1. "Anyone Think Lizzie Truly Innocent?"
Posted by augusta on Aug-4th-02 at 12:01 AM

I have believed in Lizzie's guilt for years.  I thought either she did it or helped a third party. 

But looking at her - except for the morning of the murders - I would not think she could have done it. 

Does her silence make her guilty?  No.  Her lack of emotion? She showed emotion when she discovered her father and throughout the trial.  Some people just aren't emotional. 

She did so many good works.  Perhaps some originally were to move in a better social strata, but church work - especially a lot of it - comes from the heart or you tire of it quickly and quit.  Look at all of the money she gave away to people who needed it - and sometimes anonymously.  Her kindness towards animals shows the opposite trait a killer would have.  Her Christianity bothers me too. She was a believer in the church and religion - she wanted a Christian burial.  I think a person who would do the murders wouldn't care less about religion.  The two don't go together.

She remained in Fall River.  And she didn't buy the grandest house in town.  If you go there, it doesn't look like much and probably wasn't very impressive in her day.  Bigger, yes.  On 'the hill', yes.  But I'm not even sure it qualifies as a 'mansion'.  It was a nice, big house.  But not GRAND. 

The argument with Abby was five years before the killings.  And there is no proof that Andrew was making another will, or that something was done to set her off.  Motive?  What?  To have a better house with modern conveniences?  I think anybody would have moved to a better place after the Bordens' deaths, whether they had killed them or not. 

Anyway, the more I read about Lizzie the Person the more human she becomes.  To do what she's accused of she would have to be a fiend.  "I ask you - does she look it?"

The eve of the funeral, the newspaper reported, Lizzie was so ill that Dr. Bowen had to be summoned 3 or 4 times to the house before midnight.  (Harry reminded me)

The day of her arrest, once the gang left her alone in her solitariness, Lizzie was again so ill, it was reported that she heaved and weeped so uncontrollaby that a doctor was summoned.

In later years , we see the note she wrote a neighbor about the noisy "little bird".  it kept her from sleeping and she noted that she already was "very nervous."  (May, 1900)

In Rebello, p.293, we are given a description of Lizzie as "a physical wreck and ...morbidly sensitive", c. 1894.

This is a person who is suffering...

--As to loving little animals, I don't think that can be considered when deciding whether a person is capable of murdering humans.
--As to the church work, I bow to your reason & experience.
--As to "Truly Innocent", I say Nay.  She heard Abby's body fall, at the LEAST...and therefore did not tell all she knew.

I've always had a very big doubt as to whether Lizzie physically did these crimes herself.  I do think it would have been difficult for her to be about the house that morning (whether in the barn or not) without having had some knowledge of what was going down, though.  On the one hand. these appear to have been carefully-planned crimes, and on the other hand, they appear to have been spontaneous, hate-inspired acts.  If she was involved at a secondary level (hired somone to do the killings or had knowledge about them before or after the fact), they were almost surely planned.  Who would plan to do a crime at the time when it would be most likely that one would be discovered in the act (middle of the day, potential witnesses all over the place, no real assurance that the planned victims would be available, etc.)?  In my opinion, there are more factors pointing to Lizzie's innocence than to her guilt.  I guess the jury thought so too!

I think a murderer could hide in that house and no one know it.  The people in the house wouldn't be expecting someone to do that, and if they heard a noise there were four other people that were there legitimately that morning to attribute it to. 

The murderer could hear the others' movements and slip in and out of rooms accordingly to escape detection.  You know how that house is inside - tons of doors leading directly into other rooms.  Vision cut off from any other room because of the doors. 

The thing would be, how would he (or she) have gotten in? 

Supposedly he/she got out thru the kitchen screen door, which Lizzie said was wide open when she got back from the barn. 

And motive.  Who would hate Abby enough to do that to her with such seeming hatred?  And to Andrew afterwards?  Why? 

Lizzie only names Hiram Harrington as a possibility.  How did he feel about Abby?  Where was he during the crimes? 

The kindness to animals doesn't prove a person isn't a murderer, very true.  I look at that as a possible clew, tho, because in a lot of shows I see on murder the person mistreats them.  They say it's a bad sign if a child hurts animals. 

And the church work doesn't prove it, either.  There are a lot of people who do it - even heads them - and they're horrible people.  Using the church as a cloak for their misdeeds. 

I don't think the lack of blood evidence on Lizzie shows she is innocent.  There was no blood evidence anywhere.  How it could be done without a bloody footprint or a smudge even up against the wall is a big factor in making the case a mystery still. 

Maybe Lizzie didn't hear Abby fall.  She might have been in the basement at the time.  It's a stretch, but possible. 

I hadn't heard that the doctor had to be sent for so many times for Lizzie.  That may help to show her innocence.  Or not.  Maybe she was upset so much over her father, even if she did it or if she was an accomplice.  But we know she was not the rigid 'Sphinx of Coolness (or Coldness)' she was called. 

Her inquest testimony?  She was on morphine.  I'm surprised she wasn't seeing purple giraffes in the courtroom.  I've known a few people close to me that have had to have it, and the stuff they'd say.  It's powerful stuff. 

Yes, the note about the bird where she says she's nervous.  That's another thing that got me thinking earlier when I first saw that. 

Maybe we've been barking up the wrong tree all this time.  It's just a thought worth pursuing.

I too have never been sure whether Lizzie did the actual killings or not.  But, something went down in that house and I don't think our Lizzie is telling it as she should!  I believe she knew more than she ever said.  Why?  Perhaps the person who hired the killer threatened Lizzie with death if she told, I'm thinking Uncle John here.  Perhaps there was an element of blackmail to it, something that could be held over Lizzie's head and used against her should she spill her guts.

I feel that Lizzie is guilty of complicity at the least, if she didn't do it, she had to have known or seen who did and the lady ain't talking! 

If there is a very big doubt as to Lizzie actually committing the murders with her own hands, even though she WAS ON THE SPOT (cap.s for emphasis), do we then TOTALLY rule out EMMA, who supposedly was far away?

I've wanted to know just how often did Emma go away, and for how long?
AND was she due back any SECOND, being gone 2 full weeks already?  Did her (imminent?) return influence how & when this crime was commited ?

So if Lizzie could barely have done it, Emma REALLY couldn't have done it?  (Not putting words in anyones mouth but my own question here...)

My considered opinion (I wasn't an eyewitness) is: Lizzie is truly innocent of committing the crime. But did take part of the cover-up. Does anyone here remember Watergate? Few guilty, many covered up.

1) it was an accident, not a planned murder.Else Lizzie would have had an alibi too. Be very careful if you invite a violence prone maniac into your home!
2) Lizzie was overwhelmed by the events; hence the morphine (no Prozac or Valium in those days). Anyone here know anybody who was put on Percodan after a broken bone? Talk about hallucinations!
3) Lizzie was good-natured enough to cover up the crime, as suggested by Uncle John and others. Emma did not disagree. Consider the scandal and backbiting comments they would have to endure FOREVER if their 'cousin' was revealed as the murderer! (Anyone have a near relative in jail? Would you talk about it if true?)

