not become unbearable.  So it was Emma that left Lizzie physically. There is no evidence that Lizzie threw her sister out, is there?

We don't know when the friendship between Alice and the Borden sisters broke. I think it began to unravel when Alice said she would go to the detective about the dress, and that was the morning after the dress burning and also the day Alice left the house. The sister DID tell Alice to go to the detective if she felt she had to, but at that point I think they knew Alice's disposition was not toward presenting a picture to the detective of watching an innocent act but on exposing what she experienced as a nefarious act. Alice made her decision then which side of the fence she was on and actually withheld the information, as Kat says, at the inquest. So if Alice is such a dear soul protecting her friends at the expense of her conscience, it took a L O N G time for her conscience to kick in. And with respect to her conscience, Alice was not that forthcoming in her testimony, was she, failing to remember many answers to questions.

It is difficult to think of Alice as anything but a poor dear kind sweet lady, but human nature proves out to have many dimensions of which we all have pieces of and they are not all positive. I think the situation between Alice and the Borden sisters was complex.

Yes, indeed, I too believe the relationship was complex, as most relationships are with most people. So if every relationship is complex then there is no such thing as a complex relationship. (if everything is art, there is no art argument).

I still subscribe to the old Middle Ages philosphy of William Ockham: All things being equal, the simplest answer is THE solution. Trying to ascribe complex emotional responses to the facts (i.e. that Alice DID accompany Lizzie to the cellar that night, that Alice DID rat on Lizzie and the dress burning incident, that Alice was on the outs after that for whatever reason, etc.) seems an impossible thing to accomplish. To make Alice into a coniving person who may have had some need for 'control' over the sisters by the revelation of the information seems, to me at least, to be way out there. We have no evidence that this is about Alice and her personality (mostly because she is such a peripheral figure) but we do have a series of events that Lizzie is connected to, her whole life in fact. We can connect Lizzie's dots. We can't do that with Alice. So if we can't, why not just assume she was a "good guy" in this story, that what she did she felt she had to do?

Now if you were to suppose that Alice had some pivital part in all of this, helping Lizzie hide the murder weapon, hearing a confession, or discovering some important facts that she never told anyone, well then you have every right to find her malicious nature. But I don't think the evidence points the way you are going. Maybe I just need Alice to be an innocent that makes me feel this way.

There are a couple of things that are interesting here.

Alice is told by Emma to go ahead and talk to Agent Hascomb, about the destruction of the dress.  She does so, and from then on, I also think, the girls were on the outs with Alice, whether Alice knows it or not.  Something about this has always seemed weird to me.
Tell her to tell and then get mad at her for doing so?
 
If Lizzie was in the act of destroying an outfit when Alice walked into the kitchen and was caught doing a Wrong Deed (in Lizzie's guilty mind) then I can't figure out why she did whatever she did that day...why not wait until Alice has left for good, or suggest to Alice to go home We're OK now...and then do some destroying of evidence?

If it were as simple an act as they want us to believe, then I could see them thinking that Alice *told* on Lizzie and put a bad light on what she did, and that got Lizzie indicted.

It's not until the Trial, though, that we know for sure, that Emma no longer considers them intimate with Alice, or at least Lizzie's not.  (I have a feeling she speaks for both, though.)  I don't think I've ever read that Alice visited in the jail...

Anyway, Alice had to go to a LaWYEr to decide what she would do.  That does cost money last time I looked.  There were a couple of people stuggling with their consciences during this same period that the grand jury was meeting...wondering if they should come forward and tell things they might know.  Some wished to be good citizens...I can't think that someone would CHOOSE to become more embroiled in such a case.  Also the reward was not at issue, either, that we know of.  So this testimony to the grand jury by these people would have probably been decided after taking advise of Some kind.

Another odd thing that has to do with the split of Lizbeth & Emmer later, was that they drew up and signed an agreement that essentially Emmer would pay Lizbeth Not To Live There.  That Emmer would pay Lizbeth monthly her share of whatever to do with the house, Maplecroft, and be allowed thusly to go and live elsewhere.
One more oddity for now.  The girls also agreed to put each in the other's will as to the house and property they held jointly, and Emmer followed this dictate but Lizzie did not!
Now, when I think about this, I think "OK, maybe Lizbeth believes that being fully 8 or sometimes 9 years younger than Emmer that she will never find out that Lizbeth did not conform her legal issues to their agreement.  She would expect normally to outlive Emmer."
I think this stinks!  I think it's underhanded and shows that either Lizbeth had really bad legal advise or she really didn't care what a tangle would happen if only one of them stuck to their legal and binding agreement.  She is "one thing to her face, and another behind it"--just as she has accused Abby of being!

