irregular events

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:57 pm

I think there's still the question of whether using alcohol as a preservative will cause the prussic acid to not degrade. Scientists of Lizzie's era thought that it would:

Hydrocyanic Acid.png

From http://cyanidepoisoning.blogspot.com/20 ... nding.html

Autopsy Finding

Externally there can be wide variations in the appearance. Traditionally, the hypostasis is said to be brick-red, due to excess oxyhaemoglobin (because the tissue are prevented from using oxygen) and to the presence of cyanmethaemoglobin. Many descriptions refer to a dark pink or even bright red skin, especially in the dependent areas, which can be confused with carboxyhaemoglobin. The few cases seen by the author have shown a marked dark cyanotic hypostasis, perhaps caused by lack of oxygenation of the red cells by paralysis of the respiratory muscle. There may be no other external signs apart from the color of the skin and possibly black vomit around the lips11.

There may be a smell of cyanide about the body, and a distinct odor of bitter almonds about the viscera especially in the skull cavity and the brain10. Though it is well known that many persons cannot detect this, so the telltale odor of bitter almonds cannot be used as a guide because 40% to 60% of the population is unable to dettect cyanide by smell. The ability being a sex-linked genetic trait1-13.

This may be of importance to pathologists and mortuary staff, as corpes dead of cyanide poisoning can present a health hazard. Reported that a pathologist became ill and was temporarily disabled shortly after conducting an autopsy on a suicide who has swallowed a massive amount of potassium cyanide. Presumably he had inhaled hydrogen cyanide from the stomach contents when examining the viscera11.

The materials usually saved for toxicologic examination are the stomach contents, lungs, brain and visceral organ like the liver. If the poison is inhaled, the lung will show a high hydrocyanic acid content than the stomach contents. If poison is ingested most of it will be in the stomach, and the lungs will giv only a small amount3,10.

Cyanide concentrations in tissue, such as liver, lung, spleen, and heart, may be more accurate indicators of the blood cyanide intoxication levels3. cyanide appears to display first-order kinetics during the period of initial toxicity. The volume of distribution for cyanide appears to change as the blood levels of the chemical change, but these alteration probably reflect the marked intracellular sequestration of the molecule. Ingestion of cyanide results in much higher levels in the liver than does inhalation; this is useful differential point in forensic investigation3.
Internally the tissues may also be bright pink caused by the oxyhaemoglobin that cannot be utilized by the tissues – which is probably more common than the presence of cyanmethaemoglobin.

The stomach lining may be badly damaged and can present a blackened, eroded surface, by altered blood staining the stripped mucosa. This is mainly because of the strongly alkaline nature of the hydrolyzed sodium or potassium salts of cyanide; hydrogen cyanide itself causes no such damage. The findings at autopsy are otherwise the same as described above under hydrocyanic acid10,11. In less severe cases, the stomach lining will be streaked with dark red striae, where the rugae have been eroded while leaving the interlining folds relatively unharmed. The stomach may contain frank or altered blood from the erosions and haemorrhages in the walls. If the cyanide was in dilute solution, there may be little damage to the stomach, apart from pinkness of the mucosa and perhaps some petechial haemorrhages. There may also be un dissolved white crystals or powder, with the almond-like smell of cyanide mentioned above10,11.

As death usually rapid, little of the contents will have passed into the intestine. The oesophagus may be damage, especially the mucosa of the lower third, though some of this may be a post mortem change from regurgitation of the stomach contents through the relaxed cardiac sphincter after death. The other organs show no specific changes and the diagnosis is made by history, smell and the reddish color of the internal tissues, and often skin.

The detection and quantitation of cyanide in the blood after decomposition is difficult. Cyanide may be produced postmortem in a body or even in a test tube, due to decomposition. In addition, if the method of analysis is not absolutely specific, other substances in the blood (sulfides) may react like cyanide, giving falsely elevated levels of cyanide5.

Pathologically no particular lesions can delineate that the lesions are principally in the central nervous system, predominantly necrosis in the white matter. Probably the most wide-spread pathologic condition attributed to chronic cyanide poisoning is tropic ataxic neuropathy following cassava consumption4 .

