1. "Tobacco and Andrew"
Posted by harry on Jan-17th-03 at 10:33 PM

Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary produced some of the items found on Andrew at the time of death. Here on page 194 he is being questioned by Adams:

Q.  I see you have produced some fine cut chewing tobacco; you understood that Mr. Borden was not in the habit of using tobacco, chewing tobacco?
A.  I do not know; I could not tell you.
Q.  You do not know, except that there is a package of partly used fine chewing tobacco?
A.  Yes Sir.

On page 1718 of the Trial, Robinson's closing argument, tobacco is mentioned again:

"They had the stringy spot on this door post, of blood; and they would convict somebody of it on the theory that the person stood inside the door of the dining room and as he threw the handle of the hatchet over it struck there. Dr. Dolan said it was blood. Well, Prof. Wood examined it, and he said it was tobacco juice."

Maybe old Andy did now and then have a chaw. Also, rather strange that Dr. Dolan can't tell the difference between blood and tobacco juice.

what's your point?

None. Okay?

(Message last edited Jan-18th-03  1:22 AM.)

I see a point here.
If Andrew didn't chaw then why would he have on his person, on Thursday, chewing tobacco?

According to Bridget, a bit after Andrew returned from his business, he went upstairs.  Now when you men get home do you eventually go to your room and empty your pockets?
You probably don't carry around things at home, that you do when you are out.

This raises a couple of interesting questions, I think.
If Andrew went upstairs (I say IF because Lizzie says she is SURE he didn't), and didn't remove all his keys, his money or the tobacco, then maybe he had another engagement after dinner, either to go out again, or someone to come to do business at the house?
If Andrew didn't chew, why would he carry it?
Was it planted?
Did he carry it to offer to others he did business with?
If he did, then a sluice of juice on the inside dining room door frame, found by the M.E. and taken as evidence, might have produced a suspect who had been there that day, who DID chew.
Of course, they couldn't really know how old the stain was.

Robinson is so full of JUICE, himself, for I am being DISCREET here, about him, using that term!

What he said in closing was not the whole description of that stain.  It was declared by Wood that it was yellowish and could even be SOUP.
Of COURSE the M.E. Dolan was right to take that piece out as evidence.  The final determination falls to Wood, to decipher what it was.  That is proceedure.  Dolan is collecting evidence of anything that may prove useful and is not responsible for calling it *blood* wrongly in a courtroom.  A lab test would be the way to determine  of what this stain is composed.
There was no real way to even prove if it was human blood, even by Harvard standards.
Back then they soaked stained objects in water and then I guess they looked at that residue by eyeball, and then by microscope.
Forensics were in their infancy, and some tests hadn't even yet been conceived.

--This was fun!  Thanks Harry.  I get to *show off*!
I did see this posted last night but I figured to let someone else find out what they could about it first.

(Message last edited Jan-18th-03  1:12 PM.)

Thanks Kat, will have to look at Wood's testimony along with Dolan's.

I posted the tobacco item with the idea that we know so little about the personal habits of any of the Bordens.  When I smoked cigarettes, many years ago, I rarely smoked at home. At work and outside the house was where I did 90% of my smoking. I was just wondering whether Andrew was the opposite.  I don't know whether tobacco chewing was socially acceptable back then and Andrew occupying some prestigious positions in banks may not have been able to use it in public.

I've always thought that was an interesting find, the chewing tabacco in Andrew's pocket.  From what I've read it was acceptable for gentleman to chew and smoke, but, not about the house, only in a special designated smoking room.nbsp;    Pure speculation, but, I wonder if Andrew had a secret vice?  It seems that no one really saw him using chewing tabacco, but, what if he did it on the sly?  Perhaps Abby and the girls said not to bring that disgusting habit into the house and he would go out and sneak it?  Its something that humanizes him, attributing a vice, secret or otherwise to Andrew.  We know so little about him, he didn't drink, didn't seem to socialize much, and now what of the chewing tabacco in his pocket?

