1. "Andrew's Bedroom Key"
Posted by haulover on Mar-19th-03 at 9:41 PM

i'm not sure i understand andrew's routine regarding the bedroom key.  he keeps it in plain view in the sitting room.  i suppose one reason for keeping it somewhere in the house is so that abby can use it as well.  but why not make a copy?  i guess the chances would be small that a burglar would know which lock the key would fit if he saw it.

also, didn't lizzie tell one of the officers that it wasn't necessary to search her room for it had been locked? 

one way i've tried to understand this issue is to think of the condition of the house itself as the key to the whole borden mystery.  and it is odd that the house is "locked up" both from intruders from without and also from intruders within.  it's clearly "divided" between up front where the girls stay and the back where the bordens stay (and note how important that is in understanding what happened that day).

could it be that it is more than just a functional reason for andrew keeping the key out like he does?  is he saying, "okay, if anything is stolen from my room, i will know that someone in this house is the culprit"?

That's precisely the reason many have suggested.  I understand that Andrew only began the custom of placing the key there AFTER the "inside job" burglary (by Lizzie?) the summer before the murders.  It is as though he's winking at Lizzie--putting the key there could have been his way of saying, "OK, I know you did it, Lizzie."

The house, having been designed and built as a two-family tenement, probably always up until Borden's had the same or similar locking conditions.
It's a good question as to why not just make another key for Abby...but I am reminded that a key of Abby's was taken away that week, we believe a front door key.  That implies to me that the reason it was taken was because someone else needed it.  So there is another example of not making a copy but making do with what was available.  I don't know what that means, just something to note.

In the robbery of June, 1891, the summer before, Officer Desmond investigated.  His report is included in the Knowlton Papers.   There is the information that he talked to neighbors to find out if they knew anything or saw anything.
I've been trying to figure out, if Alice lived in the Kelly house until Oct., 1891, and the robbery was in June before she moved, how come she says she never heard of the Borden robbery in her testimony?
[This, I admit, was one of those things I had hoped other's might find if they looked a bit -- I thought it would make a good rebuttle to me on another thread].

Since I change my mind all the time, trying not to get stuck, I thought just for the heck of it:  Maybe Alice ripped off the Borden's and was forced to move?  Her mother had moved out previously...don't know why that is either.
She's admittedly in & out of the Borden house *just as it happened*.

Anyway, if Andrew did business in his home with all kinds of tradespeople, maybe that's why the doors to the dress closet and the girls bedrooms were locked in the front, and the elder Borden's bedroom door which also harbored a safe, was thereafter kept locked?

(Message last edited Mar-20th-03  1:00 AM.)

I guess I'm nuts (well, I KNOW I'm nuts; I've been talking to an imaginary person named "Phredd.") ...anyhow, my opinion about that key-on-the-mantel thing has always been the reverse of everybody else's.  If Andrew thought Lizzie was the person who committed the robbery, why on earth would he lock the room and put the key on the mantel for Lizzie to find and maybe even duplicate?  IMHO, it's more likely he was signaling to the family, "Those of us who live here know which room this key unlocks.  A stranger won't know."  Looking at Andrew's eyes, I'm not sure he was capable of winking.

"...but I am reminded that a key of Abby's was taken away
that week, we believe a front door key.  That implies to me
that the reason it was taken was because someone else needed
it.  So there is another example of not making a copy but
making do with what was available.  I don't know what that
means, just something to note."

Kat -- I don't recall seeing this before.  Do you happen to recall the source?

Kat, I have the same question as Tina-Kate.  Do you have a source for Abby having her key taken?  I don't recall reading it.

Did Andrew have the front door key with him on August 4th?  Did he not have a key, or was the door unable to open, being triple-locked?

I haven't read any other theory about the key on the mantel other than Andrew started putting it there after the daylight robbery and it was his way of telling Lizzie he knows and she'd better not do it again.

It would be interesting to explore other possibilities. ... Like, what?  Um, so he would make sure he always knew where the key was so he wouldn't lose it?  Kind of like how we use a key rack?  But then why didn't he do that BEFORE the daylight robbery? 

Alice didn't know about the daylight robbery because no one told her.  She said that on Lizzie's August 3rd visit, Lizzie said Father had prohibited us from telling of it before.