I really enjoyed your ponderings here, Kat.

I think that the sisters might have been upset with Alice not necessarily for the act of telling but because Alice thought that the dress burning act was not innocent. The trust in the friendship was then broken. This brings to mind as an example when a husband says he wasn't having an affair and the wife says, "I believe you," and it turns out he really isn't having an affair.  The trust is intact because the event didn't occur, whatever made the wife suspect something was innocent. In my example Alice, as the wife, would have right away said, "I don't believe you."

Good point about Alice never visiting in the jail, I hadn't thought of it.

Yes, others struggled with their consciences too. I always remember that friend of Lizzie's who destroyed the letter Lizzie sent because she felt the other lawyers would use it against Lizzie.  She was loyal to Lizzie because she felt Lizzie innocent, otherwise, like Alice, she would have turned the letter over, I think. So conscience can work for the defense or the prosecution.

I didn't know about that agreement signed by the sisters regarding Maplecroft. Are you sure that it was that which allowed Emma to go? Couldn't Emma just have left the house. I can see why the sisters had to agree on the upkeep of the house, taxes, if they both owned it, even if only one lived there. I don't feel competent to discuss this because I have no knowledge of it but would like to learn more.

I'm not sure I follow your complexity/art explanation. That makes me think about a philosophy class I attended, when the teacher started telling me a chair wasn't really a chair, I zoned out, but when I came back I was still sitting on my chair.

Bringing up the possibility that there might be more to Alice than the articles have heretofore talked about and that her motivations for what she did are different doesn't mean she was as a fact any of the proposed suppositions, i.e. malicious, etc. To me Alice isn't a peripheral figure but a pivotal figure in the case. From what we know if it wasn't for her the trial may never have occurred. She did indeed "discover some important fact she never told anyone" until the grand jury. She was also in the house for four days after the murder, was a confidante of the sisters for years, lived next door for 11 years, heard the "premonition" of Lizzies the night before the murders, which she just happened to prod Lizzie to tell the police about, and was an important witness. To me her activities show she might well have been a controlling person. We have no evidence to the contrary either.

I can't just assume Alice is a good guy for the reasons I have already pursued here, the phrase "you can't tell a book by it's cover" applies for me with regard to Alice. We don't know from the evidence that Alice's motivations were friendly, anymore than to say they were not.  But investigating a personality at a deeper level than surface observations seems to me appropriate with this person.  For Mrs. Gifford or Mrs Raymond or some of the others it isn't necessary. By going to extremes and analyzing all the angles it is possible to come back to a centerpoint somewhere along the line.

Perhaps the simplest answer is the answer, but then you have to decide what the simple answer is.  What is the simple answer to Alice, that she was a wonderful lady.  What is the simple answer to the Borden case, that Lizzie did it?

WellWaddaYaKnow?
The agreement was the opposite of what I claimed.
It was Lizzie who paid Emma the share of the house while she did not live there!
That's almost as weird.
Thanks for having me look that up especially.
Most of my information gathering comes from primary sources which are stored on computer where I can check before I post (some take me an Hour).
This is Rebello.  I don't know if you have that Carol?
Pg. 312-3, Agreement not dated but it is stated above the transcription that:  "After Emma's departure from Maplecroft, an agreement was drafted for Emma and Lizzie."

Lizzie would have the right to use and occupy...she'll pay the bills and insurance and taxes..."and pay unto said Emma one hundred and sixteen dollars every six months for the use and occupation, the first payment to be made January first A.D. 1906 for six months in advance."
...neither party could dispose without consent of the other...
..."each provide by will"..."the same shall go and belong to the other if she survives her..."

I remember reading carefully the wills but not finding this in Lizzie's.  The wills are available at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Lizzie%27sLastWill.htm
for download--LABVM/L
--Good Question.

(Message last edited Nov-10th-02  2:05 AM.)

Thanks, Kat!  Good info to have, I never knew that there was any communication between Lizzie and Emmer after Emmer left, but, it sounds as though Lizzie was sending her checks for taking over Maplecroft.  It sounds as though Andrew must have drilled this kind of thing into 'the girls' heads, always get a lawyer involved and have the proper paperwork or else! 

Does this kind of an agreement make sense to anybody?

If the girls had a mortgage (which I don't know--I didn't think so with their upbringing and the wordings of the land transactions, Rebello 286, and Appendix C, 556 ) then Lizzie would pay the mortgage ANd  pay Emmer?  Anyway, the agreement was dated Oct. 12, 1905.

This only makes sense if Emma was paying 1/2 a mortgage and therefore Lizbeth would pay Emmer the value of that back again,
(?) to have the whole house.