And that weird stringy stain that may have been tabacco juice or soup, I wonder how long that had been there?  I would think that if someone spilled soup in the dining room that they would have tried to wipe up all the spillage, wasn't it noticeable?  And if it was tabacco juice, how in god/dess' name did it get there and not all over the floor or carpet too?  What an odd spot for it to be on. 

You;d think, wouldn't you, that Dolan, at autopsy, knowing tobacco had been found, would have checked that poor ruined mouth for signs of use.
I bet a Dr. could tell.

Yes, I would think that one look at Andrew's teeth would tell if he used chew or not, I think they get a brownish stain after years of use.  Maybe everyone's teeth were in such a poor state at this point of history that it was difficult to tell?  Maybe alot of older people had bad, discolored teeth? 

We don't know that Andrew used the tobacco himself. He was in the habit of picking up things (we know about the lock). Perhaps he picked up the package, knowing it was a fine variety, to give to Morse later when he returned for lunch. Did Morse chew tobacco?  Maybe he picked it up to trade with another man for something he wanted, that sounds like Andrew. How big a container was it in Andrew's pocket, did chewing tobacco come in small containers, soft containers or in aluminum containers? Too bad the attorney didn't pursue this aspect.

Before anyone asks, my "point" in posting here is that I want to participate in this discussion.  I'm not sure I need another one.  I've always considered it a given that Andrew used chewing tobacco.  We have two pieces of evidence: he had chewing tobacco on his person, and a possible string of tobacco juice was found at the murder scene, which was in Andrew's home.  I doubt that Abby, Bridget, Emma or Lizzie chewed tobacco, although a good many women in that day apparently did "dip" snuff.  I suppose it's possible (maybe even probable) that John V. Morse chewed tobacco, but if he had, he would probably have carried his own supply and not relied on Andrew to do it for him.  Dr. Dolan was asked if he was of the opinion that Andrew didn't use chewing tobacco, and he (Dolan) said he didn't know.  That makes sense, because I don't think he and Andrew were close friends.  I don't even know if they were acquainted.  I'm not sure how the tobacco was packaged.  It could possibly be researched, if it matters.  Andrew probably didn't carry it in an aluminum-foil packet, because those were unknown until the middle of the twentieth century.  Many products of the 1890s were sold in tin boxes, which were so sturdy that lots of them are still around.   That's one possible sort of packaging that could have been used, and I'm sure there are others.

my point is only what does this have to do with solving the crime?

is someone saying that tobacco juice in andrew's mouth ended up on the door as a result of a hatchet blow?

if so, what difference does it make?

Thanks for the info Edisto on Dolan and the packaging.

As for me, I kinda like the idea if Andrew had this minor vice. Makes him just a little bit more human.  The authors have boxed these people in to such stereotypes that we tend to look at them in only one way.  Well, I like to think outside that box and do a little speculating now and then.

That's the thing we've been doing pretty successfully on this forum since it started. May it continue that way.

I have wondered where are the spitoons?
I suppose if they are not mentioned that doesn't mean they are not there.
I also suppose Andrew may only chew outside, thus no spitoons?
If chewing was usual for the times, maybe housewives of businessmen kept spitoons for guests?
Nowadays I think a man carries his own spit cup around with him.  (I have seen these Southern guys)...

Anyway, my eyes are opened.  I hadn't really thought about Andrew having that vice, but the case put forward is a bit compelling.

"is someone saying that tobacco juice in andrew's mouth ended up on the door as a result of a hatchet blow?"

Thanks for the comic relief. We would then have to change our opinion of what Andrew was doing just as he was murdered.  He couldn't have been sleeping because men don't chew tobacco while they sleep, do they?

No, Andrew wouldn't have been Uncle John's only source of tobacco,  but he very well could have, if he knew Uncle's preferences, picked up that package of tobacco for him that day.