4) I think Arnold R Brown's solution (based on Ellen Eagan and Henry Hawthorne) is the optimal solution. Note that Eagan never told at the time (a weakness) and never knew Wm S Borden, and, Hawthorne knew Wm S Borden but was never present at the scene. It does explain why neither Lizzie or Bridget were guilty; Lizzie didn't squeal.

If you think this is sketchy evidence, consider the conviction of Mike Skakel, who might have just boasted while drunk or drugged. (I don't doubt the verdict, but there were other suspects as well.)
F Lee Bailey's "Defense Never Rests" tells of some tenuous evidence in his cases. Has anyone else read this 30-year old book? Or at least just browsed the good parts?

Kindness to animals means nothing!! There were plenty of murderers who loved their pets (but not humans who were not as dependent!). Although they say that those who torture and kill animals as children may turn out to be criminals or killers.
Talking to a family member, he said a boyhood friend who did this eventually became a police chief before he died. Frightening? Another one who shot cats with arrows turned into a lone hermit.

The example of church people who are "foul as fiends" is so common as to need no examples. Mentioned in the trial? Henry Ward Beecher (?) was as famous for seducing choir members as his being a mouthpiece for Big Business. Maybe you yourself know about small time choir members? Many women think that their minister is somehow better than their own husband; but they only see them at their best, don't they?

I heard it said years ago that only Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter were known to be faithful to their wives. They also could not get re-elected; Big Business may want Presidents who they can corrupt.

Ah, but Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart.  I was surprised to read LBJ even messed around.  Geez, I used to think he musta been one of the ones that didn't.  Hm. 
Ministers can be very sexy to women - right, they see them at their best.  But they're also 'forbidden fruit', making it more exciting.  Yes, I've known several people personally who used the church to do really bad stuff.  Personally I think it's one of the worst things a person can do.
Lizzie being blackmailed is a good theory.  I hadn't thought of that.  Blackmailed on the daylight robbery perhaps?  Or a shoplifting spree? 
Rays, how did Wm. Borden get into the house? 
I'm reading Todd Lunday's "Mystery Unveiled" and he makes the point that nobody could get in.

Since the purpose of Thursday AM was a meeting between Andy and Wm S, I think Andy let him in. He unlocked the front door, so he could enter when everyone was saying goodby to Uncle John at the back door. Closed door to the entrance hall hid the entry.

I believe this is the optimal solution to this problem. Not the cellar door, since it would be more difficult to get to the front 2nd floor spare bedroom. Much easier from the front; no one went into this room.

I always thought she didn't do it & didn't allow someone do it
either. I think alot of people live in cranky households & don't
end up killing the other family members. To do it yourself is one
thing, but to actually listen as your parents are being killed is
just--??? From reading the newspaper accounts at the time it seems like they were trying to convict her by talking so much about how unattractive she was & she wasn't dainty enough. People talk about
her not being convicted because she was a woman, but they arrested
her & kept her in jail all that time, that wasn't a nice way to do
a lady.

Rebello, pg. 509:
Fall River Herald News, Aug. 30, 1978:18

"Famous Mystery Writers Put Lizzie Borden on Trial Once Again

A new jury of 18 men and women made up of celebrated mystery writers, critics and editors of the Mystery Library Extension of the Univ. of Calif. at SAN DIEGO met to decide the fate of Lizzie Borden.  However, this jury concluded that Lizzie was guilty, or innocent or partly guilty or maybe the whole thing was 'a rather bizarre double suicide.' "

I like Blaisdell's summation reproduced in the Lizzie Borden Newzletter:

"The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say 'Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden; was the first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers; then he was out in the yard; then he was out for something else; would there be any question in the
minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be--the judgment of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Supertor [sic] Court."

Judge Josiah C. Blaisdell, spoken September 1, 1892,
from Porter's Fall River Tragedy, p. 139-140.




(Message last edited Sep-10th-02  1:54 AM.)

So, basically, the judge told her---sorry toots, what's good for
the goose is good for the gander?

If you read this slowly, and think about it, Judge Blaisdell is saying "we all know it is impossible for a young woman like Lizzie to do this; but since there is no one else, we must say she PROBABLY did it".
Translation: Lizzie, either give up the name of the man or you go down for it. (This would also happen in today's world.)

Doesn't this remind you of the movie (novel?) "The Maltese Falcon"?
If all the other crooks didn't do it, then Miss Bridget O'Shaughessy (?) is the only remaining suspect.

If those "ten little indians" are mostly all murdered, the sole remaining person MUST be guilty.

If most of the 10 little Indians are all gone: ie:  HALF the HoUSeHold, then, yea, I would suspect who's left!
So who's left?
Bridget and Lizzie!

Also, I think (My opinion) that Blaisdell was on the advent of Women's Lib and the Suffragets..TO me he is saying, "If this were a man you wouldn't BLINK before you arrested him!  We are equal under the Law."
(I know...he probably didn't really FEEL that way, but he put his money where his Mouth is!  And lost his job)

That is what I mean, is that really fair to say---if you
were a man you would be getting the same treatment, so don't think
it is because you are a woman. Just because someone was left
un-killed does not make them the killer. Why was Bridget never
a suspect really? She was alive & there. Just as much alive & there
as Lizzie was.

You know, I have always wondered why no one on the police force checked to see if all the windows that Bridget said she washed were in fact clean?  There was one witness to the window cleaning, Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget wash one window.  The Kelly's girl spoke to Bridget earlier in the day.  Who knew where Bridget was for all that time until she came into the house and washed the inside of the windows?  But, beneath it all, I personally don't feel that Bridget did it, even though her alibi isn't perfect. 

How do we know Bridget washed the inside of the windows?

Lizzie didn't see her do it, and Andrew will never tell.

Why didn't they check Bridget's rags to see if they were wet?

BUT, they could've been WET because maybe they were used to dry off a murderer's bloody hands...
hmmmm

Exactly!  Isn't it Bridget who says that Lizzie came down with a slop pail filled with bloody rags and sets it down in the kitchen?  Hmmmm.  I don't think Lizzie ever mentioned it.  She also knew where to find all the axes and hatchets in the house.  Hmmmm. 

I've always wondered if Abby had Bridget wash the windows
that day because she had a note & was going out, she wouldn't have
had to stay in the house with the windows closed most of the day.

I also don't think Bridget did it, mostly because (except rarely)
she was never really presented as a suspect. I think it
is just conditioning, Lizzie took her axe & there was never much
said about Bridget, or Uncle John for that matter, who knows what
they might have really been like? But everyone knows about Lizzie &
the stories about the cats & that she hated her parents & all.

I don't think that murders were so rare in the 1890`s that if someone was killed it had to be by someone they knew.

