Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: That Robbery

1. "That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-02 at 2:28 AM

That robbery in June, 1891 is bothersome.
Does it seem like it might be a "dress rehersal" for the upcoming attempt at murder?
All the same characters are at the scene, only this time including Emma (who was supposedly upstairs), and minus the victims, as minus they WILL be in the future crime!
Done in daylight.
Girls moving about the house in their daily routines.
Side door hooked?
None of the *girls* are accosted, nor do they notice anything....
Alice is again the one who, outside the family, tells the tale told HER by Lizzie. (Trial 378).
Bridget is asked (Prelim., pg.79-80) "Money and a gold watch, and things taken?"  Answers "So they said."  Bridget, again, hears nothing, sees nothing...

We have Desmond's letter to Knowlton enclosed by him to Pillsbury that "gives all the facts the police had in regard to the burglary."  The letter to Pillsbury is dated Sept. 9, 1892, #HK067, pg. 74-75, Knowlton Papers.  (And a lot of spurious news coverage Nov. 22, 1892 & May 26, 1893--from Rebello, pg.36-37).

Knowlton Papers:

"On or about the 24 of June 1891 I was called into City Marshal's office.  Marshal Hilliard said 'Mr. Desmond, Mr. Borden says his house has been robbed.  You go with him, and see what there is to it.'  Mr. Borden and myself left the office and went direct to Mr. Borden's house Second St.  I found there Mrs. Borden, Emma Borden Lizzie Borden & Bridget Sullivan.

On 2nd floor in a small room on north side of house I found Mr. Borden's desk.  It had been broken open.  Mr. Borden said '$80.00 in money and 25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H,car tickets had been taken.  The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman.'  Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co.  Mrs. Borden said 'her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel  attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken.  I prize the watch very much, and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling you never will.'  Nothing but the property of Mr. & Mrs. Borden reported missing.

The family was at a loss to see how any person could get in, and out without somebody seeing them.  Lizzie Borden said 'the cellar door was open, and someone might have come in that way.'  I visited all the adjoining houses, including the Mrs. Churchills house on the north, Dr. Kelly's house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon's house on the east, and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr. Borden's house; but I failed to find any trace.

I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which 'Lizzie Borden said she found in the Key hole of door,' leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of building.  So far as I know this robbery has never been solved.

P.S.  Mr. Borden told me three times within two weeks after the robbery in these words 'I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief.' "

--This is the most direct *testimonial* we have about the robbery and aftermath.  The rest is hearsay.
--Notice all the neighbors who must have been made aware of the crime during the investigative questioning.  News reports and authors, and Lizzie herself, would have us believe it was a Big Secret...(yet Alice doesn't know about it per her answers at Trial, nor Abby's family, per Witness Statements?  This seems a contradiction...)
--Notice also the cellar door is again accused of being left *open* (unlocked?)
--Again, Lizzie becomes suspect.
--Crime never solved.

Does this robbery bother anybody else, as too coincidental?

(Message last edited May-22nd-02  2:30 AM.)


2. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on May-22nd-02 at 8:11 AM
In response to Message #1.

A very interesting post Kat.

One other thing, Uncle John had then returned East and was apparently in Fall River that day. (Lincoln, pg 54., and Brown, pg. 42)

BTW Kat, way to go on the 700 posts mark!


3. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by David on May-22nd-02 at 10:04 PM
In response to Message #2.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:59 PM.)


4. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-02 at 11:31 PM
In response to Message #2.

Harry, I noticed you said Morse was in Fall River the day of the robbery.
What you DIDN'T say was he was at the house.
So he wasn't at the house that we know of...at least he wasn't mentioned in testimony.
Do we know how these authors know Morse was *in town*?


5. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on May-23rd-02 at 12:36 AM
In response to Message #4.

Actually Lincoln says that he was East in 1891. Brown is far more explicit:

"At the time the burglary took place, Abby had joined Andrew on a visit to a Borden farm property on the other side of the Taunton River---an extraordinarily rare event. However, the house was not unattended because Emma and Bridget were both at home, and Lizzie may have been there, although Uncle John's unclarified testimony gives reason to doubt this. In spite of all the normally effective defensive measures and at least two alert and somewhat paranoiac residents, the burglar made off with Abby's jewelry and gold watch, cash in greenbacks and gold, and a booklet of street railway tickets. These items were taken from the elder Bordens' upstairs rooms, and nothing was reported touched in any other part of the house. Most surprisingly, the two people known to have been in the house say they heard, saw, or knew nothing.

Uncle John testified that he was in Fall River that day, although he said little more. At the time he lived in a New Bedford suburb, less than fifteen miles from the Bordens. Although we do not know where Lizzie was, it has always been assumed that she was at home when the theft took place. By innuendo, every written account of this points a finger at her. Uncle John did say he was at the house and testified that he did not see Lizzie. His testimony was not questioned."

I have no idea of Brown's source. I'll have to search his testimonies at the Inquest, Prelim. and Trial.


(Message last edited May-23rd-02  12:37 AM.)


6. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-23rd-02 at 12:59 AM
In response to Message #5.

Wow, good sleuthing, Harry!  I hope you can find back-up for Brown's sources.  What an exciting find!  If Lizzie wasn't at home....hmmmm!   


7. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on May-23rd-02 at 1:32 AM
In response to Message #5.

I have not been able to find any such "testimony" by Morse in the Witness statements, Inquest, Preliminary or Trial.

Where Brown got this from I don't know. He's not exactly known for documentation.

Lizzie told Alice Russell, in that Wednesday night outpouring, that she, Emma and Bridget were at home at the time of the robbery.

I am not inclined to believe Brown but it is an interesting speculation.


8. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-23rd-02 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #7.

I got out my time-line and it shows that Morse came from RHODE ISLAND to South Dartmouth to live in Oct. 1891.

The robbery was June 24, 1891.

Morse said he visited the Borden house the end of June and July 10, 1892.

Maybe the author mixed up the YEAR?


9. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-23rd-02 at 5:30 PM
In response to Message #8.