I wonder where on  Andrew the tobacco was found. Because he took off his coat, it was folded so that isn't where it was because the testimony said it was found on him, and he had "ON" a cardigan sweater, pants, top shoes and socks.  Where did men carry their tobacco those days on their person, back pocket? Shirt pocket? Sweater pocket? If it was in his sweater pocket that might mean it would be more likely it was his own stock, because his sweater he put on after he got home, unless he transferred it from his coat to his sweater.  If he got it for Uncle John he might have put it on the mantle.

Good point about the spitoons. If men chewed in their homes didn't they have them there then? Do southern men really carry around their own spitoons, gross, but not as gross as not having them I guess.

I thought originally he might have picked it up for somebody too.

Then I read it's partially used.  It's kind of hard to give something like that to somebody else when it has been opened.

The police normally look for things that are out of place or don't belong.  Since Andrew was not known to use tobacco and finding that on him should have triggered a closer look.

I'd like to state for the record my "what's your point?"
came after the one haulover left for Harry on this question.
I thought it was rather rude, isn't the point of the forum to
discuss these details? Mine was tongue-in-cheek, but I don't see
why anyone would spend so much time on Lizzie Borden if they
were maddened by her. 

Being from Tennessee I know a lot of people who have used
chewing tobacco. My grandmother chewed, she did indeed have
a store bought spittoon that she used. She rarely left
the house with tobacco though (not ladylike). If Andrew
had a spitton that sat in the floor there would have been
splatters around it. Spittoons were made to be used &
the Victorians had fancy ones, I doubt if he would have
been thrown outside like smokers are now.

I don't understand the sweater reference.
Where does a sweater enter the picture"  I mean, literally, the picture?

That is a good point about where on the body the tobacco was found...It makes sense that just picking that up in passing one would stick it in a outdoor coat pocket, but carrying it around close to the body either implies personal use, or home use to offer someone (where Andrew wouldn't be wearing his outdoor coat.), keeping it close to hand.

I still can't figure out why his pockets were full.
Who do we believe?
Bridget said he went upstairs, Lizzie said no.
The men here have yet to respond as to whether they empty their pockets on their desk or bedroom dresser when they get home?

Personally I'm a dresser man.

He may not have emptied them at all if he thought he was going out again later. 

(Message last edited Jan-19th-03  3:02 PM.)

TO EVERYONE:

i didn't mean to be rude or flippant about someone's contribution or question.  looking back, i can see how someone might think so.  what is showing is my recent frustration with the case.  i'll try to stick with more constructive statements/questions.

OK, Cool.
Now what do you do with the stuff in your pockets when you get home?

That has always been my question; was Andrew going back downtown after lunch or was that it for his work day?  I've heard him described as semi-retired, but, was that the extent of his day, a few hours checking around and then home for the rest of the day?  I've always had the impression that after lunch and possibly some home business, he would go back downtown. 

No offense taken.  We often start out discussing "A" and end up talking about "Z" and we cover everything in between.  Sometimes we even talk about the case.

Reading Lizzie's Inquest testimony is a daunting task.  Each of us has to decide what is truthful and what is not. After quite a few years of studying this mystery I have more questions than answers.

I'm a southerner born and bred, and nobody in my family (to my knowledge) has ever chewed tobacco.  That includes my grandparents on both sides.  I never knew any of my great-grandparents, so I can't vouch for them.  I'm not speaking of plantation aristocracy here; I come from a long line of rednecks.  My mother, I fear, used to ridicule people who "chawed" or who dipped snuff, which was more usual with women than chewing tobacco was.  One day I was visiting my maternal grandmother (this would have been in the 1940s) and I was horrified to find that her visitor, a very refined-looking lady about her own age, was happily dipping snuff as they conversed.  It certainly didn't look very pleasant, because she was spitting the residue into a little container she had brought with her.  I suspect she had acquired the habit when she was a young girl on the farm and found it hard to stop in later life.  