I wasn't there to witness it. But I believe the rationale for closing the windows on that hot day was for privacy. Andy would meet someone, and didn't want any shouting attracting unwanted attention.
I believe that AR Brown's book solved the crime in theory. It explains why neither Lizzie, Bridget, (or Emma!) were guilty. Its "parallax view" works for me. For over two years I asked for any proof of its error; NONE was ever given. Other facts that came to light since then only underline its correctness.

I also accept that some will disagree; but if everyone agreed it would not be a controversy!

The fact that it was around 1100 pages, and cut to 340 pages confirms my reading where it jumped to some conclusions.
The claim that the letter from "Samuel Robinsky" was faked by A Phillips was confirmed when I learned it was sent to Emma. Sending false information to the Police or Mayor would be a crime leading to disbarment. Or why Jennings kept that material hidden away from any further police investigation.

I really enjoyed matching views and wits with everyone. Except those who were too much of a jokester. But they seem to have been gone.

Are you going to name names?

I should think that if there wasn't any breeze and the humidity was as high as it was alleged, then it would be wiser to keep the windows shut and the increasingly hotter air outside.

Bridget testified at the Prelim that Mr. Borden "let the window down" when he came downstairs after going upstairs to his room upon his return home. I think I would have done the same.

You mean it is cooler with the windows closed? I've
never done that, I think it sounds smothering. 

Does "let the winow down" mean CLOSE the window?

I guess I was picturing windows up north where the top comes down to open, and the bottom goes up to open.
I always saw that in my mind and thought he was opening a window!  HUH!  Well, you just changed THAT picture in my mind...

I recently went through a very hot and humid time in early August here when my A/C went out.
It happened twice.
The first time, it was dry and a bit of a breeze, but still 89 degrees.  I elected to open the windows.  It was O.K., comfort-wise.

The next time the A/C went out, the following weekend, it was very humid and close out--so I decided to keep the windows closed.  The humidity would have made the house unbearable.  I had just decided to open them, when it started to rain!  Talk about 100% humidity!  So I left them closed and it was barely O.K.

(Message last edited Sep-11th-02  8:03 PM.)

Kat, I think thats the way those double-hung windows were designed, you could open the upper sash to help disappate the heat which would collect up at the ceiling level.  But, unfortunately, most older homes that have these windows have the upper sash painted shut.  My last apartment had these windows and I spent like 2 weeks using an X-acto knife to cut through the old paint to free the upper sashes so that they could be opened again.  In a place with no air conditioner it really helped! 

So how do we know the phrase "Let the window down", means close the window?

You'd think the person would say *close the window*, or *lower the window*.
*Let down* sounds like opening from the top.  Is that possible?

I think that just might be one of those old timey Yankee phrases, let the window down, shut the light, etc., but, I do think that Bridget meant that Andrew closed the window.  Bridget says that Andrew let the window down because she had it open to wash it.  He would have to close the bottome sash first and then open the top sash.  But, what I'm wondering about is, if Bridget cleaned the outside of the windows already, why in the name of all thats holy would she need to open the windows on the inside to wash the inside of the windows??? 

That's a really good question!


Prelim., Bridget, pg. 21+
Q.  You saw Mr. Borden when he came back?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  What did he do then when he came back?
A.  He let the window down, it was up with the screen in. He took a chair and sat down near the window with a book or paper in his hand.

Q.  Which window was that?
A.  The sitting room.

Q.  Sat in a chair near the window with a book or paper in his hand?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Was anybody in the room then?
A.  Not as I saw.

Q.  You could see?
A.  Yes Sir.
------------
"It was up" could mean the top was up, meaning closed, and he "let it down", meaning opened it?

I heard my father use the expresion "let the window down" and he meant to close it.  Of course we never opened the top part of the windows. Most of them were painted shut or very hard to move.

It could be taken as "open it" as well.  I think the screen is a big clue. How was it in the window?  We think it was inside. Under the frame of the lower window?  If that is so then the window couldn't be lowered without removing the screen.  If it was outside then the top part of the window couldn't be lowered without removing the screen.

Thanks.
I'm a little more confused, but that's O.K.
It will give me something to ponder & picture until I can figure this out...
The info on what your dad said and meant, was helpful, also.

Does this help at all?  This is from Bridget's trial testimony.

Q.   Then you say you went in the dining-room and sitting-room
     and left down the windows?
A.   Yes.

Q.   And what did you do to them, exactly?
A.   Well, the windows was up, and I left down the windows.

Q.   Shut them up?
A.   Yes sir.

That makes it sound a little clearer, Diana.  Thanks!  But all that up and down stuff, no wonder its confusing! 

Well, THANKKEE, Diana!

It sounds like I wasn't the only one confused by the usage.

If Morse opened the sitting room window(s) when he got up that morning, then Bridget closed them in order to wash them outside, then maybe she opened them in order to wash them inside...(She could only wash 1/2 a window INSIDE if the screens were on the inside), then, according to Harry, Bridget said Mr. Borden *closed the window*(s).  That's a lot of to-do with just those dang sitting room window(s), from approx. 6-11a.m.!! ?

On p. 190 of A Private Disgrace, Ms. Lincoln states,
"In Fall River when I was young, we never closed windows
against the heat. I only learned to do that sensible thing
in later lfe."

To finally answer the topic question here, I'd have to say that I don't think Lizzie was ethically innocent.
I think she knew what happened if she did not do it herself.
By keeping silent she was scorning the law and benefitting from the crime.  If she was ethical she would have/should have given over that fortune to charity, in HER lifetime...doesn't count AFTER it.  Did she EARN it...that's the question.

So Bridget "let down the windows" in preparation for washing them?
That sounds like the reasonable thing to do.

Ha Ha!!! Did Andy "earn it" either? I don't want to discuss economics etc. As a bank owner and director Andy (like other today) could control growth and limit home ownership to get the highest rents. Nowadays its called "zoning laws" which do the same thing without any person being held responsible. Or do you wonder why most people have to drive or commute many miles to work? Why they can't live next to the office or factory? (Yes, I do know the answer to this question.)

Do you recall "Mr. Potter" from "It's a Wonderful Life"?

Lizzie was no more guilty than Uncle John (arranged the meeting) or Emma (preferred to stay away from the strife); or Uncle Hiram (who put up the carriage), or ?.
I accept AR Brown's solution, even if some do not. Because it provides the best solution to the crime.

Andrew worked his whole Life.
He changed careers in mid-life, even, on the road to riches.
He brought himself up by his bootstraps.  He raised a family and provided for them.  It was HIS money.  HE Earned it, over 50 years.  He was 70 years old and still not *retired*.  He was *Interested* in business.
Lizzie gave his wife grief, was instumental in spoiling his homelife, was sullen and disrespectful (at the Least!), did nothing to improve her lot in life though she had the examples of all her working girlfriends.  She basically was a *dabbler* in charity work, she cleaned her room, ironed her hankerchiefs, and did nothing to contribute to her maintenance, the sole responsibilty falling Forever to Andrew as Lizzie was now, at 32, pretty much a spinster!
You never said she *earned* that fortune...True.
But Andrew Did.
BTW:  "Potter" in It's a Wonderful Life is a two dimensional sterotype made extra melodramatic for the movies, I think.