I thought they were lock-happy in that house because Andrew was afraid of a robbery, being known as a successful businessman.  I think that's why he kept that bat under his bed, too.  I do NOT think he kept the bat under his bed to threaten the "girls" into acts of incest as I have recently read.  I get the impression that he always had his doors locked.

I agree Augusta, I don't think Andrew had an incest problem, he
was just a control-freak. The locks were one of his "things".
Keeping the key on the mantle was a "test" he gave his women,
would they dare dis-him? 

hey, that's a good point about the bat.  i hadn't thought of that. it's like the key in a way.  it reinforces my point that it is as though they all thought they lived in a hostile environment.  but it wasn't just bedrooms, was it?  didn't lizzie keep the upstairs closet locked, even after the police came? 

The following is not about andrew's bedroom key, but it is lock-related  -- and this is among the oddities in lizzie's testimony that i don't know what to make of:

Q. You were not upstairs when he came home?
A. I was not upstairs when he came home; no, sir.
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone upstairs; I can't remember.
Q. Who let your father in?
A. I think he came to the front door and rang the bell, and I think Maggie let him in, and he said he had forgotten his key; so I think she must have been down stairs.
Q. His key would have done him no good if the locks were left as you left them?
A. But they were always unbolted in the morning.
Q. Who unbolted them that morning?
A. I don't think they had been unbolted; Maggie can tell you.
Q. If he had not forgotten his key it would have been no good?
A. No, he had his key and could not get in. I understood Maggie to say he said he had forgotten his key.
Q. You did not hear him say anything about it?
A. I heard his voice, but I don't know what he said.
Q. I understood you to say he said he had forgotten his key?
A. No, it was Maggie said he said he had forgotten his key.
Q. Where was Maggie when the bell rang?
A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Where were you when the bell rang?
A. I think in my room upstairs.

now how do you find the truth in all that?  but perhaps a "key" is in how all that is sandwiched between her statement that she was downstairs and her statement that she was upstairs.  and of course, she eventually switches it again.  it's as though she's being chased by knowlton from the kitchen to the stairs and back again.

when exactly it was that lizzie understood maggie to say that he had forgotten his key?
 

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211

--from the " thin red leather notebook"--Jenning's notes:
"j.  Mrs. Dr. Bowen--called and said that on Tuesday of the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden and (spoke?) and (B saw?) said L wasn't up yet but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was and went over there with Mrs. Borden.

Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way 'for they had taken her key.'  So she and Mrs. Bowen went in by the back door."
.................[found in Privy--PROCEEDINGS, pg 7]

Trial
Alice
273
Q.  At some time did you live in the house now occupied by Dr. Kelly?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How long ago did you live there, about how long ago?
A.  Two years ago, last October.

--2 years before June of 1893, would be 1891, right?  And if she moved in October she lived next door when the robbery happened in June, 1891.  [Verified pg. 63, Rebello]

Knowlton Papers, , pg. 75, Officer Desmond:
"...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."....

--This was included with a cover letter to Pillsbury, from Knowlton
dated Sept. 9, 1892.  THe *report* is undated.
--So she woud know of the canvassing of the neighborhood.  Even if she wasn't at home, there probably was some buzz of gossip about it on Second and Third Streets for a day or two.

--I think the idea that the key to Andrew's room was left out for the convenience of Abby makes the most sense.  If Andrew has strange people working in the lot behind him and they can take pears off his tree then they can get in his yard, or his barn.  And he did accept tradesmen into his home to dicker over deals.  That would imply a make-shift office.  If the public comes into his home the inhabitants would do well to lock their personal doors.

(See!  I edit all the time!!)(I even edit my edits!)


(Message last edited Mar-20th-03  10:32 PM.)

I believe Mrs. Bowen reported that Abby told her that Abby's front door key had been taken away.

I wonder if the lock on Andrew's and Abby's bedroom door could be opened only by the key kept on the sitting room mantle? Or, if that key could unlock other doors in the house? Sometimes more than one door lock in what today we would call an "old" house can be opened with a single key.

"...for they had taken her key."

Thanks, Kat.  I do remember that now.

Well I goofed when I said it was taken that week.  So it should be remembered as:
It was told to Mrs. Dr. Bowen on Tuesday of that week.