Case report12 : (because the small number of victims in autopsy room at forensic department University of Indonesia, this case I downloaded from cyanide poisoning on net )
A male, 20-year-old university student, studying Chemistry. He shouted from his lodging's window that he had been poisoned, and was found in a collapsed state in his bedroom. He died two hours later in hospital At post mortem, six hours later, there was a distinct smell of almonds associated with the body. The organs of the body were congested and the stomach contents smelt strongly of almonds.The mucosa of the stomach was noted to be blue, with heavy staining of the fundus and body of the stomach, but the antrum was spared. Sometime later, a bottle with a small quantity of residual liquid was found on the premises. Toxicological analysis identified an aqueous solution of 13% sodium nitroprusside. Death was caused by cyanide poisoning. Nitroprusside contains five cyanide groups (CN) and one nitrous oxide group (NO). The latter component accounts for its therapeutic action as an antihypertensive agent. Nitroprusside in the blood reacts rapidly with haemoglobin to produce thiocyanate and cyanide, through which its toxic effects are exerted.

The reaction seen in the stomach will be familiar to all histopathologists, as it is the basis of Perl's Prussian blue reaction. In histological sections, ferric iron in the form of ferric hydroxide (Fe(OH)3)) is unmasked from compounds such as haemosiderin by acid. The ferric iron then reacts with a ferrocyanide (nitroprusside) to produce an insoluble blue compound, ferric ferrocyanide. The exact source of the ferric ions in the stomach mucosa is unknown (possibly altered blood). Antral sparing from coloration occurs as a result of its relative lack of acid secreting cells. Histology of the mucosa showed autolysis, and the positioning of the blue staining was difficult to assess, although most staining appeared to be superficial.

Interestingly, the first person to find the victim did not smell the typical "bitter almond" scent of cyanide. Ballantyne reported that the typical smell of cyanide was not present in the tissues of cadavers victim to this poison. However, this study used a single pathologist1. Certain individuals cannot detect the smell of cyanide and, anecdotally, 1 in 6 people are not capable of identifying its odor. Cyanide anosmia appears to be more prevalent in males, although its exact genetic basis is not fully understood.

The case was reported in 1931 in the British Medical Journal (1931, ii, 344) by Professor Fowweather, and is part of the collection at the University of Sheffield's Department of Forensic Pathology.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:38 pm

Dr Bowen was the first doctor to examine both victims, of course. Faced with the wounds on Abby and Andrew's heads you wouldn't think that he would bother to sniff for the almond scent of cyanide. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he did. According to a police witness statement he stopped and asked a police officer days later if any other grounds for the deaths had been found.

After Abby's visit on the Wednesday morning followed by the murders a day later it's clear that the possibility of poison rather than food poisoning was niggling away at the good doctor. I think he still suspected adulterated/spoiled food and drink (he wanted the household milk tested, for example) but the possibility of poison by other means may well have crossed his mind after the murders.

leitskev · Post by **leitskev** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:55 pm

Coincidences happen, of course they do. But when investigating a mystery...and no one would argue there are not some mysterious elements to the Borden murders...it's useful to look for deviations in routine or pattern. A certain amount of probability can be assigned to whether these events are connected, just like it is used with Occam's razor to add weight to the simplest of two competing theories.

If every day Lizzie unlocked the front door by 8 am and on this particular day she did not, that is potentially meaningful. Not by itself...she might have just forgotten. But it's worth noting and it's an angle worth investigating. It's possibly something that can be added to the scale.

Uncle Morse receiving a letter to visit Mr. Borden and his sudden arrival the day before is an angle worth investigating. It could be coincidence, but it can not be ignored. It doesn't mean Morse was in any way guilty. But it could be related to events which became the final trigger that pushed Lizzie to action(or the killer if it was someone else).

Where coincidences can have more power is when they are combined...or when they are seen in light of other evidence. Use the 9/11 example. If I miss my plane because of a flat tire, that does not mean the God saved me by making me miss my flight. But if the power in the neighborhood goes out causing my alarm to not go off, and then my car won't start so I have to call a cab, and then the cab gets a flat tire on the way...even I might start to wonder if some higher power didn't want me on that plane.

And behaviors that are out of the norm ARE submitted as evidence! ...if they are part of a pattern.

There are a lot of areas here where the daily norm has been broken. Some of these will turn out to be coincidences. But some are likely to turn out connected. For example, as you look over the passenger list from the 9/11 planes, you will want to see if any of the passengers have taken flight lessons. Now you might find someone who just coincidentally did. But I would recommend looking into his background. And if it turns out he has recently traveled from Pakistan, that's 2 coincidences. The probability is rising that he is one of the terrorists.