(Message last edited Sep-16th-02  6:10 PM.)

Yes, Mr Potter is "fictional", but true. If it was totally false, the movie would not work as his motives would be impossible. Do you mean you never heard of people like that?

Lizzie was most likely not too different from other girls of her class. She did teach Sunday School, and helped out at the hospital. I wonder how many of you would do the same under those conditions? Even if her status limited her choices.

Surely all of you realize the way to get rich is not to work hard, but to work others hard so you can benefit from it? Just my observation from a lifetime of experience.

Writers explain how Andy leveraged his funeral parlor to lure people into signing notes that he knew would lead to foreclosure and loss of their home. The very house on 92 2nd St. was obtained this way ("The Trial of Lizzie Borden" circa 1963?) and others. Don't forget that with the right political connections you can get a judge to rule in your favor. I will say it depends on your experience.

Don't forget he was a part owner of factories. Have to cut back on employment? Pick those who have a mortgage with your bank. When they're out of work, foreclose and get the house and all the money they paid. Make sure they can't get another job in town. Was he the most hated man in town?

The soldiers in the front trenches may win the battle, but the general gets the glory. And I'm not speaking about the military. Or maybe your corporation operates differently? If so, is it still in business? You can use Enron or Lucent for examples.

Do you know why "zoning laws" prevent you from buying either a trailer or manufactured housing to put up on your own city land?
Maybe some states or areas have different laws?

Knowing Andy, I think he got out of the funeral business when it either became too much for him at 50+, or, his reputation resulted in lessening business. 50 years ago I knew a neighbor who was finally able to buy a local grocery store. Just before the roof fell in due to big competition from the new supermarkets (and more cars to drive there). (That's how it was explained to me about 40 years ago.)

Andy was trained as a carpenter (AR Brown). He realized the way to get rich was to become a contractor. Other people do most of the work, and are happy to get work.

Were there ANY funeral undertakers prior to the early 1830s? They just put them in a coffin, and buried them a few days later?

I once read the Civil War meant a rise in undertaking, to preserve and ship the bodies great distances home (w/ railroads). In earlier times they buried them where they fell.

This is something I don't get...
I was never exposed (To my knowledge) to any confirmed information that Andrew was such a scoundrel as you paint him, evicting people, foreclosing etc.
I would like some proof of this, if you would be so kind...also if anyone knows more about Andrew's supposed nefarious dealings (a La "Potter") please post sources?

Ain't it the truth?  I agree that we lack knowledge about Andres's business dealings.  At his death, people in Fall River seemed to hold him in considerable esteem.  He apparently had the virtues that are admired in New England -- and elsewhere for that matter -- he worked hard, loved money, and kept his nose out of other people's business, as far as I can tell.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

My references for this follow:
1) That 1963? book "The Trial of Lizzie Borden" edited by Gerald Gross. As I remember it after 35+ years. A page on how Andy got rich from undertaking.
2) AR Brown mentions some of this in his book. Didn't he mention something about this on analyzing Andy's obituary? Read it again.

I also once met somebody at a funeral who explained how he raised rents when he found a child had a pet. "Pay more or get out."

If you could get rich by following the Ten Commandments etc. there would be a lot more millionairs.
Do you personally know anyone famous for goodness who became rich as a result? I'm not talking about TV preachers.

You are free to disagree, of course.

In my opinion, you don't get rich by "keeping your nose out of other people's business" unless you win a lottery or "strike it rich".
What is your personal experiences?

Through Stefani's Bibliography I was able to find your reference to Gerald Gross and the date 1963.

I see you mean  An Edmund Lester Pearson True Crime Reader. Ed. Gerald Gross. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963, p.274-285.  & includes on P.286 = Letter from Mrs. Pearson.

"A Postscript To The 'Final Word'
The Pearson- Radin Controversy Over The Guilt of Lizzie Borden"- by Gerald Gross


http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=21&ut=1010542721

This is the Link to the article, in the Privy, transcribed by me.
--------------------------------------

As a reference, I see no mention of Andrew's business practices.
And pardon me, but I will leave other's to check Arnold Brown, as I am not interested in using him as a source, nor Lincoln, for that matter.
Thanks, though, for the citations.

(Message last edited Sep-17th-02  7:14 PM.)

I remember reading a book "Trial of Lizzie Borden" in 1965, and it was fairly new. After telling about the times and the murders, this book concluded (after Radin's book) with a rational solution.
Since Bridget was seen outside around 9:30, then Lizzie did Abby.
Since Lizzie was seen outside around 11AM, then Bridget did Andy.
This would account for the partial alibi of each suspect.

It also told about Andy's business practice: getting people to sign notes so he could foreclose on their homes (how he got 92 Second St.), selling cracked eggs to his tenants, etc.

I projected (or detected) the obvious solution to the advantages of being a banker AND a factory owner (shared w/ others). Knowing when and who to fire when needed. Or do you think this is totally fiction?

Does your town or county have any of those "rent to own" stores? What about those "used cars" places that overcharge buyers and deal with the credit risks? Doesn't this go on today?

You can call this "imagination" or "detection".

Well, I give up.
You said it was 1963, you said it was Gerald Gross.

I know you've been trying to find this book for years and I know others have tried to Help you find this book...but it is Never Found, and no one seems to know of it and no one remembers these nasty business practices, so I suggest, until you can prove your source these comments about Andrew's character might better be voiced with the caveat that you read it "somewhere" and have no corroboration, maybe...so as not to confuse people ?

BTW:  Is it now a book published in 1965, or 1963?

Response to post #43, but just as a point of reference...to clarify a few things.
Since this post I have been troubled by the impression left that Andrew was a scoundrel and a proffiteer, had owned mills and fired workers and foreclosed on widows etc.

As I say, this post now is not directed at anyone other than to try to clear up any misapprehensions that may abound about Andrew, due to "some Authors."

I have been checking Rebello and I can't say unequivocally that Andrew was a good guy or a bad guy...but I believe he was a three dimensional character that probably had some good AND some not so good traits.

Apparently Andrew had extensive business dealings through his company with the City of Fall River during certain years, as did other local concerns.
His years of contract with the City were 1847-53, 1855, 1857-1861, 1873, 1875-1877--at which time he retired from Borden & Almy Co.
His company's total intake for those years is itemized and calculated at
$38,361 "for Goods and Services Land Damages and Land to the City of Fall River."  (R. 545+, Appen. B)

It has been suggested that Andrew owned mills, but he is only described as a "directing officer" in the Globe Yarn Mill Co., Troy Cotten and Woolen Manufacturing Co., The Merchants Manufacturing Co., and the Banks...  (Hoffman 31), one of which he was President.  (Rebello, 24)

Rebello has an Appendix C, pg. 549+ which lists "Land Transactions Of Andrew, Emma and Lizzie Borden".
Andrew's transactions number about 58 in this accounting, from the years 1844-1891, source Registry Of Deeds, Fall River, Massachusetts.