Since the house was 2 family originally I would think there would be at least 4 different keys, IF the locks weren't changed when Borden took over or maybe even when he did.
There would be a front door key which would be separate from the side door key, as 2 ways of ingress for 2 family's.
And there would be, possibly 1 key for the *upper* story family, and 1 key for the *lower* story family, interior doors..
I would think the outer door keys would be different from the interior keys.
But i think it's possible the upper floor key opened all the upper floor doors and Vice Versa.
That would be why Lizzie had a hook as well, inside her connecting door to elder Borden's.  That bedroom key may open all the second floor rooms.
BUT, if that was so, Lizzie would have access to Andrew's room.
Since she said she had no key (to his room) maybe the only lock needing changing was Andrew's bedroom?  That would still =4 keys.

It would be very typical of Andrew to have just one key for an inside door. Why spend good money on a second key?

Would Lizzie be likely to commit the same crime twice of looting the senior Borden's room?

Do you mean keep all the locks as they were but change one door (his door) as I suggested?  Or do you think there was one interior key for all the doors?  Lizzie said she had no key.(?)

On the inside doors I think there was just one unique key for each door.  Possibly since Lizzie and Emma in effect shared a room, there may have been two keys for their room.

Just guessin'.

I guess it would depend on the set-up of the families before 1872, yea.
I'm just guessing too.
But one key Shared with Abby, then, is what you mean...

[edit here]:

I'll tell you what tho.  The symbolism behind all that is rife for speculation, because that leaves Abby keyless in her own home.
Maybe she had a side door key, but we've not ever heard this.  Bridget has That key.
Abby, the week of her death has no key of her own to her front door or to her room, if our theory is correct about the mantle key.
That's sad.
That makes her sound like an outsider!

(Message last edited Mar-21st-03  12:32 AM.)

Was it ever determined what all the keys that were found on Andrew were for?

The mantle key was separate we know.
Other than that, what do you suppose the questioner was getting at asking over and over of Dolan did you change the order of these keys in any way?  Did you alter them or are they in the order you found them? 
I always wondered about that line of questioning...

I was just reading Bridget's trial testimony and she says that Abby got a side door key the same time that she did.  And, she speculates that there may have been only one key to the elder Borden's bedroom door.  I went looking for the key testimony as I remembered that it was Mrs. Bowen that had heard about it, but, couldn't find it though. 

Thanks.  I had a vauge memory of that and was hoping someone would look it up--that Abby had a side-door key.  I was just sitting here thinking about that and there you are with the info.!
How cool is that!

Yes, Dolan's being questioned about the keys as he was - there's something to that.  I think they were trying to see if someone had used Andrew's keys to possibly get in the house.  If they could find out how Andrew's keys were placed on his ring before the murders, and make sure Dolan didn't mess with them, then see how they differed after the murders, they'd know somebody messed with them.  The household probably knew at least some of the keys that were always on Andrew's key ring. 

Who did Abby mean by "they" had taken her key?  The family?  The 'girls'?  The always-nearby-unidentified-prowlers Lizzie talks about?

I know several people who keep a baseball bat under their beds for protection in case of a break-in.  Sounds pretty normal to me. 

Maybe Kat has the answer behind the key on the mantel.  So Andrew could share it with Abby.  Someone said earlier that a stranger walking in would not know what the key was for.  True.  The other theory of Andrew doing it as a "Lookee here, Missy," to Lizzie was good and dramatic.  But Kat's theory makes good sense.

Thanks for posting Lizzie's inquest testimony regarding Andrew's key, Haulover.  It was very interesting.  No wonder I didn't know if Andrew had a key or forgot it.  What a maze to wander thru reading that testimony.  A real cat and mouse game. 

I think it is in Bridget's testimony that it's said that Miss Lizzie always unbolted the front door every morning. 

It does seem surprising that Alice professed not to have known about the robbery until Lizzie told her on Aug.3.  But I'm wondering now about her wording in the trial -- when she says that she lived there until "two years ago, last October". Wouldn't that mean that she had moved in October, 1890?  "Last October" would refer to October 1892, right? (I know Rebello says she moved in '91 -- but I'm just focusing on her testimony on this point.) 

So, then, if the robbery happened in June of 1891, she wouldn't necessarily have been involved in the neighbourhood canvas -- and if, as Lizzie is supposed to have said, Andrew didn't want people to know about it? ...

That's an interesting point, Doug, about the possibility that the key on the mantel may have functioned as a kind of master key and opened more than one door.