If you co-owned a property free and clear, other than maintenance, insurance, water and taxes as expenses, with a family member, and you chose not to live there, would you make them pay you while you weren't living there?  What's the point of that?
It almost seems as if Emmer felt she was driven away and wanted recompence for not living there because it was not really her fault that she had to leave?
It still doesn't make sense.
Any ideas?

So no one knows whether the sisters bought the house outright or held a mortgage? Wouldn't the deed be registered as to how it was bought at some governmental office in Fall River?  It should be easy for someone living there to find out.  Wonder why Rebello doesn't say, although I haven't read his piece on it yet.

The agreement between the sisters was probably only a business/legal one, since they no longer wished to communicate socially or intimately as relatives. It probably wasn't based on a "tiff" matter, i.e., one sister trying to get the better of the other.

If two people own a house together free and clear then they would both be responsible for all the things you mention, taxes, upkeep, etc. If only one of the people live in the house then the other person doesn't get her share of the value out of owning it, i.e., having a place to stay, yet she still has to pay for the upkeep, etc.

The other person, Emma, then has to pay to live somewhere else. Lizzie was paying Emma her share of property value she would have benefited from had she stayed there. That seems fair.

That sounds logical to me, I really couldn't think of any other reason as to why Lizzie would pay Emma.  The only thing I could come up with was that Lizzie was making a payoff to Emma to keep her away, here I will pay you money every month if you just stay away from me, something like that, not very reasonable sounding?

It kind of began to sound like that, Susan, IF there was no mortgage in common.
Because Lizzie agreed to pay all the fee's of the house including protection of Emma's share, as to fire, upkeep, etc.
Rebello only states the girls "purchased" the house.  Not how.

I don't see how, if I Chose to live elsewhere from my house owned jointly, that I would be Losing anything that would have to be paid to me.  What am I losing?  The use of it?  How can I lose the use of it if I Choose not to live there?
I think the "fair" part would be that the one remaining in the house take on all expense of upkeep, and taxes, and insurance on the whole which inclused my share, so that the value will not abate , but hopefully increase.
So if I am not paying anything toward the upkeep of My 1/2 a house because I am not living there, my share is essentially being protected FOR ME by the remaining tenant who pays for Everything.  That seems enough of an agreement, other than adding a payment to me, on top of all the expenses now incurred by ONE when it used to be split in 1/2.

Therefore Lizbeth not only takes on the burden of bills for the whole house when before it may have been 1/2, then she agrees to pay out on top of this expense.
Emmer no longer has these expenses, plus I believe she rents or boards from then on, elsewhere, so all those expenses fall on Lizbeth and Emmer gets paid, to boot.

The legal agreement you quote gives the answer, Lizzie is paying Emma for "the use and occupation," of the house, in effect she is paying Emma rent.

That seems so simple, but I maintain that this relationship between the sisters was so complex that they knew no other, better way to reduce it to something manageable, other than to put their split into legal terms dealing with Property.

I think Emma had the *control* issue.  Her *loyalty* and faithfulness towards Lizzie  in her role of *Little Mother* was a masquarade for Control.  When the girls moved out of their cramped (by their perception) quarters and found themselves out in the world and able to live as they liked, they probably found they no longer had much in common.
They would have lived all those 30 years up until moving, with a common bond of resentment toward Abby as usurper, and eventually that leaked over into the conflicts with their father...a tug of war...a tug of *love*.  Since that family was dysfunctional in that money and power were the ideal, than they probably defined their relationship with Each Other in those same terms once the *common enemy* was removed.  They knew no other way to be.

This is not simple. There is a lot going on under the surface of this *agreement*.  It has been said that:  'Family is when they have to take you in.'  Well, Emmer leaves.  Lizbeth probably turned out to be a far different person in character than Emmer imagined in her own little world.  And she could not live with that person, "Lizbeth"...for whatever reason.  For all we know Emmer never wanted to live together later, especially if she thought, deep down, that Lizzie was guilty.  She may have thought she'd give it a try, but Lizbeth bloomed where once was *baby Lizzie*.  That would not be acceptable, if Emmer had a controlling nature.    Also, she could want to leave out of resentment that she found they Could Not live together, that they had no longer anything in common other than real estate, and that Emmer may have felt betrayed by this new Lizbeth, when she had stuck by *baby* Lizzie even when the world was against her.  IN that way, requiring payment is a retribution Emmer believes is her due.  Sisters, rich sisters, do not need to pay each other $230 a year not to live together.

Here's another relationship that a simple answer for will not suffice, I agree. The sisters did, I think too, have a complex relationship.