My grandmother & her brother & a sister were hellions &
were always getting caught chewing tobacco in school. My
great aunt still loves her snuff, she is almost 80. Chewing
tobacco is also quite popular among folks who are trying to
quit smoking.

"...Where does a sweater enter the picture"  I mean, literally, the picture?.."  Andrew was wearing a sweater, a cardigan when found dead on the sofa, if he had the tobacco on him it might have been in the cardigan pocket, that's what I meant, what do you mean?

"Then I read it's partially used.  It's kind of hard to give something like that to somebody else when it has been opened.."  I see, so a man considers his chewing tobacco his stash and doesn't share or give it away. So it's not like cigaretts, where everyone borrows from everyone, etc?  Does chewing tobacco go stale real quick, like does it get hard and unusable after it's opened for a time?

Where does a man usually carry his chewing tobacco on his person today and where would he have done so back in 1892?

Nowadays when we use the word "cardigan," we mean a sweater that opens down the front. However, I don't think that was the case is 1892.  What Andrew was wearing was described as a "cardigan," but I believe it was also described as his "house jacket" or even his "housecoat," (which conjures up a picture of Andrew sitting around in flowered cretonne with a flounce around the bottom).  The definition in my (fairly) modern dictionary doesn't confine itself to sweaters, it says a cardigan can be a jacket, usually knitted.  I suspect that in the 1890s the definition might have been even broader.  I envision something a bit like a smoking jacket, although I doubt if it was velvet with satin lapels.  Maybe it was his "chawin'" jacket?

Literally, the picture.  Like a comfortable suit coat.

Your chewing tobacco goes in your back pocket & your
smoking tobacco goes in your shirt pocket. I don't
know where men who wear suits put theirs.

I guess I need to get caught up on this testimony of the trial, I didn't know until now that fine chewing tobacco was found in his pocket.  Geezz, I have never read in any of the books that Andrew even partook of the snuff, er stuff, sorry.

Kat (in an earlier reply) makes a good case, if Andrew did not use chew why would it be on his person??  And who would have put it there?  Further perhaps some of those "blood" spots on the woodwork were actually tobacco spit (oh, I am sorry for those of you have weak tummies, yech).

And BTW Kat...congrats on the 3000th plus post...YOU GO GIRL.

PS: I still think that darn sofa was centered under that darned painting!  More on that later.

BC

Well, I've been holding my breath since 8 p.m. yesterday.

Do I get to breathe now?  Are you going to show your photo of the couch at #92, centered under the picture?

Decades ago I read a fictional short story about life in America. The only thing I remember is that one guy offered chewing tobacco to another, but did not use it himself. To be sociable, etc.

My parents had a cousin who chewed (worked in a factory where smoking and matches were banned - highly inflammatory chemicals). He died of colon cancer in his 40s. He also smoked cigars.

Kat: Yes, yes, yes...you shall see that sofa in a centered position as soon as CVS photo puts the images on CD from the negatives.  I couldn't find them for the longest time, I thought the negative got "lost" somewhere around here...but as I should have guessed the "little lady" put them with all the other photos packages in the storage closet in the dining room.

Just a couple of days ago I "found" them whilst looking for our vacation photos.  I took the neg's over to CVS and it's in the process of being put onto a CD.  Also will be pics of Len Rebello and I at the B & B from last spring.

Kat---I am so humble and sorry for the painful delay as I know that you have been so darned patience.  I assure you they are on the way dear!  That's my story.......


BC

I'm so glad you came back to us!
K.

Where else would I go?  There are few Borden families in these parts nowadays...and those that are show little compassion for a true hearted fan of Lizzie...you know "they" all think she did it...

BC

The photo shows Andrew wearing something under the long sleeved outer garment.  This might be the cardigan described in testimony. Otherwise could not that outer long sleeved garment be a knitted piece of clothing, can we really see that well from the picture?  When was a cardigan ever described as other than a knitted article of clothing?