I guess we'll need another source to know definetly when Alice moved.
I was going, also, by just Alice's testimony.  I didn't verify with Rebello until I wrote that post citing him.  Yes, I can see where the interpretation might be different, now. 
Augusta, it wasn't me who opined the placing of the key on the mantle was for the convenience of Abby.
I'm sorry to say I cannot for certain recall who it was, and it may have been the result of a group effort during a similar discussion.  (I would hope if it was one person they are not all frustrated because they might not be getting credit.  We can leave it at "the mystery poster.")

[edit here]:  Are there any more ideas as to why the keys seemed so important in the questioning?  They never made their point.  It makes me think there was something going on behind the scenes about those keys and we may never know?  I wonder how we would find out?  (That was an interesting theory, Augusta about a stranger getting hold of Andrew's keys.)
I would think he had so many that the family couldn't know in what order he normally kept them?

This reminds me of the questioning about the back stairs.  I haven't looked at it in a while, but does anyone recall the interest in whether there was carpeting up the back stairs?  All the way up the back stairs?  I remember thinking he's trying to show their bit of affluence, that Andrew would have carpeting up the back stairs, because I was used to the understanding that families carpeted as far as a visitor could see, and then the "fancy" stuff stopped.
Then I was under a different impression, that a point was being made about the use of the back stairs, but WHAT?

(Is this too emphemeral?  do you need more info?)

_________
Lizzie had no key to Andrew's bedroom door and that door, particularly had always been kept locked:
Inquest
lizzie
57
Q. Could you then get to your room from the back hall?
A. No sir.
Q. From the back stairs?
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 had always been so.


(Message last edited Mar-21st-03  10:00 PM.)

Trial
Bridget
pg.?
Q.   What time did you get up on the Thursday morning?
A.   Quarter past six.

Q.   You came down your back stairs, of course?
A.   Yes, sir.

Q.   Which are not carpeted -- the upper part?
A.   The upper part ain't.

Q.   That is, from the second to the third story there is no carpet on it?
A.   No, sir.

Q.   But from the second story to the kitchen entry there is a carpet on the stairs?
A.   Yes, sir. There is from the hall leading from Mr. Borden's to the first story stairs,
       there is a carpet in there down to the lower floor.

Q.   And the only thing on the route up to your room that is uncarpeted is the stairs?
A.   Yes, sir.

--She's asked about this twice in the Prelim., cursory, and then at Trial, more in-depth.  ??  any ideas?

Emphemeral?   Please define that word!
I grew up in an old Victorian house that was set-up just
like Lizzies, the back stairs were for the maid, dark
corrider leading up to back bedroom and attic.  I doubt it
was carpeted.  The keys are interesting, I hadn't thought of
that before, how master keys fit all the locks in the house.
I still think Lizzie hired someone and engineered the whole
thing, had someone in/out the front door while she was eating
pears in the garage.  In our garage the upstairs was the butler's
quarters, it was a good sized room with windows.  I can just picture
Lizzie eating pears and looking out the window upstairs in the
garage.  Seeing nothing really, all the action was in the front of
the house. 

About Alice Russell:
I've checked Knowton Papers, Glossary A & B.  And The LBQ issue, Oct., 2002, and the FRHS Quarterly Report , Summer 2002.
No luck further on exact dates of Alice's moving from Second street.
I think Proceedings, Phillips and July '93 issue of LBQ also have reference to Alice Russell, as they are cited as sources in Rebello, 64.
But, he does include cites for City Directories 1873-1942, to include his info on her address.
I guess I can also check "All Things Swift" by Ter at LABVM/L, but his info on Alice may be Rebello.

--njwolfe,Sorry to seemingly jump over you!
Your post wasn't there while I was composing this one.
I should have "refreshed" my page.
------------------
[edit here]:
Trial
Alice
373
Q.  How long ago did you live there, about how long ago?
A.  Two years ago, last October.