Most of the random events I have mentioned add to the "Lizzie did it" theory. Emma being away could be coincidence, but it does give Lizzie much more opportunity. She could not have pulled this off with Emma in the house. Morse's arrival points to the possibility of something going on in the family. Morse's behavior at the scene still remains odd and unexplained. It might be that his oddness in general is enough to account for it, but is that the SIMPLEST of all explanations? Is explaining away the fact that he stopped outside the house, which was gathering with people and police, to eat pears...is his oddness the simplest explanation, or is some sense of prior knowledge? I have come to be reasonably satisfied that he was just odd, but that is certainly not the simplest explanation.

As I argued above, there are a lot of strange events related to Dr. Bowen. His running off to telegram Emma with a killer possibly in the house...and then running errands before returning to the house; his actions around the discovery of Abbie; the burning note and other things...these could be coincidences. But they ARE worth looking into when we have a murder where the suspect did not leave the yard and the weapon was never found. I don't wish to open that debate again, I'm just saying there are important aspects of the crime that are unaccounted for...and there are coincidences that are to a degree piling up. Whenever there is such piling, there is increasing probability of a connection. I am not saying it is probable, but only that the probability is increasing...which means it's worth considering.

On thing that turned me even more in the direction of wondering about Bowen was the whole poison thing. Again, it could be coincidence that Abbie turned up the day before worried about poisoning, and pharmacists turned up thinking Lizzie tried to buy poison...and yet no poison was found on the bodies. To my mind it seems those 3 events are connected. Let's look at the possibilities.

scenario 1)

a - Lizzie tried to purchase poison but failed
b - Abbie thought someone was trying to poison them;
c - and the next day they were killed.
d - and there was no poison in the bodies.

All we know for sure is C and D. And this is an example of the coincidence piling that is unlikely to be random: no poison in the body, yet Bowen reports Abbie came the day before suspecting it, and the pharmacists thought they remembered Lizzie trying to buy prussic acid.

There may be different ways to connect these events. Maybe Abbie suspected Lizzie was trying to poison them for some other reason. But again, the fact that no poison was found in the bodies looms large, especially since there is zero evidence that Abbie thought LIZZIE was trying to kill them. And you would need some evidence for that here.

There is a simpler way to connect these dots: Dr. Bowen.

Dr. Bowen is the only source of the story that Abbie suspected they were being poisoned.

And this story likely circulated and lead the pharmacists believing they saw something that could help.

Speculating on why Bowen might invent the reason for Abbie's visit the morning before is useless by itself. We can't just invent things out of whole cloth.

However, we can do this: what is more likely:
A) the pile of coincidences where Bowen reports Abbie complained of poisoning the day before they were killed, and no poison was found, or
B) Dr. Bowen invented the reason for Abbie's visit, and this false poison narrative became a meme that spread through the city and resulted in the pharmacists to convince themselves that they remembered something.

Because this piling of coincidences is to a degree unlikely, that adds some weight to the possibility of Bowen making up the poison story. When we further add the other strange things related to Bowen...the errand after the sending of the telegram, the note burning, etc...then Bowen becomes more and more interesting.

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:13 pm

This poisoning angle has a lot to process, and I will probably be going back to re-read the above posts. But there could be a much simpler answer.

Lizzie told Alice about Mrs. Borden going to see Dr. Bowen and bringing up poisoning. So Dr. Bowen is not the only source; Lizzie herself is a source of that story.

From Alice Russell's testimony:

She said, "Mr. and Mrs. Borden were awfully sick last night." And I said, "Why, what is the matter; something they have eaten?" She said, "We were all sick," she said, "all but Maggie." And I said, "Something you think you have eaten?" She said, "We don't know. We had some baker's bread, and all ate of it but Maggie, and Maggie wasn't sick." And I said, "Well, it couldn't have been the bread; if it had been baker's bread I should suppose other people would be sick, and I haven't heard of anybody." And she says, "That is so." And she says, "Sometimes I think our milk might be poisoned." And I said, "Well, how do you get your milk; how could it be poisoned?" And she said, "We have the milk come in a can and set on the step, and we have an empty can. We put out the empty can overnight, and the next morning when they bring the milk they take the empty can." And I said, "'Nell, if they put anything in the can the farmer would see it." And then I said-I asked her what time the milk came, if she knew. She said, "I think about four o'clock." And I said, "Well, it is light at four. I shouldn't think anybody would dare to come then and tamper with the cans for fear somebody would see them." And she said, "I shouldn't think so." And she said, "They were awfully sick; and I wasn't sick, I didn't vomit; but I heard them vomiting and stepped to the door and asked if I could do anything, and they said, No."