The agreement is a politically correct document, dealing only with the real estate issues. Wouldn't it be interesting for someone to write up a more realistic agreement spelling out all the dark motivations and reasons for wanting the agreement? But legal documents are never that way.  I bet Woody Allen could do that. Remember those movies he made with conversations going on only you also got to know what the people were "really thinking" as well.

Am not sure whether Emma was controlling or not, very possible. I think that it is interesting that from what we know of the two sisters personalities that it was Lizzie who wanted to live on The Hill and become a social elite with the trappings money could buy. Emma, on the other hand, always preferred the shade. I think she could have been very happy buying another house that was ordinary where she could hold up until old age without even peeking out the windows very often. She could have gone on living on The Hill with Lizzie out of "control" issues or because she felt still a family loyalty. Whatever reason, she was the one uncomfortable there from the start.

So, allowing for that, we have a situation arise where the sisters cannot (for some reason or reasons we can only speculate on) live together any more. They did for 13 years after the move to Maplecroft, which is a long time. Lizzie didn't meet Nance O'Neil until l904 and the rift between sisters happened in 1905, so it might, might, be due to that influence plus a combination of other reasons.  But it is Lizzie who stays in the house and Lizzie to whom a big house is more important.  That might be a reason why Emma left, she did want anonyimity and a big house wasn't important. It would be more reasonable that she leave the big house than Lizzie who preferred it. 

I also think that both sisters were influenced by Andrews way of doing business all the years he did in Fall River. And so legal documentation and attention to who deserves or gets what out of a business deal was ingrained in each woman.  Therefore writing up an agreement about the house seems valid to me. And if Lizzie says to Emma that she wants to stay in the house and won't move, then Emma is the one who HAS in addition to prefers to leave. 

I think that the lawyers for each might have had a hand in writing up this document as to the payment for "use and occupation," so no questions might arise later and everything was spelled out. Whatever the motivation Lizzie was paying Emma for "use and occupation" of Emma's half value share.  If Emma had just left the house, with no legal documents involved, could not Lizzie had rented the house out to someone else and bought an even bigger house on The Hill and kept the rents for herself?  
 

That is interesting too, what you say, because it implies to me that those girls didn't trust each other. Maybe they were ingrained by Andrew's business practices, but all those years out from under his influence, you'd think they would have grown up somewhat, in their personal transactions.  (And Lizzie DID renig on putting Emma in her will per the agreement.).
In Rebello it is also implied that Emmer was not in favor of further purchases of property of the neighbors, whereas Lizbeth was buying up land in the neighborhood.  (Doesn't say why she wouldn't approve)  But as I check the land transactions in Appendix C, starting from the deeding back to Andrew of the Ferry Street property, there are real estate deals naming them both, from 1892 to Jan. 28, 1927, the year of their deaths.  These transactions totaled 28, and that does not include the deals made by Lizzie alone during the same period.
They all read "Emma and Lizzie deeded....sold...purchased...sold...took a motgage...discharged a deed...obtained a deed....etc" Pages 556-558.

I often wondered how much pressure EMMA felt when those anniversary articles came out promptly every year in the newspaper..  Never knowing if the next Aug. 4th would bring another smirch on their name...something she may have wanted to run from.  She did seem to leave around October, according to the date of the "agreement", which would be a month past Andrew's birthday.  That might have been another precipitating factor.  Emma also would be chagrined at the Tilden-Thurber incident, mortified once AGAIN by the notoriety.  All that and then Lizzie' involvement with an acting troupe!  We have heard, also, that Emma changed her name for annominity, so maybe her privacy was worth anything, including living with strangers in Newmarket.

I feel the need to transcribe the "Agreement" now that we've discussed it.  I will put that up next.

Lizzie Borden Past and Present, Leonard Rebello, Al-Zach Press, 1999, pg. 312-3:

"Agreement

'Whereas Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden, of Fall River, Massachusetts, all equal owners in common of a certain lot of land containing about 34 5/8 rods of land and a dwelling house, thereon numbered 306 French Street, in said Fall River, and also of certain personal property located in said house, said lot being the same purchased by them of Charles M. Allen.

Now therefore we the said Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden do hereby covenant and agree the one with the other as follows to wit,--

1.  Said Lizzie shall have the right to exclusively use and occupy said premises and property as a home and place of residence so long as she chooses to do so during her natural life upon condition however that during such time she shall and does pay all water bills and taxes, make and pay for all necessary repairs in connection with the premises and property, keep the undivided half of said Emma in said premises and property insured against fire in the sum of sixty-hundred dollars --, also $4,000 on the house and $2,000 on the contents --, and also pay unto said Emma one hundred and fifteen dollars every six months for such use and occupation, the first payment to be made January first A.D. 1906 for six months in advance.