Q.  You moved away?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How long had you lived there before that time?
A.  Just eleven years

--Rebello, in July '93 issue LBQ, pg.2, says Alice lived in the Kelly house with her mother from 1880 to 1891.  That would be the "11 years"...but he doesn't say his source.  (City Directories cited in L.B. Past & Present,)
>>>>>>
[Another edit]

"All Things Swift", by Terence Dunihoe
LABVM/L:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Swift.htm

"Alice Russell"
 
"Andrew's Uncle Ladowick (also a Borden) had been the first to live in the house Alice and her mother occupied for more than a decade (96 Second, immediately to the south of 92, the Bordens' home). He was probably there from the time of his first marriage in 1833 until his death in 1874. His widow (and 4th wife), Ruhama (Crocker) Borden, continued there until her death in 1879. That same year Alice Russell (whose father had died in 1878) moved in with her mother. Eleven years later, her mother moved out (1890), and the next year Alice also moved - around the corner to Borden street, occupying a small house Police Officer Philip Harrington had just vacated. (Perhaps my reader is aware of how soon Harrington, who had gone to high school with Lizzie, was convinced of her guilt - and how he worked to persuade others). Shortly after Alice's departure, Dr. Kelly and his family moved to 96 Second street and were neighbors of the Bordens the year of the murders, 1892."

--He gives references but not footnotes.
_____________
Sat., 3/22;
Rebello, pg. 64:

"Johnson, Jr., Robert, T., 'They Would Like to Have Been Cultured Girls Analysis of the Testimony of Alice M. Russell During the Prosecution of Lizzie Borden,' Proceedings, Jules R. Ryckebusch, ed., Portland, ME: King Philip Publishing Co., 1993, 225-240.
Phillips, Arthur Sherman, The Phillips History of Fall River, Fascicle II, Fall River, MA: Dover Press, 1945, 65, 67."
--Apparently Fascicle II is not the break-out article on Lizzie Borden, called Defence of_ _".  I do not have this source to check.
--I did just check the fine article in Proceedings by Johnson, Jr. and he says Alice moves in 1890.  His references & footnotes are to her testimony itself, which is fine, but we are left now, still, with the 2 interpretations.  Diana's and Kat's, or you could say Johnson's & Rebello's.
The last places cited by Rebello are History of Fall River, fas.II, pg 65, 67, and City Directories of those years.
Anybody can help???


(Message last edited Mar-22nd-03  11:34 PM.)

This is such an interesting thread to me in many ways.  Brought back an unpleasant childhood memory.  I grew up in a circa 1900 townhouse.  Comparable to the Borden's in that it was a "nouveau-riche" boom-times type of structure. Had a very high quality front staircase, but an absolutely trecherous back staircase.  The servant's staircase to the kitchen from the servant's quarters (which were miniscule & overlooking nothing but the dark niche area @ the back of the house) was quality in that it was well-constructed, but it was thin, steep, curving, & void of adequate lighting.  I had several common childhood accidents there.

I sure wish we had more of Bridget's insight.  I'm certain she saw a lot.

Yes, it was indeed common that master keys were indeed that; for the "Master" of the house.  Much like in business buildings today, there would be a master key which would unlock all locks which were installed contemporary with the majority of the locks in the house.  Meaning, there was a "skeleton key" that would work for any room the master wished to enter.

I still think there were separate keys for each room inside. Here's Bridget at the trial (p209):

Q.  What did he do when he came down stairs?
A.  He came down stairs; he went into the sitting room and put a key on the shelf in the sitting room.
Q.  What key was it he put on the shelf in the sitting room?
A.  The key of his bedroom door.

Then again on p236:

Q.  What is the next thing that happened?
A.  The next thing I remember, Mr. Borden went out in the kitchen and come in the kitchen door, come from the kitchen into the sitting room and took a key off the mantel piece and went up stairs to his room.
Q.  What key was it that he took?
A.  The key of his bedroom door.

Both statements refer to a specific key that would open the Borden's bedroom door. If this was a master key I think the police would have wanted to know that for they were constantly asking for keys to open the other doors.

Here's Fleet testifying, talking about Bridget (p522):

Q.  Now, she had the keys that let you into the attic rooms?
A.  Yes.
Q.  She had the key that let you into Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room?
A.  Yes.

Doherty, p596:

Q.  Did Bridget have any keys with her, do you know?
A.  She had keys of the spare room up stairs where she slept herself, that is all.

Also when the closet on the landing on the second floor was searched they had to get the key from Lizzie.

And wouldn't Lizzie, who said she locked her room every time she left it, be aware that a master key was just sitting on the mantel downstairs?  I think Lizzie's locking her door was for privacy not the fear of intruders.

There is another possibility however. Suppose that the key on the mantel was a master key and that Andrew never told anybody that it was. Then everyone would have acted as if they needed separate keys which is what they did.




(Message last edited Mar-22nd-03  7:30 AM.)