Q. Now, go on with the conversation.

A. Well, I think she told me that they were better in the morning and that Mrs. Borden thought that they had been poisoned, and she went over to Dr Bowen's—said she was going over to Dr Bowen's.

As to the coincidence of getting sick, as if they were poisoned (food or deliberate poison) and a pharmacist saying Lizzie tried to purchase prussic acid, there is a simple possible connection. The family got food poisoning, either accidentally or maybe deliberately from mishandled food (doesn't matter for my speculations) and Lizzie wanted to take advantage of that by giving them a dose of real poison to kill them. Who knows if she knew whether prussic acid could be detected later on. As long as the sickness in the family was already established by Abby telling Dr. Bowen, if the old couple were thought to have died from food poisoning, that suited Lizzie just fine. But then the pharmacist turned her down. Now for Plan B.

There are things to be suspicious about as to Dr. Bowen, but the errands he ran when he went to telegraph Emma may not be one of them. He testified that he stopped at "Mr. Baker's Drug Store" on the way back to the Borden house, and it may have been to get the "bromo caffeine" that he gave to Lizzie that afternoon. (Later he gave her morphine.)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:37 pm

Prussic acid is an awfully unstable and powerful drug, (as has been discussed here in various threads) to be proposing to use in the family's food. The fumes alone might knock Lizzie out herself before she got near the kitchen! How would she make sure that Bridget didn't get any? Plus, Lizzie was known as a bit of a lazy-bones domestically. If she suddenly started hanging round the stove and pans in the kitchen, surely Bridget (always supposing she survived) would remember afterwards.

Opportunities would be few. Lizzie rarely ate with her parents. (Nor did Emma.) Lizzie spent a lot of time in her room and routinely wasn't around to share the family's early breakfast. Again, if Lizzie showed a sudden, hitherto unexpected interest in early breakfast surely Bridget would remember it.

I'm afraid I'm with irina on the 'Lizzie buying Prussic Acid' scenario. Her identification by the drug store clerk Eli Bence was never tested in court. Yes, Bence seemed sure, but witness statements of this kind are notoriously iffy. IF she did try to get her hands on some Prussic acid it could well have been for suicide in case things went against her.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:50 pm

Lizzie's denial of not knowing where the pharmacy was located is totally at odds with the geography of the neighborhood.

irina · Post by **irina** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:06 pm

There is always just enough in what Lizzie has to say that can also point to innocence. If Lizzie had any thoughts of poisoning anyone she should have told Alice how she herself was ill but she doesn't push that idea. It seems to me if she was laying the groundwork for poisoning she would want everyone to look like victims of the mysterious "they".

The problem I do have with the prussic acid story is the woman demanding to buy it supposedly wanted it for seal skin capes. Lizzie had those but the average Fall River inhabitant probably didn't. Masterton suggests there was a sting going on at that time where pharmacists were tested to see if they would sell drugs that were restricted. Possibly that is why seal skin was mentioned since it is not subject to bugs and it was a ridiculous request. Even so, if Lizzie had thought to poison the family I'm not sure how she could have done it without getting Bridget too. Bridget didn't like tea or coffee. Possibly the coffee pot? Would Lizzie who owned seal skin be so stupid she didn't know that particular fur is immune to bugs?

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:45 am

The report from Eli Bence that a woman had inquired about prussic acid was printed in the papers on Aug. 5 - just the day after the murders. It would be good to know more about Mr. Bence - whether he was usually prone to exaggeration or self-promotion. In other words, was he generally a truthful person?

Lizzie doesn't have to understand the inadvisability of using prussic acid in order for us to think she tried to make a purchase. Sure, we have the internet at our disposal, and quickly come to the conclusion that this particular poison is difficult to use, etc. But Lizzie would just be going by things she may have heard. Again, I am weighing the idea that Lizzie thought to take advantage of the fact that family members were getting sick, possibly from food poisoning. Bence said she came in to the drug store on Aug. 3 in the morning, close to the time Abby went to see Dr. Bowen about the family's illness.