I just went to the "LINKS" page and checked the "PERPETUAL CALENDAR" for the day of the week that June 24th fell on, in 1891.
Bridget's chores were pretty routine, so I wondered if the cellar door could have been open, robbery-day...if it were a Monday or Tuesday...Washing and drying laundry days.
June 24, 1891 was a Wednesday, which is Bridget's ironing day.
HOWEvER, if it rained on "drying day, Tuesday", it would be possible to still be drying clothes on Wednesday, and the cellar door WOULD be unlocked at least part of the time...


10. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on May-23rd-02 at 6:20 PM
In response to Message #9.

The wrong year would explain it Kat.

This is what Lincoln had to say (Pg. 54)

"At the time the thing (the robbery) happened, Uncle John had just moved back East for good. Andrew should have considered Uncle John a bird of ill omen."

As usual, no source is cited.


11. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-23rd-02 at 8:05 PM
In response to Message #10.

I just did a WORD SEARCH of Morse at the Trial.
Page 124, Morse responds:
Three years ago last April I came east."

That would be 1890, April.

So there are still discrepencies in that author's tale.


12. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by David on May-23rd-02 at 8:43 PM
In response to Message #9.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:59 PM.)


13. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-24th-02 at 2:09 AM
In response to Message #12.

Well, scanning down the list of LAST MESSAGES, I've got the last word on every topic (for a FIRST!), so I figured I'd complete my "SWEEP" here.


14. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-24th-02 at 2:59 AM
In response to Message #13.

Sweeping?  I thought that was Bridget's job? 


15. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on May-24th-02 at 11:18 AM
In response to Message #14.

I'll assume that robbery was not an inside job.
It shows how someone (familiar with the house?) could have slipped in and stole things from the Borden's bedroom (assumed kept there). Or it shows how they could have had a visitor who did it! Am I the only one to have heard of thefts by relatives? One that would NOT be reported to the police, especially if the "relative" was actually closer than a cousin?

I believe in AR Brown's solution to the murders, because it rings true and explains other things (Bridget's pay off to leave the country). But, is it also possible that they could have indulged the mad whim of a cousin by letting him think he was closely related to a rich uncle? Humoring a delusion may have harmful results.


16. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-24th-02 at 11:51 AM
In response to Message #15.

Rays, I think that is why Kat was checking into whether or not Uncle John was in town or not.  It seems that all hell breaks loose whenever he is in town, it gives me pause to think! 


17. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on May-24th-02 at 12:57 PM
In response to Message #16.

Was the purpose of Uncle John's visit be a cover for bringing along a secret visitor? One who got revenge by robbery in June 1891 (?) and murder in August 1892?

Lizzie's statement "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" is a clear sign she KNEW who did it (IMO). Telling who did it would remove them from the inheritance, IF they could claim it.
But the shielding could only be explained by a scandal that would engulf the innocent members of the family.

I do not think this was a conspiracy to bump off Abby & Andy.
Yes, that is a parallal explanation for this crime and cover-up.
Because I doubt strongly that the lawyers and judges would help out Lizzie in this case. Call me naive and trusting.

(Message last edited May-24th-02  1:00 PM.)


18. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-24th-02 at 7:03 PM
In response to Message #17.

It sounds plausible if you follow the illegitemate son theory.  Uncle John brings Billy Borden to see his father and he plays havoc with the family.  I know that others have been searching archives on another post to back this up, I believe Kat is leading the investigation! 


19. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on May-28th-02 at 10:35 AM
In response to Message #18.

It is also possible that William S Borden was laboring under the delusion that Andy was really his father. And the others might have humored him, with fatal results. Haven't we all seen something like this with young children (or those with the mind of a child)?

The bottom line is Lizzie's testimony: "it wasn't Lizzie or anyone who worked for Father". Obviously she held something back, like a description of a stranger. For what reason? Those who lived there and knew something say it was the reason in A R Brown's book.

That's good enough for me.


20. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on May-28th-02 at 11:17 AM
In response to Message #19.

With only Lincoln and Brown as sources on where Morse was that day, I don't believe it.  Unless we can find out where Lincoln got her info from. She's known to spin a few yarns of her own in her book.  And much of Brown's work cannot be verified - most importantly his main theory.

Now if this happened to me, would I think someone came in and went right to that one room and took just those items, didn't mess anything up, and nobody saw a thing?  It's ridiculous.  I firmly believe it was an inside job. 

Yes, I do think that it was in preparation for the murders.  I think Lizzie thought her plan thru to a degree and realized that no one would believe someone could sneak in the house.  So she did this little robbery scene so she could do just as she did:  go to people and say, "Well, another crime took place in broad daylight with us in the house!"  That is a GREAT motive!  And we have Andrew calling the investigation to a halt and saying they'll never find the thief.  And Lizzie is the one to present the nail saying, "Lookit! Lookit! Lookit!  This proves it!"  It reminds me of the Leopold & Leob case in 1920's Chicago, when Dick Leob got a kick out of helping the cops and at the same time trying to lead them in a different direction.  (Tho I think Lizzie was doing more the latter.)

I've often wondered what she did with the stuff.  The money goes without saying.  But the personal items.  How cruel to take the lock of hair Abby had in the little purse.  (I think Lizzie would have known it was in there. Or if not, certainly she did afterwards.  She could have 'found' the purse and say the thief must have dropped it so Abby would get it back.)  Nobody found the items during all the searching of the house after the murders.  And the streetcar tickets.  Did she think she could use them at first?  Or were they taken to make it look like a robber would do that?  Those I think she just burned up in the stove.  They never appeared anywhere, did they?

I would NEVER call off an investigation when my bedroom was violated!  Unless, of course, the thief were my daughter. 

Does her kleptomania play a role in this?  I don't think so.  She never stole from the family before (that we know of).  I think it helped her to be able to do it without a conscience, though. 


21. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-28th-02 at 3:07 PM
In response to Message #20.

Augusta,
I think everything you said was interesting, and worth thinking about.

It led to a question:  If Lizzie was the thief in the daylight robbery, and it was a sort of *screw-your-courage-up-and-see-if-it-CAN-be-done" scenerio, then why didn't she, if responsible for the murders (whether actively or passively) cause this Aug. 4th crime scene to ALSO appear as a robbery?
If it had already been once done by her, why not duplicate a method she may have found to be successful, with the added benefit of throwing suspicion away from the household?