2.  If said Lizzie shall before her death cease to use or occupy said premises and property, as foresaid, then forthwith said house and property shall be put into the hands of Charles C. Cook of said Fall River as broker to sell the same at private sale or public auction as he deems expedient, or in case of his decease, in the hands of some other broker to be designated by Andrew J. Jennings and said personal property shall be divided by the parties, or if they cannot agree upon a division, be sold in the same manner as the real estate, the proceeds of such sale after deducting expenses to be divided equally between the parties.

3.  Neither party during life except as thereinbefore, provided[sic] sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of her said undivided interest without consent of the other.

4.  Said Emma and Lizzie shall each provide by will or otherwise so that in case the said undivided interest has not been sold or disposed of as aforesaid the same shall go and belong to the other if she survives her.

In witness Whereof we the said Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden have hereto set our hands and seals this twelfth day of October A.D. 1905.'

Emma L Borden Seal
Lizzie A. Borden Seal "

Thanks, Kat!  What an odd agreement, so, it sounds as if Lizzie had to pay Emmer to live in the house by herself, like she was paying for a privilege or something?  Very strange, but, there it is in black and white.

You know, this may be nothing, but, I was wondering if Emma had more say-so in matters because she was the sole administrator(if that is the correct term?) to Andrew's fortune upon his death, besides Lizzie being in jail, perhaps because Emma was the oldest child? 

However it was decided, Lizzie got her 1/2:

Rebello, 277:
"Emma and Lizzie signed a document for probate court on August 5, 1892, stating they were the sole heirs of Andrew Borden who left no widow."

New Bedford Mercury, Wed., Sept. 7, 1892:1
"Four weeks after the murders, Emma Borden was appointed administratrix of her father's estate in probate court on Friday, September 2, 1892, with a bond of $50,000 and surities from Franklin L. Almy, Joseph A. Bowen of Fall River, and S. Stevens of Swansea, Mass."

Pg. 280, there is a transcription of an accounting agreement between the sisters that called for no Inventory, and where Emma swears she has paid the debts of the estate and divided the remainder equally  between herself and Lizzie.  Lizzie signs that the "foregoing affidavit" is true and she is in receipt of her share, and releases Emma as administratrix.  (Jan. 22, 1894)

Thanks, Kat.  So, I was close, I remembered there was a word with 'trix' on the end, but, I all could honestly come up with was DOMINATRIX.  So, as to Emma being the elder of the two didn't feature in any way with monetary matters as far as the law was concerned.

Isn't it amazing how fast that they put in for Andrew's money?  And was there any official documentation the day after the murders that Abby's death had preceded Andrew's?  How did Lizzie and Emmer know? 

Don't forget executrix or aviatrix or? Obsolete nowadays.

Such an agreement is just COMMON SENSE (ask any lawyer) about sharing any property. Remember the Whitehead home and what happened?

Again, its common sense to file for probate as soon as possible. NEVER make the mistaken assumption that things can be left to drift.
Andy taught his daughters well in this!

Yes that's right.  But the next day seems a little calous.  But maybe, being a Friday, it was to get a jump on the weekend?

I have a question here.
It's been debated that the sisters had to "GO" somewhere to file this document, whereas others think that the signatures could be procurred at home.  I don't know about then, but I have filed probate.  I went to the lawyer's office, and it wasn't the next day.
But my question is, does anyone remember that there was no searching done on Friday, that that day police nor lawyers came around, and when Jennings and Winwood the undertaker came it was Friday evening?
What I am wondering was, if this is true and nothing happened Friday, maybe it was because the girls were gone...to the county seat or records office, to file this documrent, after all?
Does anybody remember this or can comment?

Susan, I think the medical examiner Dolan would be the one to officially determine the time of death for the benefit of insurance and inheritence.  I think he knew Thursday the order of death.

Wow!  That sheds a whole new light on Lizzie's request for a doctor, not because she thought that Andrew might only be hurt, but, because she needed someone to sign those death certificates with the times so she could collect Andrew's money faster!    I know, thats horrible, but, it popped into my head.

Didn't the police come and search the house while Lizzie and Emmer were at the funeral with just poor ol' Alice gaurding the house? 

Yes, but you see that was Saturday.
And I believe different people (officials) were asked about Friday but no one says they were there that day?  I always wondered why they took off Friday so soon after the event?
I may be mixed up in this, that's why I asked if anyone knew?

--I liked your idea of the reason for the need for a doctor

I've been looking around trying to find out what the activity was on Friday. 