The thread about the intelligence of Lizzie is a good one. I think she was at least as lucky as she was smart, but above all, she was determined and manipulative. She carefully placed ideas in Alice Russell's mind about poison, enemies of her father, of daytime burglaries, and of someone burning the house down around them. She was creating a reason why her parents would be found dead soon. The police, and eventually Alice herself, I think, saw through that.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:03 am

I have some half-forgotten thing at the back of my mind, regofam, of someone going into the Borden house after the murders and seeing a book with a broken spine in the sitting room. The person idly picks it up and it falls open on 'Prussic Acid'! I don't know where I read it, perhaps Victoria Lincoln?

I agree with all your comments on Lizzie's character and the luck she enjoyed. She also may have felt that the authorities would never believe that a demure, religious spinster from a middleclass family would be incapable of brutal murder. Poison, yes perhaps, hatchets 'no'. She miscalculated with the police but ultimately the jury believed in her.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:01 am

regofam wrote:The report from Eli Bence that a woman had inquired about prussic acid was printed in the papers on Aug. 5 - just the day after the murders. It would be good to know more about Mr. Bence - whether he was usually prone to exaggeration or self-promotion. In other words, was he generally a truthful person?

Lizzie doesn't have to understand the inadvisability of using prussic acid in order for us to think she tried to make a purchase. Sure, we have the internet at our disposal, and quickly come to the conclusion that this particular poison is difficult to use, etc. But Lizzie would just be going by things she may have heard. Again, I am weighing the idea that Lizzie thought to take advantage of the fact that family members were getting sick, possibly from food poisoning. Bence said she came in to the drug store on Aug. 3 in the morning, close to the time Abby went to see Dr. Bowen about the family's illness.

The thread about the intelligence of Lizzie is a good one. I think she was at least as lucky as she was smart, but above all, she was determined and manipulative. She carefully placed ideas in Alice Russell's mind about poison, enemies of her father, of daytime burglaries, and of someone burning the house down around them. She was creating a reason why her parents would be found dead soon. The police, and eventually Alice herself, I think, saw through that.

I totally agree that we sit at our computers and access information in a nanosecond and then tend to give Lizzie the benefits and keenness of our enlightenment. Either she didn't do it or she got very lucky.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:25 am

I have to find Dr Bowen's testimony, but if she went to the pharmacy that morning it must have been slightly later. Remember, Bowen went over the road to inquire about his patient (Abby) and got short shift from Andrew for being so pushy like Dr Handy! He said that when he went over there he saw 'someone', must have been Lizzie, going swiftly up the front stairs. It was quite early in the morning for Lizzie, and she was probably not quite dressed for visitors. After he left she must have come down again as she listened to Mrs B. telling Andrew off for being discourteous, something she later told Alice about.

Lizzie seems to have had quite an eventful day on Wednesday. Getting up early, avoiding Dr Bowen, then downstairs again, then lying in her room listening to her pain in the butt uncle John Morse's voice, plus trotting off to Alice Russell's to tell her all about the state of terror the family was in, AND going to the dispensary in unsuccessful pursuit of Prussic acid. Whew, I hope she got a good night's sleep!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:26 pm

Curryong wrote: Whew, I hope she got a good night's sleep!

'Twas the night before murder, in the A. Borden house
Not a creature was stirring, not even John Morse;
The key often stashed on the mantel with care,
Was in Andrew's possession at the top of the stair;
Our Lizzie was nestled all snug in her bed;
Bloody visions of hatchets danced in their head.

With apologies to Clement Moore and everyone who reads this

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:33 pm

You are so creative!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:21 pm

My username should be debbiedoggeral.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:05 am

I don't know anything about Eli Bence's honesty, but he does have a page to himself in Augusta's 'Resurrections'. (Page 137). He was 27 at the time of the murders and had worked at various druggists around Fall River. (He was born in Braintree, Mass. to English migrant parents so he wasn't a local boy). He worked at Smiths between 1890-1895, and testified that Lizzie had inquired about prussic acid there at the Inquest and prelim. As we know, his testimony wasn't considered admissable at the trial.

Bence moved to Pittsfield, Mass., in 1905, after marrying a Fall River girl. They had two sons. He had his own druggists store in Pittsfield and later became President of the Pittsfield Druggist Association. He was also a member of the Pittsfield Merchants Association; King Phillip Lodge of Masons at Fall River, Berkshire Knights of Templars; the Park Club, and, get this, the Melba Temple of the Mystic Shrine at Springfield, (where the members sacrificed young virgins every summer solstice) sorry, disregard that bit!!