The closest Lizzie got to suggesting an intruder was to ask, pointedly, *Was the cellar door locked, are you sure?* in front of the police.  (That we know of...)

You had mentioned not stopping an investigation into a robbery in your room, UNLESS the suspect was a daughter of the house:

I have a story to insert here, that I'd almost forgotten:
I had gone on a trip to England with Stefani.  When I returned, I noticed my best jewelry was gone, TaKEN from my BEDROOM.  I didn't notice at first, but it eventually occurred to me.
I started to ask questions.
I found out my dad (a cleaning maniac) had cleaned my room, dusting and vacuuming (I lived at home).
So the first thing we did was take apart the vacuum cleaner bag.
I sifted through everything--no jewelry.
Then I questioned each family member.
Nothing was disturbed in the whole house, yet something was missing.  It seemed so strange.
I began to believe I had taken my jewelry WITH me on my trip and lost it there.
Finally I questioned my younger brother--not as the culprit, but as to time & place.  Could he re-create in his memory several days at the house?
It came out then, with much prodding, that there had been an unaccustomed VISITOR, that only my brother was aware of!  In fact, he was in such a hurry that day, he let the person in (I say person, it was probably 2 people) the house and promptly LEFT  them alone while he took a shower.
One of them had stayed here in our house for months, and had brought their relative whom we did not know.
There seemed to be my answer!  It was actually better KNOWING, even though I could never lay the blame, than not to EVER know.  It could ONLY be the answer, but I could not charge the crime to them.
I never did question these 2, even though they showed up about 6 months later.  I had to let them in, offer them sodas, and sit quietly during the visit, without EVER alluding to the theft.  I never got an answer to the mystery:  just convincing conjecture.

-this person was like a temporary family member
-we believed it was not this person but the relative they brought with them
-we never called it a crime
-we never questioned this person, or even let on that anything unusual had happened
-it was MY bedroom which was entered and violated
-the relative we had not met was a younger sister
-we hesitated to cast blame with no proof
-it was never resolved.


22. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-28th-02 at 3:11 PM
In response to Message #20.

Do you think that maybe the items, like the watch, were pawned for money or just tossed out for spite?

And its been referred to in a few sources that Andrew stated to the household that the horsecar tickets were numbered and that was how the thief would be caught.  Almost as if he is saying to Emma, Lizzie and Bridget:  You use those tickets, girlie, and your butt will be in a sling!  I won't cover for you!

And if it was Lizzie, somehow I can't see her using those tickets anyway.  Wasn't the horsecar like the downtown trolley pulled by horses?  The equivalent of a bus nowadays?  Somehow that just seems a little too pedestrian for our Lizzie.  I believe that she would have walked to somewhere if it was close and if not, hire a carriage.  Just my humble opinion. 


23. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on May-28th-02 at 7:30 PM
In response to Message #22.

Why didn't Lizzie stage a robbery on the murder morning?  I've thought about that a lot over the years.  I think it would have been too risky to try to hide the "stolen" stuff that day.  I bet she thought about it, tho. 

What a story, Kat!  How awful for you.  Right, you couldn't accuse without any evidence.  But in the Borden robbery, we have no utterance of another person being in the house. 

I agree with you, Susan.  I took Andrew's saying that about the streetcar tickets to be a warning to 'someone' in the household, too.  Too bad he said it.  Maybe that 'someone' would have not thought of it and blown it.  Maybe Andrew said it so the person wouldn't be caught, sparing an embarrassment.

Pawning the items is a good thought.  If the investigation were called off, the pawnbrokers would not be on the lookout for any of it.  If Lizzie had the guts to go shopping for prussic acid, she probably wouldn't be afraid to try pawning at least the watch. 

What an interesting thought!  DID Lizzie hire any carriages before Andrew's death?  We read of her walking here and there.  But what about when she had to go further?  Would she get a friend to take her?  I don't think she'd be seen in a streetcar, either, Susan.  And we know what kind of carriage she hired as soon as she was acquitted.


24. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by edisto on May-28th-02 at 9:26 PM
In response to Message #21.

I had a very similar thing happen to me years ago, although I didn't lose any valuable jewelry, thank Heaven.  I had a small wicker chest in my dining room that I used as a bar.  Arrayed on it were around ten bottles of liquor.  I'm not much of a drinker unless I have company, and some of these were rather exotic libations and hadn't even been opened.  One night during dinner I idly looked over at the chest, and there wasn't a single bottle left on it!  I had two teenaged sons at the time, but neither had ever touched my liquor before, nor had my housekeeper.  My daughter was away at college, and she didn't drink anyway.  On questioning the boys, I learned that my younger son had entertained two male friends earlier in the day.  Right after that, he had left the house, leaving nobody at home and forgetting to lock the front door, and had gone to visit a friend in the neighborhood.  I deduced that his two buddies had doubled back to our house and absconded with the liquor.  My son told me one friend's parents were out of town, and he was having an unsupervised party at his house that night.  I called the police and explained my suspicions to them, because I didn't like the thought of those young kids drinking all that booze.  I had visions of 'em gulping down all my Curacao and Grenadine syrup and getting terribly sick.  One of Arlington's finest went to the house in question and skulked around outside, looking through the windows.  He was never able to see any of my bottles, and the mystery was never solved.  We tried to get my son to attend the party (to which he had been invited) and look for the goods, but he felt uncomfortable doing that.  You'd better bet he locked the front door after that!


25. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-28th-02 at 11:44 PM
In response to Message #23.

Kat and Edisto, those are horrible stories!  Having suspicions, but, not having the physical proof!  You probably know what Andrew went through with his own trials.

In my opinion Lizzie MUST have hired carriages or cabs, the equivalent of our nowaday taxis.  Where was the train station in relation to the Borden house?  I can definetly see our Lizzie traveling by train, whether it was to go to Marion with the girls or possibly travel to Boston?  But, to go distances like going to see the lawyer about the Ferry street property, I think that she would take a cab.  There was that livery station right across the street from the Bordens.  But, since there was no phone in the Borden house I wonder how one procured a cab?  Sent a letter days in advance?  Send Bridget to run an errand?  