It's not my favorite bedtime reading, these land transactions, but for your edification, there is only one deal termed a foreclosure, in 1877, where the PARTNERS of Borden/Almy/Wood, "foreclosed and sold the lot of land in Swansea, Mass., to William Borden for $1,930...Book 82: 180...this lot was originally purchased by George C. Pierce on April 12, 1875, Book 82: 179"  (R., 554)
Andrew "purchased at public auction" a couple of properties, but I believe these sales are open to any speculator.  (R., 550).

--Any further information as to Andrew's business dealings that are Sourced are welcome.  Hopefully they would be verifiable in some way, or well-documented, not rumor. 
[Edit here:  A source referred to that states that  Andrew "had substantial holdings in...mills": ]

Knowlton Papers, pg. 410:
"BORDEN, ANDREW JACKSON 1822 - 1892: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of Abraham Bowen and Phebe (Davenport) Borden. A successful businessman, he was senior partner in the firm of Borden, Almy and Company. Heavily invested in income-producing real estate, he had substantial holdings in several local textile mills and banking houses. He served as president of the Fall River Savings Bank and was director of several Fall River corporations. Twice married, he wed his first wife, Miss Sarah Anthony Morse, in 1845 and his second, Miss Abby Durfee Gray, in 1865. True to his Yankee heritage of frugality, he lived simply and had by the time of his death accumulated a sizable estate. He was murdered in his home in Fall River, Massachusetts, on August 4, 1892."





(Message last edited Sep-19th-02  5:02 PM.)

The only book I read on this case before 1997 was in 1965 (seemed to be recently published, as I remember). I never saw it again. The book split the guilt between Lizzie (she did Abby while Bridget was outside), and Bridget (she did Andy while Lizzie was outside). This must have been in reaction to Radin's 1961 book, which reopened this closed case by casting suspicion on the other known person there.

This book also said that Andy foreclosed on the house on Second St, called in the carpenters whose mortgages he held, and made them work for free or have their mortgages called as well. Also about him selling cracked eggs to tenants for a penny more than in the stores.

You want "documentary proof"? I've got it right here.
We all heard (and believe?) that Lizzie paid off Bridget to leave the country and never return. Is there ANY documentary proof for that?
We all heard (and believe?) that Lizzie bought up and destroyed all copies of Porter's book. Is there ANY documentary proof for that?

Given Andy's habit of getting clients to sign notes for more expensive funerals, and then calling them in to foreclose on their homes (which HAS been documented in some books), we have established proof of this practice.

Given Andy's swindling of the Brayton family (documented in "Forty Whacks"? and maybe that 1963? book) we have documentation for sharp practices to gain property that he resold to make a small fortune.

Given the above facts, I hereby admit I put 2+2 together to deduce Andy's business practices. I'm also sure he did this very subtly so little notice was taken at the time. Do you have any "documentary proof" that he did not? Isn't this a rational assumption for his giving up the undertaking business to become a banker and mill owner? (I wonder if this is in AR Brown's missing chapters?)

Lawyer Jennings said he was a boyhood friend of Andy, and would not defend his daughter if she was guilty (?). Do we have documentary proof of this? Maybe he knew Andy well, and sought to shield his daughter from unjustified charges.

"Obstruction of Justice" refers to knowing about a crime and not reporting it to the authorities. If Lizzie did not witness the crime, only that her Dad was alive when she left the house, and dead when she returned, maybe she (or Uncle John) thought it would not help the living to cast suspicion on a "cousin" that would uncover a bigger mess? (I don't believe their deaths were planned, if only because Lizzie would have gone away for an alibi like Uncle John and Emma.)

I hope I have shed light on this subject, and welcome any comments even if you disagree. (Hasn't it gotten boring this last month?)

(Message last edited Sep-19th-02  1:04 PM.)

Is it possible that Andy, like many modern business men, used a dummy corporation to disguise some transactions? This practice goes back about a century (or more?). And these dummy corporations are owned in turn by other dummy corporations? Only a lawyer is listed, and he has attorney-client privileges.

Or can I be totally wrong about all this?

This info you provided is still not sourced and you happened to mention earlier that you were relying on your memory of a book from '63 or is it '65?
I only suggest that memory from years ago, uncorroborated is not considered verified as fact.  Any one may claim that *they think they remember such & such* and that is FINE.  Then those with sources dig in and try to help verify these *memories*.  It's extra difficult when the publish date changes and the title changes and out of 90 members no one but one will come forward with any info.  That tells me that it will never be proved...what your memory is telling you.
I might suggest then that a person might consider re-evaluating their memory or at the least give caveat to *in my opinion.*.

I did find a reference in Knowlton Papers, and will post it here, as I neglected to check there last night even though I tried to remind myself.

The Knowlton Papers, Lizzie Borden Past and Present (Rebello) and Dr. Hoffman's book Yesterday In Old Fall River are the closest I can come in Florida to research items that are revealed as questionable.

Here is the cite for Andrew Borden, pg. 410, which adds mills to his name but in a way I don't quite understand.  I will also EDIT my previous post to include this mill information just so that it will all be in one place for ease of SearcH.

"BORDEN, ANDREW JACKSON 1822 - 1892: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of Abraham Bowen and Phebe (Davenport) Borden. A successful businessman, he was senior partner in the firm of Borden, Almy and Company. Heavily invested in income-producing real estate, he had substantial holdings in several local textile mills and banking houses. He served as president of the Fall River Savings Bank and was director of several Fall River corporations. Twice married, he wed his first wife, Miss Sarah Anthony Morse, in 1845 and his second, Miss Abby Durfee Gray, in 1865. True to his Yankee heritage of frugality, he lived simply and had by the time of his death accumulated a sizable estate. He was murdered in his home in Fall River, Massachusetts, on August 4, 1892."

And if your bank forecloses on a private house, you can then rent it out "rental income". Even more if you can divide it up into smaller apartments. Have the big old houses in your town (1950s-60s) come to this end?

The Brayton swindle is noted in Kent's "40 Whacks", as I remember it. Andy went to one side and made them a short-time offer; they took it. He then went to the other side and made them the same offer; they also took it. Conflict over an inheritance; as common now as then? As soon as he bought the property, he immediately resold it for a "small fortune". Now he couldn't be sued, as he no longer owned the property. Is this sharp or what?
In my opinion.

If this was done in the bank's name, his name would not be on the title. This game could not be done too often before people got wise and refused to deal with his bank.
I think the story about selling cracked eggs for a penny more than in the stores show that this was not a game, but a "way of life" for Andy. Always trying to outsmart and outtrick the other guy. Read AR Brown's comments on his obituary (?).  In my opinion.