He seems to have been a very upright citizen. After marrying for a second time, to a Fairhaven woman, Bence died as a result of injuries sustained when he was driving (in a car) with his wife, in 1915.

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:59 am

Curryong wrote:I don't know anything about Eli Bence's honesty, but he does have a page to himself in Augusta's 'Resurrections'. (Page 137). He was 27 at the time of the murders and had worked at various druggists around Fall River. (He was born in Braintree, Mass. to English migrant parents so he wasn't a local boy). He worked at Smiths between 1890-1895, and testified that Lizzie had inquired about prussic acid there at the Inquest and prelim. As we know, his testimony wasn't considered admissable at the trial.

Bence moved to Pittsfield, Mass., in 1905, after marrying a Fall River girl. They had two sons. He had his own druggists store in Pittsfield and later became President of the Pittsfield Druggist Association. He was also a member of the Pittsfield Merchants Association; King Phillip Lodge of Masons at Fall River, Berkshire Knights of Templars; the Park Club, and, get this, the Melba Temple of the Mystic Shrine at Springfield, (where the members sacrificed young virgins every summer solstice) sorry, disregard that bit!!

He seems to have been a very upright citizen. After marrying for a second time, to a Fairhaven woman, Bence died as a result of injuries sustained when he was driving (in a car) with his wife, in 1915.

It is my understanding that Bence died at home of a cerebral hemorrhage, not the result of a car accident. But these old brain cells could be mistaken.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:50 am

BOBO wrote:... It is my understanding that Bence died at home of a cerebral hemorrhage, not the result of a car accident. But these old brain cells could be mistaken.

According to the Find A Grave Memorial for him: Eli Bence died while living at his Pittsfield home after suffering a stroke while riding in a car returning from the Berkshires with his son and daughter in law and wife on May 4, 1915.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg ... =112998383

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:45 pm

Debbie....I so admire people who can write verse. One of my husbands could do that. Lovely poem, even though Lizzie was innocent, of course.

The BIG thing that bothers me about Bence's testimony is mentioning the seal skin sacques which Lizzie owned and which he was unlikely to know she owned. Yet in an age when poisonings were usually effected with arsenic, and rat poison had some pretty heavy duty stuff in it and strychnine should have been readily available, why would Lizzie choose prussic acid for poison? So if she inquired for the substance I would consider suicidal plans. I have always wondered and still do if she was asking for something else that sounded like prussic acid but I don't know of any other common term that sounds similar. Maybe Debbie will run into it somewhere.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:38 pm

I don't quite understand why Lizzie would lie about using prussic acid on sealskin, but in dilution it was used for stomach ailments in the early to mid-19th century. Given Andrew's opposition to paying for medical care, maybe the family used remedies that were no longer considered appropriate. Then again, maybe she wanted to poison her parents and then burn down the house to get rid of the well-colored corpses. Somehow this makes me wonder if Andrew was stingy with the doctor when Sarah was ill.

This is from The Introduction of Hydrocyanic Acid Into Medicine. A Study In the History of clinical Pharmacology, full text at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 32/?page=1, by M.P. Earles

Prussic Acid for Stomach Disorders.png

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:38 pm

Heaven knows why Lizzie lied. She may have panicked, as in the 19th century many people made the connection, poison (of any sort) + a woman = poisoner. The police in her mind may have leaped to the conclusion that, as she hadn't been able to get the Prussic acid, she had turned to other means.

Surely she would have told Bence that she had sealskin sacques when she gave the explanation about wanting to get rid of bugs. Yes, it might have been easier to just say that her father had a stomach complaint and she wanted to try the Prussic acid in diluted form, but she probably knew the dispensary people would caution against it and try to persuade her to buy a patent soother of the stomach. By the 1890's the tide was really turning as far as these homespun remedies were concerned and the pharmaceutical industry was getting a grip.

Andrew seemed to just be prejudiced against much of modern life in general. He doesn't seem to have cared for doctors himself and was fairly healthy. Abby had suffered one or two illnesses and I'm sure Dr Bowen was in attendance. If he'd been forbidden to treat Abby I think that would have come out in testimony.

As far as Eli was concerned I'll just quote Resurrections Page 137. 'Bence's last address was with his wife and children at 64 Commonwealth Avenue, Pittsfield. He was fatally injured in an automobile accident while driving with his wife who survived. He died of a cerebral haemorrhage and interstitial nephritis (a kidney disorder.....)'