26. "Traveling about town"
Posted by harry on May-29th-02 at 12:34 AM
In response to Message #23.

That's an interesting question as to how they traveled about town. I would assume carriages could be rented like a taxi today. A question though, without a phone how do you call for a carriage?

Did Gardner's stable on Second street rent carriages or have drivers available for rent?  At least that was only a few doors away.

Luckily they lived near the heart of the town and probably most trips were made by foot. People in that time did far more walking than we are accustomed to and thought nothing of it.

When Lizzie got to Maplecroft things changed. This is from Kent's "Forty Whacks" ---

"The third floor of Maplecroft quartered the servants, a maid and a housekeeper rumored to be the best paid servants in Fall River at $10 per week. Later, a chauffeur was added to drive a handsome black Packard phaeton. Nowhere did Lizzie skimp on the decoration or furnishings. The servants' quarters and the garage were paneled with the same quality materials used in the rest of the home.

For the first time, there was a telephone in the Borden house (Ring 378), listed in the name "Lizbeth A. Borden," as she referred to herself for the rest of her life.

Before she bought her sleek Packard and acquired a chauffeur, Lizzie went shopping and to her social engagements in her pony cart. Whenever it was spotted on the streets or when she was seen entering or leaving an emporium, groups would gather, whisper, and point her out to any newcomers to town. She feigned not to notice her notoriety and, as she went about her daily affairs, her clear, ice-blue eyes were invariably fixed straight ahead."

Below a picture of a black 1913 Packard Phaeton



(Message last edited May-29th-02  12:43 AM.)


27. "Re: Traveling about town"
Posted by augusta on May-29th-02 at 7:55 AM
In response to Message #26.

Sorry that happened to you, Edisto.  It's pretty bad to rip off your host.  Good try catching them.  Gee, kids don't know what they're doing messing with alcohol. I was a kid myself, tho ... but I never would have stolen. 

GREAT picture, Harry!  I can picture Lizzie riding in that.  I have a feeling hers was even earlier than that.  Didn't she have one of the first automobiles in Fall River?

I have doubts about Lizzie calling a carriage (probably via Bridget).  I think Andrew's protestations would have been too much.  He walked all over town.  And when he went out to Swansea, he drove a horse-drawn vehicle himself.  After he got rid of their horse & carriage, I would think he'd rent one to drive.  That was probably cheaper than a cab.  I have no doubt that Lizzie wanted to hire taxis, but I can picture Andrew getting into it with her.  If she drove her own pony cart later, she probably knew how to handle a horse & cart earlier.  I'd guess that she did so sometimes, but I'd think more often prevailed upon friends for a lift. 


28. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on May-29th-02 at 8:26 AM
In response to Message #25.

Sorry Susan, I missed your 11:44pm post of May 28th. Didn't mean to repeat much of what you said in my last post. Great minds think alike! Yeah, sure.

I think "taxis" or their equivalent have always been around in some form.

When Uncle Morse went to Swansea the night before the murders he rented a carriage. From Morses's testimony at the Preliminary hearing:

Q.  What did you do then?
A.  I went over to Swansea.
Q.  Did you go alone?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did Mr. Borden keep a team now days?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  You went in a team you hired?
A.  I hired a team at Mr. Kirby's.

Maybe Gardner's stable didn't rent after all.


29. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on May-29th-02 at 8:52 AM
In response to Message #28.

Apparently there was testimony in front of the Grand Jury about the Borden daylight robbery.  Here's something I never heard before.

Chief Hilliard (then it says allegedly) testified.  He said he "was satisfied" that Lizzie was the thief, as was Mr. Borden.  Only Abby's articles were taken.  And some of the streetcar tickets WERE used.

"A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them.  The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards.  They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them.  Lizzie had never any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation.  A number of such points were brought before the Grand Jury which never before made public, and they added much strength to the case."  The problem with this juicy morsel is that it comes from "New Bedford Evening Standard", found on page 37 of L. Rebello's book.  The Grand Jury testimony was and is kept secret.  Rats.  How can we confirm that?

Maybe when the Hilliard Papers are published by the FRHS, it will contain information about the robbery.

Another interesting sideline comes from "New Bedford Daily Mercury", August 10, 1892 (in L. Rebello's book, page 36):  Captain Dennis Desmond was searching for the stolen things.  ..."The peculiarity was that the only thing disturbed was Mr. Borden's desk where a man might be believed to have kept his private papers was significant..."
Again, that fits in with Lizzie, maybe looking for a will or just anything.  But again, consider the source. 

Lizzie never having had any streetcar tickets before answers our question about her riding in one, if it's true.  I would think if she did ride in them, we would be reading of people seeing her in them.  Good post, Harry.  And good deduction about the nearby livery stable.  Unless they were all rented out that day.  (I'm sorry!  It's frustrating - it seems like every time we come up with something, there's a flip side to it.)


30. "Re: Traveling about town"
Posted by william on May-29th-02 at 10:11 AM
In response to Message #26.

If I can use my experience as a teenager in Brooklyn, New York, perhaps I can shed some light on the transportation question.
Aside from "shank's mare" we had the advantage of the trolley car.
Most of us lived on side streets, but it was just a short walk to the main drag. From this point you could take a trolley to just about anywhere in the Borough of Brooklyn, or even to New York City if you were so inclined.
I would imagine that Lizzie and her family used this mode of transportation in Fall River when they lived on Second Street. After the trial when she graduated to the exclusive digs of the upper echelon on the "hill," she could afford a hired livery .


31. "Re: Traveling about town"
Posted by Susan on May-29th-02 at 12:07 PM
In response to Message #30.

First, Augusta, you literally stopped my heart as I read your post!!!  I thought you had found something new and exciting, but, as you later stated there wasn't Grand Jury testimony to back it up.  Rats!  What a great story, I wonder if there is any truth to it at all, even a morsel?