Apparently Lt. Francis Edson came and collected the hatchets/axes shortly after 6 a.m. (Trial: Edson, Doherty) and delivered them to Hilliard.  Both Doherty and Edson talked with Lizzie and Bridget in the kitchen Friday morning -- and testified that Lizzie asked Bridget if she was sure the back cellar door was fastened at that time. (Trial: Edson, Doherty).

This is also the day that Emma and Lizzie post the $5,000 reward. (Inquest: Lizzie)

And Morse "thinks" that he accompanied police in a search of the upstairs on Friday. (Trial: Morse)

Alice Russel is asked about Friday at the Trial:

Q.  Now the next morning was Friday, and nothing particular occurred that day, I suppose, except some visitations of police?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  That was constant, was it?
A.  Yes, sir.

(In "Hands of Time" (p.50) Arnold says that John left the house about 8 p.m. on Friday (accompanied by Bridget) and about 1,000 people followed him as he went to mail a letter.  Then 5 policemen escorted them back to the house. 

I couldn't find anything in either Morse's or Bridget's testimony to the effect that they went to the post office that night although Bridget does say at Trial that she "went out and came back and slept in the house" on Friday night.

Arnold's story about the hordes following them may be from a newspaper report.)

Regarding the Morse trip to the P.O., I checked the New Bedford Evening Standard on the 6th.  This is an edited item from the paper:

"Attempt to Mob Morse.

Last night a crowd of fully 1500 people surrounded the fated house, and at 7 o'clock, when John Morse and the servant appeared, the curious followed them down the street to the post office.  The crowd was augmented by hundreds.....People ran for him from every direction.....Two police officers, appreciating his position, went to the rescue....There were murderous cries of "That's the murderer," and "Lynch him!" " Lynch him!"....Morse did not appear in the least bit frightened, for he is a cool-nerved sort of a man.  The officers escorted him to the post office and back."

Interesting that the article doesn't mention anything further on Bridget.

(Message last edited Nov-15th-02  3:33 PM.)

I know!  Are we to presume that she was as "cool-nerved" as Morse?  Here's the excerpt from Arnold's timeline in "The Hands of Time":

"The last event reported for this day [i.e. Friday, August 5, 1892] occurred at 8:00 p.m.  John Morse, accompanied by Bridget, left the Borden house.  A crowd of 1,000 people followed them to the post office and saw Morse mail a letter.  Five policemen escorted them safely back to the Borden house." (Arnold, 50)

This doesn't sound like the same newspaper source -- the details are slightly different -- the time, and the number of people in the crowd e.g. So maybe other papers carried the same story?(

And why was Bridget with him anyway?  Like I said, the only reference I found was Bridget saying:"Friday night I went out and came back and slept in the house".(Trial) I couldn't find anything in her testimony (or John's) about being followed through the streets by a lynch mob at that point. 

She probably beat a hasty retreat. I know I would have. 

I believe Uncle Morse had the clothes buried behind the barn on Friday afternoon.

That should have been the day the police were all over that house, not Saturday.

(Message last edited Nov-15th-02  5:48 PM.)

Thats an intereting bit!  I never ever heard that Bridget left the house with John Morse in any way, shape or form.  Wasn't Bridget terrified of John, possibly thought that he was the murderer and thats why she didn't want to sleep in the house?  I wonder if John escorted Bridget down the street and they parted ways at the post office and she went on her merry way while John had to contend with the police and the lynch mob? 

I found the reference to Scarlet Fever.
Knowlton Papers, pg. 179...
It is Knowlton's 3 year-old daughter who has scarlet fever...will be quarantined with Mrs. Knowlton for 6 weeks...letter dated May 14, 1893.
"...home broken up, children out..."

The editor makes comment later on in the edition that it should be remembered that Knowlton also had other cases besides the Borden case...
Now we find his home is in upheaval, as well, all within 3 weeks or so before the start of the Trial of the Century.

This might explain that cryptic remark made by Southard Miller when he told Bridget not to leave until HE *took her out*.

Yes, and AR Brown explains the IMPORTANCE of sending off those letters, and where he visited later that evening (Harrington's house).
What other explanations was there for his sudden trip to the Post Office (not made earlier in the day).
Note that a letter, unlike a telegram, is NOT read by anyone but the recipient.

Maybe there was bias against the servant as well as Uncle John?

I think Morse would BUNK at the post office if he could.

Thursday on his way to Weybosset Street he drops off a letter.

When the remaining family is told Saturday night it would be better if they stayed inside to be *safe* Morse pops out with *How will we get our mail?*

Including the Friday night visit to the P.O., that's pretty much Every Day he wants or expects mail!

In Rebello's Timeline, pg. 584, it seems that the only things that happened Friday were:

"Lizzie & Emma signed a document"

"Seaver searched the barn."