(Message last edited Sep-19th-02  7:32 PM.)

I've always been just a wee bit curious about why anyone would PAY an extra penny for cracked eggs.  Masochism?

I loved your post, Ray.  You made me smile. 

And Edisto absolutely has a point....

Simple. That sentence said he did it with a rent book in one hand.
When collecting monthly rent, he made them an offer they couldn't refuse! "Means which fell within the letter of the law" said AS Phillips.

And SOMEBODY made me frown last month when they posted a forged picture of a smiling John Morse (with a too-wide mouth that gave it away). Has this person apologized yet for a deliberate trick?

AR Brown w/ quotes from the FR Daily Globe for 8/5/1892 (pp. 50-53).

"The firm of Borden & Almy ... long had a monopoly in the undertaking business." [How can that be in a "free market"? Did they pay off somebody to prevent licensed competition?]

Andy "was rarely to be found where men accustomed to congregate". [That must mean he did not go to drinking establishments; a teetotaler, or to avoid unhappy customers?]

"His contemporaries labeled him a despicable miser and considered him loathsome, repugnant, and worthy only of total social avoidance and ostracization". (No documentary proof on this page, but I can believe him.). [I read this as saying he was the type who tried to get the better of anyone he met if they were not more powerful than him. If you don't agree, you haven't my experience.]

"Loathsome" means to me that he did things no others would do. My opinion is that he would get people fired who had a mortgage w/ his bank, blacklist them in FR, and then foreclose on the mortgage (missed payments). The "New Deal" put an end to these practices by requiring long-term mortgages.

Arthur S Phillips (quoted in AR Brown's book) that Any enriched himself "by means which fell within the letter of the law". So WHAT is your interpretation of this statement?

I really have only two comments.
A) That Stef "Morphed" Morses Photo to have him smile and was just fooling around.  I thought it was pretty funny, myself.  She did it *tongue-in-cheek*, not as a misrepresentation of Morse.  With photo graphics available now as toys or tools on a computer, you could take Arnold Browns face and stick it on Andy's body.  I understand Brown was somewhat of a jokster himself, or at least liked a good laugh and he may have enjoyed a little harmless prank like that himself.
B) That Arthur Phillips had rather a bad memory for the facts of the case as seen in his newspaper article, Ter's article ON that article, and Stef's afterword to the Download on Phillips Fascile.  I've studied that article minutely and even I had a better grasp of the facts than did this man who WAS THERE.  So if he starts giving an opinion, I take it with a grain of salt... 

Usually when I say "I Give Up" that is a clue that I am trying harder, behind the scenes.  I've looked up the Bibliography at the Lizzie Andrew Borden Virtual Museum And Library and am presenting some candidates for the mysterious "1963 or 1965" book or article that may have dealt with the Borden crime in a way that fits a memory:

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Samuels, Charles and Louise. The Girl in the House of Hate: The Story and All the Facts of the Lizzie Borden Murders. New York: Fawcett Publications, 1953, 1962. Rpt. as The Girl in the House of Hate: Being an Exact and Faithful Account of the Trial of Lizzie Borden. Mattituck, NY: American Reprint Co., 1989.

Gross, Gerald. "The Pearson-Radin Controversy Over the Guilt of Lizzie Borden." Masterpieces of Murder: An Edmund Lester Pearson True Crime Reader. Ed. Gerald Gross. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963. 274-285.

Kunstler, William Moses. "Murder in Hatred: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Versus Lizzie Borden." First Degree. NY: Oceana Publications, 1960. 22-35.

Reach, James. "The Myth of Lizzie Borden," The Quality of Murder. Ed. Anthony Boucher. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, Inc., 1962. 57-65.

Snow, Edward Rowe. "The Lizzie Borden Murder Case." Piracy, Mutiny and Murder. NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1959. 248-288.  [apparently this article dwelled on the Tilden-Thurber incident]

Ketchum, Richard. "Faces from the Past." American Heritage 15 (April 1964): 28-29. Rpt. in Faces from the Past. NY: American Heritage Press, 1970. 38-41. Rpt. as "Fall River Legend" in Stories of Great Crimes & Trials. NY: American Heritage Pub., 1974. 24-5.

Lustgarten, Edgar. "Lizzie Borden." The Murder and the Trial. NY: Scribner's, 1958. 135-154.

--Thart's about it for the time frame...

I never read a book on the subject (Borden Murders) before, or for 31 years afterwards. All I remember is a navy or black hardcover, and these accounts of the case: Andy foreclosed on the murder house, and had it converted into a one-family from a two-family house by forcing carpenters to do the work. The author's solutions was that Lizzie did Abby when Bridget was outside, and Bridget did Andy when Lizzie was outside. That accomodates the known facts.

Could the author have been then unknown A.M. Kunstler (civil rights lawyer who died about 10 yrs ago)? He also wrote a book about the famous Hall-Mills murder here in Somerset county (just east of New Brunswick), but I never read it. That's another unsolved mystery!

I have not read those references, so I cannot comment on them. Could they be wrong again? Reliability of newspaper reports?
Arthur S Phillips was a young lawyer who was part of the defense team (Jennings) and privy to their secrets. He chose to have his report published AFTER his death; a Dying Declaration (so to speak). He, more than anyone else in 1940s, should know what he was talking about. Those who came after and were not even present at that time should realize their limitations.

No one picked up on the obvious problem with my reading of Andy's acting "within the letter of the law". That is a deliberately vague expression, and not specific. If someone said "that's just your interpretation" I would say that was right. But just HOW is that to be interpreted? We know about him getting customers to sign notes that he would foreclose on. Can anyone say otherwise?

It looks like Wm Kunstler's book reopened the case by questioning Pearson's conclusion. Radin certainly did discover new facts not otherwise reported.

Stefani had all the LBQ's and just returned them recently.
The one on top caught my eye, as it contained some of Fritz Adilz's fine article "Whodunit?  An Armchair Solution To The Borden Murders, Part Four", which includes Emma, Jan.'96 issue.

I was perusing this section and at page 8 came across this paragraph, part of which is transcribed here:

"Why should Isaac [sic-really William, his son] Davis be willing to assassinate Mr. and Mrs. Borden?  Here one can only speculate.  When accumulating his wealth, Mr. Borden is said not to have been always scrupulously honest.  Margaret Judge Grenier(F17)* says that he could deliver products of inferior quality at inflated prices and then be quite ruthless when his customers could not pay.  He could lie, cheat and bully.  In this way he must have made many enemies and maybe old Mr. Davis was one of these, passing his aversion and lust for revenge on to his son. "

*Note that Fritz gives a footnote but there is no legend at the end of this installment that cites "F17", so we are at a loss as to the source cited.
Coincidently, Margaret Judge Grenier has an article in the same issue, page 5, which I noticed in the Table of Contents.  That was no clue, but interesting, anyway.  (BTW:  It's not known to me if this lady author is a Judge, but it seems to me, if you want to be believed without much question, have the name "Judge" as your middle name...just an aside...)
Then, I decided to go the the Bibliographies in the RESOURCES section of the LizzieAndrewBorden Virtual Museum/Library (LABVM/L) and look for Ms. Grenier and her citation:

"Grenier, Margaret Judge. 'Lizzie Borden: Violator or Victim.' Proceedings: Lizzie Borden Conference. Ed. Jules R. Ryckebusch. Portland, ME: King Philip Publishing Co., 1993. 13-37.
Paper presented at the Lizzie Borden Conference at Bristol Community College, Fall River, Massachusetts, August 3-5, 1992."