William, what or who is "shank's mare"?  Was it your family's horse?  As I had said earlier on my part, just all supposition, but, Lizzie had her own allowance, do you think Andrew would have cared how she spent it?  Whether on cabs or pony carts?  Its just with Lizzie's aspirations to live on the hill, I get the feeling that the horse car or trolley may have been too common for her tastes.  But, with her pocketbook, it may have been another story entirely? 


32. "Re: Traveling about town"
Posted by william on May-29th-02 at 4:57 PM
In response to Message #31.

Sorry, Susan. I shouldn't use the jargon of an almost defunct generation.  "Shanks mare," means you "walked" to your destination.
(so why didn't you say that in the first place!)
Bill


33. "Re: Traveling about town"
Posted by Susan on May-29th-02 at 6:30 PM
In response to Message #32.

  Thats a new one on me, William!  I for one do not feel that you are from a defunct generation, I love hearing about a time and place in American history that I will never get to experience firsthand!  Please, share your input! 

My mother was a bobbisoxer, loved hearing about those times.
My grandmothers were flappers, what a strange time to live in, great to hear about things like when a airplane flew overhead, everyone stopped what they were doing and ran outside to see it.  It was an event!

And what I have learned from my greatgrandmother, born in the 1800's, a firsthand taste of Victorian times.

So, anything you can add, like "shanks mare" is greatly appreciated! 


34. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-30th-02 at 12:38 AM
In response to Message #29.

Williams, A CASEBOOK, 1980, pg. 13:

"...Although Bridget was Irish, and thus liable to suspicion in late 19th century Mass., and, although she had been in the house at the time of the theft, no one suggested that she had done it"

--Why was Lizzie always suspected over Bridget, for the robbery AND the murders?

"...(Andrew) placed the key (to his bedroom) in plain sight on the mantle during the daytime.  Such an act may have been done for the convenience of Mrs. Borden  But it may also have been a defiant gesture, affirming his trust in the maid Bridget."

--What about Emma?  She was home at the time...
--Maybe Andrew locked his room most of the time previous to the robbery, simply because he had a safe upstairs and THAT implies $ hidden, to his business associates and neighbors.
--Leaving the key OUT in plain sight FOR ABBY makes sense.

"This daylight theft, a miniature crime when compared with the one to come, could be viewed in several ways.  Perhaps it was the work of someone in the household, a petty act of greed or revenge.  Perhaps it was a subtle act of terror or a test of the family's loyalities.  Later Lizzie, when discussing the case, denied that her father stopped the investigation.  She claimed that the family's silence on the matter covered the detective's continuing investigation.  The crime was never solved."


35. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-30th-02 at 10:37 PM
In response to Message #34.

Yes, Kat, that damn key on the mantel in the sitting room!  What is it there for?  I for one have never been able to fathom what Andrew was trying to say or do with this silent gesture.  Lock up my bedroom, good and tight, and then leave the key out where anyone can get it?

Was it a message to Lizzie?  I know you robbed us, if you should want or need anything in the future here is the key, no need to break in?  It just doesn't make a lick of sense!  Or, I know that Bridget didn't do it, see how much I trust her by leaving the key right out for her to use if she wants?  


36. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on May-31st-02 at 2:36 AM
In response to Message #35.

I thought it was a simple solution for the author to imply that it was left there merely as a curtesy to Abby.  Having a safe, that room may have ALWAYS been kept locked, considering it was almost a direct route up the stairs from that side door which was only kept on a hook.

I kinda like the simplicity.

Oh, and when I told my personal robbery story, I began to wonder if maybe Sarah Whitehead or that nasty little Abby Whitehead had invaded the house and stole from ole Borden, and he found out and Abby made him drop the whole thing.
There would still be the *family aspect*, but not a Borden, A WHITEHEAD!

As an aside:

EEEWWW.  Creepy!  As I was writing the words "nasty little Abby Whitehead" my light bulb burnt out right next to me!  Left me in the 2:30 a.m. DARK....well, except for the computer light...but she wouldn't understand THAT...

(Message last edited May-31st-02  2:40 AM.)


37. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on May-31st-02 at 10:01 PM
In response to Message #36.

Wow, I guess Abby Whitehead is pretty nasty after all if shes putting out your lights!

Interesting insight, Kat!  Since they were in want of money and knew that Abby had married into it, do you think that they resented her and that is why they took her stuff mostly? 


38. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-1st-02 at 4:25 AM
In response to Message #37.

Oh gosh.  I didn't get that far.  You're keeping me on my toes.
I really pictured little Abby, who would have been 7 years old.
SHE might have been in the habit of coming by...slipped upstairs where she'd never been, looked around.
Andrew's money was stolen.
Aunt Abby's watch, which seemed to have a family connection...and little Abby was family...something shiny.
Maybe the little (future) tattletale was also a kleptomaniac?

I don't know...

It's just, If I can think it of Lizzie, I think I should think it of Bridget, Emma, Lil Abby, maybe Sarah....Priscilla?

There are few men to include, notice?

Andrew's literally surrounded by females.


39. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-1st-02 at 11:18 AM
In response to Message #38.

I won't accuse Abby B. Whitehead w/o knowing anything more.
But didn't she have an older brother? Who knows?

R Sullivan's book says ABW was supposed to have been baby-sat that Thursday (Police Picnic), but it was cancelled the day before. Did Uncle John's arrival, and the privacy for the presumed meeting, cause this? What else?


40. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-1st-02 at 3:44 PM
In response to Message #38.

Kat, perhaps that is why so many women are interested in this case, it is just chock full of women, shifty, telling falsehoods, not telling the full truth, etc.  Plus it brings about all those wonderful questions like could an average woman use an ax or hatchet to kill someone? 


41. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-1st-02 at 5:06 PM
In response to Message #40.

Susan, I love the way you put on lipstick to write those words!

BTW:  I'm not accusing lil' Abby, only including her in who I would suspect.
The only males we have are lil' George, who was only 4.
Then there are Step-Uncle George Fish, Uncle Morse (2), Uncle Hiram Harrington, and Step-Uncle George Whitehead.
Then there were second cousins in town of whom I know little.


42. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-1st-02 at 5:23 PM
In response to Message #41.

Why, thank you, Kat.  Being the delicate flower of womanhood that I am, I only thought it appropiate.  Yeah, right, if you believe that have I got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying!

But, it is interesting for the time period this happened in that the suspect is a woman and many, many of the witnesses are women.  I wonder what the verdict would have been if women were allowed on a jury at the time? 


43. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-1st-02 at 7:00 PM
In response to Message #42.

Oh, God/dess!
That's a good question!  


44. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-1st-02 at 9:24 PM
In response to Message #43.

Thats a becoming shade of lipstick you have on there, Kat.  I hope that there no Cadmium red in it! 


45. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on Jun-1st-02 at 10:07 PM
In response to Message #44.

I hope your face is not Cadmium Yellow!!!

(Message last edited Jun-1st-02  10:10 PM.)


46. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-1st-02 at 10:48 PM
In response to Message #45.

  Good one, Harry!


47. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Doug on Jun-2nd-02 at 12:50 AM
In response to Message #1.

Andrew Borden's reaction to the 1891 robbery in his home says something about the "real" Andrew which I think has been obscured over the years. How easy might it have been in 1892 for a wealthy and influential New England businessman who employed a young Irish domestic in his home to accuse that domestic of stealing from the businessman and his wife, such accusation meant to shield his perhaps guilty daughter from suspicion? How easy might it have been for any of the family to make such an accusation? Yet Bridget was apparently not suspected or accused by Andrew or Abby of anything related to the robbery, or for that matter was she accused by Lizzie or Emma. Andrew has been characterized as mean, a skinflint, hard, and worse. This episode shows Andrew reluctant to give up his daughter to the police and unwilling to implicate Bridget who might otherwise have been an easy suspect. It is a snapshot of a man attempting to protect his family from scandal, an honest man with a conscience who perhaps displayed less prejudice against the Irish than did many members of "old" New England families of that era.


48. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-2nd-02 at 11:03 AM
In response to Message #47.

Good post, Doug. It makes me look at the Bridget exclusion more seriously, and it makes sense.  Bridget was also a friend to Abby, who sorely needed one in that house.  I would think that Andrew would be grateful to Bridget for that.  That's right - we never hear of Andrew having made a dishonest deal.  He was no pushover, but there isn't anyone that said he was not honest in his business.  And for someone being in business for as long as he was, that's a testament of sorts to his character.  Remember how fellow businessmen tipped their hats as his hearse went by?  I wish we had more on both Andrew and Abby's characters.  They are always so one-sided. 

I wonder what else in the case can be looked at like that - things that someone did not do. 

I don't figure Andrew as being a snob.  He came from very simple roots, built his fortune from the bottom up. Perhaps compared to Lizzie and her always wanting the high life, he would seem like Scrooge, but I don't think he was as unreasonably tight as it's always said.  His simple roots may be a reason why he didn't turn on Bridget also.  I would think there would be an understanding on his part of her and her simple roots.

Of course Lizzie would say the investigation was still going on.  That's to her benefit. 

I thought the key was only put on the mantel after the robbery took place.  Maybe Bridget's testimony says it?  Is there a source that says the key was put there prior to it?

Nobody can place the other suspects you mention, Kat, at the scene.  I would think those are pretty remote possibilities.  I get the same feeling about Little Abby.  She does strike me as not being a nice little girl.

The first time I remember reading that Little Abby was supposed to be babysat on Thursday was in Masterton's book.  Does anyone have another source for it?


49. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-2nd-02 at 4:41 PM
In response to Message #47.

Very good point, Doug!  It does cast a rather better light on Andrew than has been seen in years.

As Augusta has said, I too wish that there was more info on Andrew and Abby as people.  And a weird thought from that has come into my mind, did Andrew and Abby call each other by their first names or call each other pet names or just by Mother and Father?  Strange thought.

I checked Bridget's testimony and she mentions Andrew putting the key on the mantel, but, not when he started doing so.  I checked Lizzie's inquest testimony and unless she was perjuring herself on the stand, found this:

Q. Could you then get to your room from the back hall?

A. No sir.

Q. Why not?  What would hinder?

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 HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.

So, going by what Lizzie says, the doors were ALWAYS kept locked from day one.  Hmmmm?  Where does it say, besides the Lincoln book, that this started after the robbery?

And I, for one, have never heard of little Abby needing to be babysat on Thursday!  Thats something new to me.  I don't have Masterson's book.  So, what does it say exactly, that Abby was to go over and babysit little Abby?   


50. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-2nd-02 at 7:04 PM
In response to Message #49.

Oh my goodness!  Has a "new" clew been found??    I've always read that the key business started after the robbery.  It's always been part of the story.  This is the first time I've read that it was always done.  Hmmm... Did you check the Preliminary Hearing, Susan?  The Witness Statements?

Now that makes me wonder when did they start locking their bedroom doors??  I don't know if we'll find the answer to that one, but it sure would be interesting to know.

Masterton says that Dr. Dolan testified in the Preliminary Hearing that Lizzie told him she thought "a boy" had brought the note. 
He says in Sullivan's "Goodbye, Lizzie Borden" Abby had "few if any friends" other than Mrs. Whitehead.  Now we know this is not true.  Abby did have friends and, contrary to what writers have passed down thru the years, she also did go out.  Masterton also cites Bridget's quote after Andrew's body was found about if she knew where Mrs. Whitehead lived she would go there.  Then he cites a newspaper article saying that "A report was circulated last night to the effect that a woman on Fourth Street had sent a note to Mrs. Borden..."
I don't think any of those things has much, if any, substance.  The next part, tho, is good.

From page 186 of Masterton's book:  "In 1972 Sullivan interviewed Abby Whitehead Potter..."  (she was 8 at the time of the killings and 88 when interviewed)  "It seems that Sarah Whitehead planned to attend the police picnic at Rocky Point on August 4.  This required that she find baby sitters for little Abby and her younger brother George, aged five.  The plan was to send little Abby to visit with her aunt at 92 Second Street; George was to stay with another aunt (Aunt Lucy) in a different part of Fall River.  On the morning of August 4, Mrs. Whitehead changed her mind.  Little Abby never knew why, but her mother decided to send both children to Aunt Lucy's house.  Abby Potter said she always regretted this change in plans; had she gone to visit her Aunt Abby, the murders might never have occurred..."