Methinks it's highly likely there was a master key (not necessarily that one) kept by Andrew, of which only he had knowledge.

I wonder if Philip Harrington had ever been turned down for a date with Lizzie, or snubbed? And he decided to get even when he had the chance?

I once read that a beautiful woman defendant has no chance with the average woman on a jury, because she reminds the juror of their past snubs etc.
True or false? Let the ladies decide!

Perhaps the questioning about carpets on the back stairs to Bridget was to give the idea that you couldn't hear anyone walk up or down the back stairs.  And if Bridget left her room, you could hear her on the stairway to the attic.  Thats about all I could come up with for asking her that question twice. 

See re-edit my last post.

I've just looked over Mrs. Kelly's testimony at Prelim & Trial.
She is not asked how long she lived there.
I'm hesitant to source Rebello as to Mrs. kelly, but I guess I will try there next.
I wonder why she wasn't at the Inquest?  After all, she was the last to see Andrew alive outside that house.

Is there that much difference in footfall sounds between carpeted and uncarpeted stairs?  Back stairs, like you and nj allude to in your memory of old homes?

Oh yes.  Have you ever walked across a hardwood floor wearing shoes with some kind of heel?  Then on a carpeted floor?  It hushes your footsteps, same on the stairs.  Though in the house I grew up in the third step up from the bottom and the fifth step down from the top creaked when you stepped on them.  They were carpeted and quieted the footsteps of all us kids with our up and down the stairs. 

Wow, good theories all.  Right, I don't think the 'girls' would be able to identify each and every key on Andrew's ring - but maybe some of them.  I think that questioning may have been more for the jury's ears than anything.  Just like the carpeting on the stairs leading to the attic.  I always took that to be they were looking for how could an intruder be heard on carpeted stairs. 

Rays - I don't think Lizzie was pretty enough for Harrington to hold a sexual grudge against her.  He could have just plain disliked her.  She was not a charming girl. She only blossomed after she joined the church, five years before the murders?, and became more outgoing. 

When Lizzie said, "She is not my mother.  She is my step-mother," I always took that to be just her way, being matter-of-fact.  I think Harrington made a big deal out of that.  Whether she was guilty or not, I think Lizzie would have said that line either way.  I think Harrington just had it in for her. 

I've always heard Lizzie described by her contemporaries as not feminine; mannish.  Perhaps she was a lesbian; I don't know or much care.  But some men really hate a woman like that.  Just instantly hate her.  Something to do with them feeling less of a man, like the lady in question can't be pleased by a man and the guy knows he can't 'conquer' this one, even if there's no sexual attraction there.  You sometimes hear of a lesbian getting raped by a man, who is real angry at her for not preferring a man.  Maybe Harrington had a hangup like that.

"When Lizzie said, "She is not my mother.  She is my step-mother," I always took that to be just her way, being matter-of-fact.  I think Harrington made a big deal out of that.  Whether she was guilty or not, I think Lizzie would have said that line either way.  I think Harrington just had it in for her."

Good point! Robinson went into this in his closing statement too. The prosecution needed to prove Lizzie's negative character, and they used the hating mother/stepmother theory as a big part of this, which to them also showed motive although they didn't need to show motive by law. Although it was brought out I believe from Emma's testimony or Lizzie's own inquest testimony that Lizzie stopped calling Abby mother due to the land deal 5 years before, never the less, she started calling Abby Mrs. Borden then, not step-mother, so your point about that being a matter-of-fact, was excellent.
 

Thanks, Carol.  I think that's one thing we can say we know about Lizzie.  And oftentimes that simple matter-of-factness made people think she was the "sphinx of coldness".

The other quotes she had said about Abby (being a mean, good-for-nothing old thing, etc.) can't be excused as such, tho. 

I've thought, and spoken Alice's words aloud, and looked it up again and asked Stef out of the blue, and she aswered the same as you Diana.  If I say it over again I can just hear it become * 2 years ago last October*. that Alice last lived there.
I couldn't figure why she didn't just say -2 years and eight months ago--but I can't have everything.
So I believe your determination to be correct.
That Alice moved out in Oct. 1890.  That would make Desmond's report (UNdated BTW), in the Knowlton Paper's make more sense as well, because he does refer to the "Kelly house".  That could have been explained due to the undated document-- he could have submitted the report AFTER the Kelly's lived there and couldn't remember the name of the parties that he did ask, during his canvas.
Anyway, who wants to notify Rebello?  just joking.
And to think pure testimony led to THIS!