A-HA!  She is in the Proceedings!  I happened to have an autographed copy!  (From Stef's visit in 1997)  "F17" must refer to page 17 in that book.  Sure enough, there is the offending (to me) statements to which Mr. Adilz refers:

"Between the ages of twenty three and sixty nine, Andrew Borden accumulated a quarter to a half million dollars, a fortune in the 1880's.  Mr. Borden was ambitious.  As an undertaker, he encouraged families to buy caskets which they could not afford.  He advertised and promised a coffin with superior and longer preservation for the body of the loved one than was offered by other funeral services.  He provided a grossly inferior quality product, charging an inflated bill.  When families could not meet the terms, Andrew Borden took possession of their property.  This was the means used that later allowed him to brag that he owned all of his property outright and owed no man.

His ability to use people's feelings against them to his own profit is shown in a business deal with a family who inherited land.  The feuding family was split further when Andrew lied about the bid accepted by other members of the family.  He bought the farm for one quarter of it's value.  There are other examples written of his calculating ability, some called him a genius.  In interactive terms, Mr. Borden turned the feelings of others to their disadvantage, cheated and lied.  These are the variations between the public image and the private man."

O.K....Now where are we?  Ms. Grenier does not give footnotes to this information.  She refers to the "DSM-III-R", and she also refers to works on psychology & sexuality and porports a theory of incest, etc.  These cites are contained within the text of the article.

We are no closer to finding our objective, after all this unnecessary sleuthing...we still do not know the source of these incriminating and prejudicial stories about Andrew Borden.  This is how "Legend" is promulgated, and it's no wonder this stuff is believed, repeated, passed down

Actually, it almost seems as if Phillips CHOSE to have his newspaper article published AFTER Pillsbury died, and while he, Phillips was still alive and kickin'  He almost gloats that only he and Alice are still around...and Alice isn't going to say anything.  No members of the "court" remain.  So he paints himself as an historian of the Borden case, uncontested, and proceeds to spout misinformation as to details, that are available to be checked (now) in source documents.
What part of my post #64, section B did you not believe?
You can access Terence's article etc., in the LBQ as stated.
This research and my own, took up a couple of months, on & off, and believe me when I say Phillips would have been wise to have done his homework like WE DID.

Frankly, Ms. Grenier's stuff is the sort I choose to pretty much ignore.  Why no sources?  Surely she didn't talk with people who knew Andrew Borden!  -- And we have available most of the primary sources of information about him.  Where might she have gotten her factoids?  Until a few years ago, good primary source material on the Borden case was difficult to come by, and I think most of these "authors" realized that.  They conjured up anything they wished and foisted it off on the public.  Thank Heaven the tide has turned against them, and we know a great deal that's true about the Borden family.  We may not be able to solve the case, but we can certainly surmise that many of these scenarios just aren't valid.  I've recently been rereading some of Rebello's comments about Andrew Borden.  Yes, they're mostly from the newspapers of the time and not entirely to be trusted, but I can't think he was the total villain he's been painted.

Whenever I read the PROCEEDINGS book I realize 3 things:

1).  That in 1992 this was fine research and paved the way for the next century of knowledge- seekers...
2).  We Should Always Question...
3).  How many of these author/contributors have changed their minds by now?


(Message last edited Sep-26th-02  8:52 PM.)

YES, I think he was as bad as they say. My opinion, I wasn't there.
Besides the fact that there is no libel law against the dead (take care when reading stories about the dead), Andy left many business partners, and daughters, who might take offense at anything disfavorable to Andy. Did Andy have any friends? Were only business partners as pall bearers? Not that this proves anything,

Is the Arthur S Phillips' Fascicles available on-line? From some University or College? (They have the time and money to do this?)

A S Phillips published his comments (somebody said) AFTER he died. He could not be censured, disbarred, sued, or arrested. He could have said anything. He chose to say "Lizzie was innocent" of the crimes she was charged with. (But did not say if she was guilty of obstruction of justice?) That sounds like a 'dying declaration' to me.

Note that EVERYONE accepts the "facts" that
1) Bridget was paid off (for favorable testimony?) and to leave the country; and,
2) Lizzie paid to suppress Porter's book (of newspaper articles).
Yet, there is no "documentary proof" for this. So how justify your beliefs in this?

Actually, its just "common sense". If something happens, who benefits from it?
Bridget's departure (if for pay) was to keep her from figuring out what the Eagan-Hawthorne story did.
Suppressing Porter's work (newspaper articles brought together in one place) prevented others from figuring out this solution (as in A R Brown's book).
Or, Bridget was VERY TIRED of hearing questions about the Bordens!
Just my well-considered opinion, of course!

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CaseRelatedBooks.htm
OR
Download:
"The Borden Murder Mystery - 1946 (pdf 1MB)
By Arthur Sherman Phillips. This book is an abstract from The Phillips History of Fall River (Fall River, MA: Dover Press, 1944-6, 3 vols.). Phillips was a junior member of Lizzie Borden's defense team who always maintained a belief in her innocence."

I wouldn't say Phillips made any dying declaration.
I believe he had a long & successful life in Fall River, and spent his declining years writing a 3 part history of Fall River.  This was an accomplishment in itself, but he did not live to see it finished.  His brother-in-law, Mr. Easton, completed the project so there was some question as to WHO actually WROTE the portion that was broken out seperatly after publishing, on the Borden murders...simply because the facts were so screwy.
He wrote this news article some 40 years after the trial, in 1934.  He died in 1941, and the first of his volumes was published privately in 1944, based on what was already completed as to the whole work, his notes on what was left to do, and an understanding of his wishes.
In his favour, he was adament in his belief of Lizzie's innocence...but this would tend to colour his recollections almost as thoroughly as Abby Potter's rancor colours her memories, 70 years later after her involvement with the Borden family.
--------------------

Ellen Eagan's statement was not recorded in any court document that survives, therefore she was probably not considered an important witness by either the defense OR the Prosecution....which also means we have nothing SWORN by her.
----------------------
As to Bridget being paid-off I have no opinion either way...I just don't see how Lizzie or Emma could have moved any big money her way without anyone noticing.  Besides, as Harry has proposed before...these girls were *property rich* but not necessarily cash rich.
-------------------------
Newer research has pretty much proven the *buying up and suppression of  Porters book* is a fable.
If we note that research from 1992 conference is already outdated, what must your souces be, if there has been nothing new added to your library since Kent & Brown? (1991&1992)
------------------
--please also note that I was watching the Gators and Kentucky play football and just in the time of the composing of this response, at 1/2 time, until play has since resumed...Kentucky has scored THREE TIMES!!!  YEA!