Masterton deduces that Sarah W. thought Abby had just been real sick (the "poisoning"/summer complaint) and was 64 years old and didn't want to impose.  He then says that she wrote the note to let Abby know the change of plans.  This is pure speculation.  He says that the "boy" Lizzie thought she saw was Little Abby's 5 year old brother, who came with his mother's note. 

Well, why wouldn't have Lizzie recognized him then?  And why didn't Sarah W. speak up as to who wrote the note?  And would a five year old be entrusted to go to the Bordens to deliver a note?  I think I can answer that last one. I wouldn't.

Why did Lizzie say someone in town was "sick"?  Masterton claims Lizzie was only half-listening. Oh, I think Lizzie would be all ears if anything went on having to do with "Mrs. Borden".  

Masterton says the most likely reason Sarah W. didn't come forward about the note was because of her contempt for the Borden sisters.  Gee, you'd have to be REALLY spiteful and horrible yourself if you didn't come out with the truth about such an important thing.  Wouldn't Sarah W. have wanted them to find who REALLY killed them?  That doesn't fit. 

He relies heavily on Bridget's comment to Mrs. Churchill that Abby "hurried off" that morning without telling her where.  But nowhere does Bridget say otherwise than she only got her info thru Lizzie. 

He says Abby went over to Sarah's and found her not home (she went because she thought oh, how silly.  Of course I'm able to do it!).  She uses her own key to Sarah's house, which we have no evidence at all that she even had one, and goes in, finds it empty so thought she'd have a snack.  She eats some mince pie, which Masterton points out the ingredients of a mince pie in the 1890's matches with what the doctors found in Abby's stomach that morning.  Well, it also matches with what was on the Borden table that morning.  When the doctor said fruit skins, he voted for apple (I'm for pear, or an apple from the Borden table).  Then she falls asleep, wakes and hurries home about quarter to 11.  I don't want to give away the entire book, so I'll stop here.  But as you can see, it's quite a stretch.  It's a good story.  And who knows?  It's as valid as the rest since it's an unsolved case.  I just personally don't agree.

(Excerpts come from "Lizzie Didn't Do It!" by William Masterton, Branden Publishing Company, Boston, MA  c. 2000.)

Masterton's book is good.  I don't mean to sound like it isn't.  He's entertaining - has a good sense of humor.  And he sure knows his chemistry, which is a bonus for a Lizzie book.  I'm very interested in one point he makes.  I'll make another thread for that, tho.  Anyway, I do recommend the book. 


51. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-2nd-02 at 8:03 PM
In response to Message #49.

Some more about locked/unlocked doors:

Susan's reference to the Inquest is on pages 57 & 58.  I had to find that first, because I was looking for the place in someone's testimony where the girls are seen coming down the back stairs.

Pg. 58, Lizzie also describes the locked door between her room and the guest room, and that a writing desk is against the door on her side.  (Remember, she had only occupied the larger room since c. 1881, so we don't know how Emma kept the room, or whether Emma's furniture STAYED in the larger bedroom when she moved to the smaller...)

Preliminary, pg. 51, Bridget:
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
Q: (Key to back door) (Had)...for how long?
A: I don't think I had it quite a year yet
......................
Pg. 86
Q: Where with reference to these back stairs was this room that was broken into when the money was taken, and the gold watch?
......................
Q:...This room that was burglarized when the house was entered sometime ago...
______________________
Trial, pg. 208-9, Bridget:
Q: Let me ask you if you have ever known of any communication on the second story between the front and the back part of the house?  Is there any way to go that is ever used, to your knowledge?
A: Well, there was a door leading from Mrs. Borden's room into the front part of the house
Q: And how was that door kept?
A: I couldn't tell you anything about it
Q; You know nothing about it?
A: No Sir
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


52. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-2nd-02 at 10:39 PM
In response to Message #51.

So, to me, it sounds like while Emma still occupied the big bedroom that the door between Andrew and Abby's and Emma's bedrooms was kept open.  Once Lizzie moved in and robbed the elder Bordens the door between was kept locked and that became ALWAYS so, part of the establishment.  It makes sense.


53. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-2nd-02 at 11:49 PM
In response to Message #52.

It also sounds as if while Bridget lived there, the attic rooms were kept locked.

That Bridget received a key to the side door about the time of the robbery...What did she do BEFORE then, to get in?  Or was that door not kept locked?

Mrs. Borden's room was considered broken into and the room was burglarized, implying it was kept locked previous to robbery.

Emma and Lizzie, at times were noticed coming down the back stairs.  This does not prove they had used the communicating door.  This only proves they had come down the back stairs.  The attny assumed this, and puts words in the witnesses mouth.  Maybe they had visited Mrs. Borden's room by going UP the back stairs, only to come down again.  (possible).


54. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-3rd-02 at 10:08 AM
In response to Message #53.

I didn't think your question was strange, Susan, asking what Abby and Andrew called each other.  I've often wondered about that myself. 

A possibility:  Abby called Andrew "cupcake"; Andrew calls Abby "poundcake". 

I've never seen it written anywhere how they referred to each other.  Has anyone?
                 


55. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by harry on Jun-3rd-02 at 11:34 AM
In response to Message #54.

"Poundcake" - I love it!! My side hurts from laughing.

(Message last edited Jun-3rd-02  11:35 AM.)


56. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-3rd-02 at 5:01 PM
In response to Message #54.

The answer is: "Mister Borden" and "Missus Borden".
Unless they used their first names only in their house?


57. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-3rd-02 at 10:01 PM
In response to Message #56.

See, it does kind of make you think, doesn't it?  Lizzie is asked in her Inquest Testimony about whether her parents are affectionate with one another and she hesitates and answers with, I don't know but that they were.  But, Lizzie doesn't elaborate the point.  Did they call each other Pooky and Snookums, Andrew and Abby, Mister and Missus, etc.  Just one of the odd thoughts that enter my mind at times, thought I'd share! 