"8:30 A.M. Morse went...to get Bridget."

"8:32 A.M. Morse walked to the post office and mailed a letter to William A. Davis...marked 'in haste'.  (Witness Statements, 9)"

--[This is in the notes of Doherty/Harrington--I've never figured out if the post office visit was in the A.M. or the P.M....different sources say differently.  It's possible he went morning and evening, but not with Bridget.
There's a descepency in the TEXT of Rebello, concerning this P.O. visit.  Brown is quoted as quoting from  The Fall River Daily Globe, pg. 438, that Morse's "jaunt" was at 8 P.M. Friday, and if that's not confusing enough, the snippet in Rebello goes on to say that Morse went there to retrieve the mail, and the cite seems to be BROWN.
But, if we check the LBQ, July, 1997, for this reference, we find  Brown stating that Morse's "first outing (Friday evening) was to POST a letter or letters", and he claims this is 'official' "poppycock attempts to cover up this most germane fact by saying he went to the Post Office to GET the household's mail."

There follows a transcription of the news article which includes the information that Morse came out at "night", "shortly after 8 o'clock"...and ..."Near the Post Office he met a lady with whom he passed a few words", before he then when inside.
"He returned to the house with the mail".

---------------------------
Trial
Pg. 1159
[As to Friday's jaunt to the post office by Morse]:

"MR. MOODY. The only purpose, your Honors, and I think I ought to state it, is this. From the cross examination it might appear, and be argued later, that the visit which purported to be to offer protection was a pretext. Now I offer to show that on the previous night Mr. Morse had gone to the post office, and a crowd of four or five hundred or a thousand, a very large number of people, had gathered, and that there had been violence threatened; and it was, as your Honor recalls, mentioned in the conversation. I ask that only to show that the visit to this household was in
good faith, for the purpose for which it was stated."
--------------------

Back to Friday at Second Street:
Rebello, Timeline, 584,:
Hilliard & Dolan ordered the "articles and wearing apparel stored in the wash room" to be buried.
Then, "Dolan ordered the articles dug up..." (Cites Witness Statements, pg. 42), although when checking this source, it's found that Albert Chase claims :

"About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box."

In the Timeline, both these activities are under the heading of AFTERNOON (Friday), but it could be just an accident to seem to imply the articles were dug up the same day they were buried.
--This, though is always a lesson to me--I do check footnote sources even in the LBQ.  Not always...I'm not that weird, or worried.

---------------------------
Trial
Hilliard
Pg. 1112
MR. ROBINSON. On the Thursday you are speaking of?
MR. MOODY. Yes, sir.
Q.  When next did you go to the Borden house?
A.  The next time that I went to go into the house was on a Saturday afternoon.
Q.  Before or after the funeral services?
A.  After the funeral services.
----------------------------
All the activities centered around the Borden house on Friday, seem to have happened OUTSIDE, where the girls need not be home., excepting the collection of the hatchets and axes by Edson from the cellar between 6 a.m. and 6:23 a.m., and Harry reference found to his overhearing the exchange between Lizzie and Bridget at 7:15.  (Poor girl, getting up so early...)
What's the verdict?



(Message last edited Nov-18th-02  2:18 AM.)

Good work, Kat. That portion of the trial bolsters the newspaper reports about the 'lynch mob' following Morse on Friday night. That's what I couldn't find in the testimony from either Morse or Bridget. 

It looks, from the portion of testimony surrounding that bit as though the police contemplated using that incident as a rationale for keeping Lizzie in a state of virtual 'house arrest' until they served the warrant. The were trying to maintain that their visit on Saturday night (before they obtained the warrant on Monday) was "in good faith, for the purpose for which it was stated" (Trial, 1159) which was to suggest that Lizzie and her family not leave the house for a time.

The "mayor said that he had a request to make of the family, and that is that they remain in the house for a few days, that there was a great deal of excitement, and he thought it would be better for all concerned if they should remain there and not go onto the street." (Trial)

But do we know where Bridget went that evening?  She did say at trial that she also went out on Friday night. 

Correct me if I am wrong, Kat.  I believe Bridget stayed with the Miller maid across the street Thursday night.  Friday she went back and worked at the Borden house.  Friday night she stayed at the Borden house again, then Sat. and Sunday at the Patrick Harrington house, her cousin.  On Monday she returned to the Borden house to pick up her clothes, it was her last day there.

Think of what Uncle John could do with a cell phone. There must not have been post office drop boxes in those days because he did spend so much time at the building.  I wonder if he bought stamps in advance or always had to go there to buy those as well as mail his letters.