(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  6:48 PM.)

Since published books said that Andy would get funeral customers to sign notes, then foreclose on their property, he obviously was swindling widows and orphans. Does anyone disagree?

It is not a big step to quietly pick the workers who would be fired so they would default on their mortages, and lose their homes.

Some years ago I looked in the classified section of a newspaper (you can try this at home). There was an auction of repossessed automobiles. They only gave the brand (Pontiac) and the VIN. You can tell the make, model, year, etc from this - if you're in the business or have the reference guides. Think about this: somebody takes a car loan, then falls behind. The car is repossessed and sold at auction. If only the Bank Representative shows up he can put in a low bid. The buyer will still owe thousands on the loan! Look it up.

If Lizzie had $50,000 to pay off her lawyers, I'm sure that $1000 would be enough to get Bridget to leave the country. This did happen, didn't it?

"Recent research" sounds like a joke or hoax. The people present at the time noticed the suppression of this book. If "no documentary proof" exists, it merely shows the success of this suppression. Don't you all agree?

The Warren Commission was to have put secret material into a box that wouldn't be opened until 2027 or so. Does anyone expect anything to be there?

(Message last edited Sep-29th-02  2:44 PM.)

AR Brown's book records what Ellan Eagan told the police "Bridget was there in the front yard". It also explains why that was all she told.

Note that in spite of the absent Eagan testimony (important only for Bridget's defense), Brown's thoery solved the mystery. If neither Bridget or Lizzie killed both, then a hidden visitor did it.
Isn't this a logical solution?

Dr. Hoffman,
Yesterday In Old Fall River

WILLIAM BRAYTON

"Andrew Jackson Borden used some of the profits he realized from his undertaking business to buy property.  The story told in Fall River involving him and Wm. Brayton was used as an example of Andrew's business sense and ruthlessness.

According to the story, when one Horace Brayton died, he was buried by Borden, Almy and Co.  Brayton's survivors fought among themselves as to dividing up the late Horace Brayton's estate, especially several valuable real estate plots.  Andrew offered to purchase the parcels at a price under their current value.

Fearing one relative would get everything, all of the survivors except William Brayton were willing to sell to Andrew.  Brayton threatened court action against Andrew, but finally went along with the rest of his family and sold out to Borden.  For years after, the story goes, William went around Fall River denouncing Andrew and speaking of revenge.  By then, Andrew had resold the property at a handsome profit.

This story could have been pure fabrication.  Proof of its veracity has never been discovered.  It fits into the same category as Andrew buying cheap coffins and charging full price and the gruesome tale of cutting the legs off tall corpses so that they would fit into shorter, cheaper burial boxes."

The thing to remember is that everyone's perceived reality is just that; their reality.  If William Brayton perceived that Andrew swindled him, then that is his perception, his truth, whether Andrew's business dealings were above board or not.  But, it seems that no one else in the family complained, which leads me to believe, if the story is true, that it was only he who was in disagreement with Andrew.  I would love to get more accounts of Andrew's transactions and actions from eyewitness' of his time period to get a fuller picture of him as a man and not a myth, it would be so helpful. 

(Message last edited Sep-30th-02  2:14 AM.)

AR Brown (and others) mention the Brayton family swindle by Andy. So its not just perception, it is reality!!!! The fact that a Brayton was the chief suspect is no perception ("I'll get even with him someday"). Brown's book explains why this one man was so angry; the others were too shamefaced to complain. Which often happens with swindles; afraid to be seen as a fool.

Isn't this your experience from a lifetime?

The story is true! Wm Brayton was the main suspect (D Kent's book?), and so was Wm Carpenter (former bookkeeper).

The "urban legend" about cut-off legs is an embellishment. Just draw up the legs and they will fit. Try this at home, using a short blanket or a mark on the floor. It is also possible to cut a hole in the end of the coffin so the legs fit. "The dead don't complain."

According to Brown's book, Wm Brayton didn't want to sell, but was forced by the rest of the family. Psychologically, he couldn't balme his family members, so he blamed swindler Andy.

But, Rays, what are all these books using for a source for this information?  Actual documentation or hearsay?  What do they have to back it up with? 

I can't find a mention of this Brayton in Rebello or Knowlton Papers  Glossary.
Only found in Dr. Hoffman's book.
When I study a particular character I cross reference between these three sources.
If only one out of 3 list him, he is temporarily dead in the water..no can verify.  Got sources, please?

Thanks, Kat!  I learned the hard way with Victoria Lincoln's book, not all is fact or verifiable in most of the Borden books. 

Ask the writers of these books. Ask Pearson or Porter.
You can use a OUIJA board if it works for you. But this evidence is not acceptable to any court in the land, even this one.

The proof is in the author's reputation. He or she has surely done the research, except in cases plainly labelled "fiction".
V Lincoln does say she used "in-group hearsay" for her sources. Do people repeat stories at odds with the facts? (Probably, yes.)

E H Porter's book was based on the printed (and unprinted?) articles from his newspaper; this was totally anti-Lizzie. Can we trust him? It was also closest to the happenings in the case, and more reliable than anyone who makes up new suspects a century later.

Was Masterton's Nemesis also listed among those "43 names"?

[Note that people do not (?) quote from the pro-Lizzie newspapers.]

(Message last edited Oct-2nd-02  11:29 AM.)

If the well-documented case of the Brayton family is NOT in Knowlton's paper, it shows some sort of censorship. Like a US history of the 1970s that never mentioned "Watergate".
If Rebello's book doesn't mention Brayton either, same conclusion.

I never read either, so please excuse any omissions. I don't think the above has any errors.

Now I'm confused.
You mention *making up new suspects* a century later:
The suspects the police and lawyers and private investigators all followed up on in 1892-3 are the "suspects" I included in my list, which gave the sources.  These sources were from the Witness Statements, and also in the Knowlton Papers Glossary as Verifiable living breathing suspicious characters.

The only suspect *made up a century later* IS WM. BORDEN.

And yes, Masterton's suspects are there on the list--did you see them?  Clegg, Carpenter etc.

If their names were listed and investigated as suspects, then it means they were CLEARED of suspicion. Logically, that meant an unlisted name would be the suspected murderer.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget could have done both, or neither did just one, then a hidden visitor is the logical conclusion. This would explain why Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father", and did NOT tell anymore (a family secret). And why there was 90 minutes between the murders: waiting to see Andy.

AR Brown documented the optimal solution.

(Message last edited Oct-3rd-02  4:35 PM.)