Love the poundcake, Augusta!!! 


58. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-4th-02 at 6:29 PM
In response to Message #57.

Maybe they did call each other "Mr. and Mrs. Borden" in front of others.  That was customary in the olden days, wasn't it?  That would also make it nastier when Lizzie starts calling Abby "Mrs. Borden" - like mocking them. 

In private I'd think they'd use their names.  I can't picture Andrew chasing Abby around the room saying, "Come here, my fluffy mutton chop!"  But they must have had their intimate moments.  I don't believe Andrew married her JUST to be a stepmom and housekeeper.  Maybe that was why Emma gave up the big room adjoining them.  She couldn't stand to hear them in there.  Remember, Emma seems to have despised her more than Lizzie.


59. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-5th-02 at 12:00 AM
In response to Message #58.

Well, that WAS another question of mine, about Andrew and Abby's love life.  I know at one point in Lincoln's book she calls attention to the fact of Andrew and Sarah only having 3 children, space widely apart.  That they were not a normal family for the times.  Do you think that they used some form of birth control?  That Sarah kept Randy Andy at bay?

And interesting too that if Andrew and Abby did have sex on a fairly regular basis(like Sarah, once every 5 years or so ) why did Abby never conceive?  Didn't Andrew want a male heir to the Borden throne, you think he would have tried like hell!  Especially since at the time I don't think that it was recognized that the father determined the sex of the child and not the mother.  Questions, questions, questions! 


60. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by edisto on Jun-5th-02 at 11:32 AM
In response to Message #59.

Abby was a plain, plump 37-year-old when she and Andew were married in 1865.  Almost certainly, her fertility would have been on the wane.  Some of the minor fertility problems that can be treated today were incurable then.  IMHO, Andrew sounds like the kind of man who sublimated his sex drive into a drive to make money.  These might well have been two people who didn't even need birth control measures.


61. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-5th-02 at 11:33 AM
In response to Message #59.

I think that if Andy wanted a male heir he would have chosen someone younger than Abby. Trophy wives were not unknown then. Aside from a question of class, background, etc.


62. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-5th-02 at 11:33 AM
In response to Message #59.

I think that if Andy wanted a male heir he would have chosen someone younger than Abby. Trophy wives were not unknown then. Aside from a question of class, background, etc.


63. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by joe on Jun-5th-02 at 11:41 AM
In response to Message #61.

My goodness, Rays.  Brown maintains he already HAD a male heir.


64. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-7th-02 at 11:17 AM
In response to Message #63.

Could an illegitmate son inherit, then or now? Without a will?
I'm not a lawyer, but English law (unlike French law since the Revolution) forbids this. What do the others say?


65. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-7th-02 at 5:55 PM
In response to Message #64.

Blood test and a paternity suit? 


66. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-7th-02 at 7:45 PM
In response to Message #65.

If we look at the 'younger Abby' photo, she wasn't as plump as she was in later life.  I think she was better looking (in the younger photo) than Andrew's first wife was.  Andrew's roots were so simple, I'm not surprised he chose someone like Abby for his second wife.  I'm sure he had the welfare of his daughters in mind when he decided to marry.  But I would think they had intimate relations.  Sarah Morse might have had misscarriages we don't know about.  And same with Abby.  Or maybe conception was the physical fault of her and/or Andrew. He wore a truss in later life, at least.  At her autopsy, it was found that Abby had some female problem - was it a cyst? 


67. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by edisto on Jun-7th-02 at 9:09 PM
In response to Message #66.

Neither Sarah nor Abby was a hottie in my book!  (But then they weren't the sex I'm opposite from.)


68. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-7th-02 at 11:01 PM
In response to Message #66.

Autopsy of Abby Borden
LizzieAndrewBorden web-site

"Womb was the seat of a small fibroid tumor on anterior surface.  Fallopian tubes and ovaries normal."

Sarah's death certificate claimed:
"Uterine congestion, 4 months, and disease of the spine."

This sounded like a misscarriage to me, at 4 months.
"Disease of the spine" might be scoliotis, and if so, it would have been congenital, could make it hard for her to get pregnant, and would also be painful, on a daily basis.
Maybe her eyes are so strange because she took opiates for pain?  Just supposing here....


69. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by rays on Jun-8th-02 at 11:10 AM
In response to Message #68.

Do NOT forget that TB was very common in the 19th & 20th centuries. There is a spinal variation of this disease.
"TB" may have been a euphemism for other wasting diseases (see "Camille").


70. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by augusta on Jun-8th-02 at 1:15 PM
In response to Message #69.

I wonder if Abby's tumor could have prevented her from getting pregnant.

Does anyone know why Andrew wore a truss?


71. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-8th-02 at 5:01 PM
In response to Message #70.

I have never heard that Andrew wore a truss!  Where did this bit of information come from?  And a hernia, though uncomfortable and/or painful would not keep Andrew from being able to father children, IMHO. 


72. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Kat on Jun-8th-02 at 5:59 PM
In response to Message #71.

Stef had posted a list of the clothing and other articles that were buried in the yard from the murders.
It is listed there.  That list is our source.

Do you use the *SEARCH* feature?
It's really simple.  I just used it to get this info for you.  (even if you know all about it, this is the easiest way for me to describe to you how to find the "truss reference"...)
On the main page of the Forum , along the top, are various "features".  (It's probably also elsewhere)
Click on "Search"
All the features there are pre-set
I only type in TRUSS
and then designate how far back in time the search should go.
I picked "3 Months."
If you do that now, you'll get 2 items or threads that mention "TRUSS"
The one called " ABBY'S DRESS" is the one you want.
That goes directly to the list, Stefani, May 2, 6:14 p.m.


73. "Re: That Robbery"
Posted by Susan on Jun-8th-02 at 6:12 PM
In response to Message #72.

Thanks, Kat!  Boy, this site has all the whistles and bells and I'm not even aware of half of them.  Thank you!  I have to take the long way around and do the search by eye, it takes forever!  Not anymore. 



 

Navagation

LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

 

Page updated 12 October, 2003