Yes, I believe Bridget was gone Thursday night, and returned Friday *to do the work*--
My question really is does it seem as if the girls weren't home Friday, after all...nothing's happening...could they have gone to sign probate papers and be councilled as to their inheritence rights, without the whole town knowing--and by extension, US?

More to base this conjecture on:
T., 327, Bowen prescribed for Lizzie morphine, on Friday Night
T., 405, Alice says "i don't remember much of their being in the house." [ police on Friday]

Good piece of detection, Kat, about Friday activities.  I also believe that the sisters went to arrange on Friday for the $5000 reward for the arrest and conviction of the murderer, the advertisement they put in the paper. 

It's interesting that Alice appears from what she said to have been in the house while the sisters most likely were gone a good portion of the time. So, to leave her there alone inside with Bridget was taking a chance, wasn't it, IF the sisters were innocent.  If they were guilty I would think that they would have been there to keep their eye on everything.

I just held a class on the Lizzie case at Portland Community College, one night only, last Thursday, and one lady that came said that morphine does affect people, she had taken it herself. I remember one man wrote something to the effect that morphine taken in the manner Dr. Bowen prescribed wouldn't have affected Lizzie, but I disagree.  Especially after he doubled the dose.  Her inquest testimony, I think, reflects her disposition on the drug.  Also another woman in the class mentioned that lots of people those days kept laudanum (sp?) in the house without prescription, so who knows what else she was taking as well.

Carol, I'm curious what you mean by 'leaving Alice alone with Bridget was taking a chance if Lizzie and Emma were innocent'?

Alice was also left *alone* at the house Saturday during the funeral procession and graveside service.
She says she stayed at the house with an undertakers assistant and Mrs. Holmes..

I think that Alice was trustworthy to leave in the house alone whether Lizzie was guilty or innocent.  Alice didn't seem to be very inquisitive, look at how long it took her to realize that that club or walking stick was under Andrew and Abby's bed, and she only happened upon it.  And look at how she stood up to the police and said for them to wait before they checked Lizzie's room so she could see if there was anything out that she felt they shouldn't see, undies, whatever. 

Cell phones provide little security against ECHELON or anyone with a UHF transceiver (unless digitally scrambled - are they?).
There's no reason for bringing this up. Was Uncle John up to date w/ the technobaubles of the day?

So a $5000 reward was posted? Maybe that's why Uncle John sent out letters to warn those in the know that this was only for show, and everyone who knew something could be conspirators in a murder.

There you said it.
Everyone who knew something could be considered a conspirator  (not a direct quote).
Is that OK with you?
That these people did not come foreward therefore  no one was officially sanctioned, and the crime was never *solved*?  BTW:  How many people are you referring to?

Did You know, in the Knowlton Papers there are a couple of letters between Pillsbury & Knowlton, about the time of the sitting of the grand jury, that weighed the merits or disadvantages of WHAT to charge Lizzie WITH, once an indictment was about ready to be delivered?

I believe AR Brown's solution. That Wm S Borden was there for some meeting (contents of the white box Andy brought home), but flew off the handle and committed murder.
The conspiracy dealt with the cover-up. Lizzie did not tell all she knew, nor did Uncle John, Emma, Uncle Harrington, Wm S Borden ,or his cousin WSB (forgot name). Uncle John could have been charged with something, guilty or not, since he made the meetings. DO NOT ASSUME that a prosecutor is a neutral seeker after truth!!!

In answer to your question I think that if the sisters were innocent they were not trying to cover up or hide anything from anyone and they were easy prey for anyone to poke around in their personal things let alone the whole house full of police poking around in all the rooms. If they were guilty one would have wanted to be there to check up on everyone. If there were more than just Alice and Bridget in the house, then there is no way of knowing if those people were all together all the time or in different rooms, etc. Alice did not prove to be a good friend in my opinion, so they were taking a chance leaving her there that she might not observe something else of an innocent nature and report it to the police as suspicious.  I don't think Alice was a bumbler, someone who didn't observe, she was careful about what she told others she observed and when. Bridget was also a suspect, regardless of whether the police eventually lighted on Lizzie. So for Bridget and Alice to be left together might be somewhat pointing to evidence that the sisters had nothing to hide.

I'm sure you could tell us if Uncle John was up-to-date, what does Arnold Brown say?

Thanks, Carol.  Very good point about the sisters not having anything to hide when they left Bridget and Alice at home.  Thats where my head is at with that, that if there was any evidence; bloodstained dress(es) and a hatchet, they were well hidden away where no one would find them.  And, if innocent, then there was really nothing for Lizzie and Emma to fret about, nothing to hide, nothing to cover-up.  They could let anyone into the house to poke and dig through things.