Yes, it's neat that all these questions about Alice's abode stemmed from a primary source.

So, if we're right about Alice moving from Second St. in 1890, that explains how she could be unaware of the robbery prior to the conversation with Lizzie on Aug.3/92.

And I'm going to take Desmond's report as further back-up,too; undated as it is. And consider that we've made our point on this issue. Thanks for all the research, Kat.

I don't want to upset you, but anyone who looks like Lizzie (average to good) looks like a million bucks (literally) when she is an heiress. Didn't someone say that money makes the ugly beautiful, and the old young when it comes to marriage? I hope I don't sound too European in this. But a rich wife is always better than a poor one, no matter her looks. Being plain is even better when she's rich, there's less competition. "Dans le nuits les chats sont gris."

And have you ever walked along a hardwood floor in your bare (or stockinged) feet? Not much sound, is there?

In Florida, I've not run across too many hard-wood floors.
I am barefoot tho.

They alluded to the movie "The Heiress" last night, for which Olivia deHavilland won best actress (?).  That was a movie based on what you are talking about.

That was a real tear-jerker.  She had her pride, tho...but no love...

i caught "the heiress" sunday night myself.  (yes, she did win the oscar for it.) 

i thought of lizzie the heiress and wondered if she turned them all down or if they were afraid of her.

I was looking at Sourcebook tonight and saw an article about the spilt up of Lizzie and Emma, in June , 1905.  It did say that the rift started 3 or 4 years previously, and theorized that it was due to the undue influence of the coachman. Joseph Tetrault.
"Miss Emma is said to have still found offence in his comfortable preferment."  That was after he was let go, and then re-hired, after "the talk subsided."
(Boston Sunday Herald, June 3, 1905)

In Rebello (pg. 287-8), Census, 1900, he was listed as "head man", single, 37.

You may not be far off.

Do you suppose that there was any hanky-panky going on with Lizzie and Joseph???  We can believe it about Lizzie and Nance, why not with this Joe character?  Perhaps he was too familiar with Lizzie, dropped the Miss when he spoke to her and Emma being all about propriety was aghast.

Lizzie was only a year older than him at the time if I figured correctly.  Hmmm, my brain is concocting all sorts of scenarios. 

i wonder why so little is known about lizzie -- given as many people who knew her, the theater people, the people who worked for her.  i know of emma's one interview and that's about it.

Well, there's a bit of information out there but it's scattered here and there.  Everyone who writes about her concentrates on the murders. 

I do believe the friends she did have after 1893 were very tight lipped about her, out of friendship and respect.  I think some day some of these friends' descendants will let trickle out some "new" photographs and letters from Lizzie.  Perhaps we may even find a clew in one of them.  But I surely believe that those things are out there.

Yes, her new friends were tight-lipped and did seem to observe Lizzie's privacy.  They also were rewarded handsomely in her will.  They did say nice things about her after death, too, if interviews can be believed.

Imagine all the birthday cards she sent and thank-you cards and little gifts she may have given.  Those everyday courtesies, notes etc. would be fascinating to see.

I agree, Augusta.  People can't go through life without leaving something of themselves behind.  Things may turn up as of yet, we do even have that postcard from Emma's trip to Scotland.  There must be more. 

Echo.  Every day there is the possibility that something new will be released. The focus of the Borden case is on Lizzie, not the Borden's, the victims. The tourism generated by this promotion of the case would dwindle, perhaps, if it was the other way around and maybe Fall River inhabitants wouldn't like to see their star off center stage. People might be hoarding their treasures of the case for many reasons some of which might be that anyone who doesn't live there has no business going too far into the case, not so far as to change how it is viewed. I wonder how people would answer the following question:  If you had something in your possession which would add a new dimension, solve or otherwise change the public attitude about the case, would you present it publicly or keep it to yourself?

If it was me?  I would present it to the highest bidder probably.    Seriously, I would want to share what I had with the public.  If it solved the case and people wanted to continue picking at the case, they wouldn't have to look at the new info.  And something that might add a new dimension or uncover an unseen facet of the case, I think it would be a sin not to share with the Bordenites of the world.  But, just my opinion for what its worth. 

(Message last edited Mar-26th-03  9:58 PM.)