So it's clear that Eli Bence must have had a stroke while he was driving and caused an accident while in the car. He was already suffering from kidney disease and was taken home where he died. So, in a way we are all correct. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was trying to compress a page into a few sentences, as I'm usually too wordy.

As I have been in this post!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:03 pm

debbiediablo wrote: …. Somehow this makes me wonder if Andrew was stingy with the doctor when Sarah was ill. …

Holy moly, that is an eye-opening thought!

I have read about prussic acid being used for stomach ailments, and I agree, it does make one wonder why Lizzie didn't use this reason for purchasing it. Sometimes, Lizzie wasn't real bright. On the other hand, if I recall correctly, Eli Bence did not positively identify Lizzie as the woman who attempted to buy prussic acid. If this is true, then perhaps Lizzie was smarter than I give her credit for. After all, if Eli couldn’t positively identify her, why would she feel the need to say that she did attempt to buy it. Maybe she was thinking that It would have been an incriminating act on her part, if she admitted that she did try to purchase it.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:13 pm

Don't worry, Curryong, I don't feel your posts are too wordy. I enjoy your long posts; I find the contents interesting.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:33 pm

twinsrwe wrote:Don't worry, Curryong, I don't feel your posts are too wordy. I enjoy your long posts; I find the contents interesting.

Me too. I rely on you to set us straight with the testimony.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:06 pm

This thread is about irregularities and I was thinking last night while trying to get rid of the latest migraine...that all that about locked doors on the day of the murders doesn't mean much in the end. It was Victoria Lincoln that made a big deal about Lizzie making sure the front door was triple locked and the back door locked so she could kill without being disturbed. Actually this doesn't work out for me.

Who knows why she didn't "unlock" the front door in the morning. What would "unlocking" entail in the Borden household? We surely don't believe that would mean completely unlocked? If it didn't then who cares if the door was single locked or triple locked? MEANWHILE Bridget had adequate access through the UNLOCKED screen door at the side. We know this because she came in unimpeded to get a dipper and she re-entered the house to wash the inside windows. At that point she seems to have latched the screen door so Andrew couldn't get in.

I would tend to think more of the significance of locked doors and murder if Bridget for example couldn't get inside at some point. Bridget talked to her friend then somehow washed the windows with a brush and pail. Then she got a dipper from inside the house to rinse the windows. After that she came in to wash inside windows. IF Lizzie had locked the screen door while she attacked Abby, when did she unlock it that Bridget could come and go a couple times?

Another consideration overall is that Lizzie must have known her father wasn't feeling well. It seems he did in fact come home a bit earlier than usual. He could have come home even earlier. If Lizzie didn't take the precaution of locking doors (i.e. screen door) Andrew could have come in and possibly caught her upstairs with Abby.

It seems like Lizzie and Emma were the main ones who used the front door; indeed the front part of the house was in many ways like an apartment for the unmarried daughters. I can understand it was their responsibility to triple lock the door at night, but why would it be a "responsibility" to unlock it in the morning if they were not going out?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:06 pm

For some reason I'm thinking Andrew's habit was to leave by the side door and come home by the front door. But you make a good point, Irina, why would not unlocking the front door be odd when there was such an obsession with security everywhere else in the house...or was it supposed to be semi-unlocked (two out of three???) so Andrew didn't have to wait for someone to fumble through all three locks? Or were they supposed to guess when he would arrive and unlock minutes before and then greet him to take coat and hat, or whatever, and on August 4 he popped in early?

Oh my.

It's a doggone good thing I wasn't born in the middle 1800s!! My husband likes feisty women but we might not have made it almost to 40 years had we been born a century earlier!!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:24 am

Yes debbie, you might have gone after each other with hatchets! Whoops, shouldn't have said that!

On the forum there has been a long fascination with locks in the Borden household. There was an interesting early thread on the subject, called 'Andrew at the Side Door' or something like that. I'll have to try and find it.

Of course there's then the mystery of 'what happened to Abby's key' which may not have been a mystery at all as she might have simply mislaid it. . She and Phoebe Bowen met up the street shortly before the murders and Abby most probably said to her "Will you come in and have a chat and a coffee?" or something. As they were making their way back they saw Lizzie leaving the house and Abby said to Phoebe something about them having to go round to the back door as 'they have taken my key'. So that was what they did.

I remember us discussing it. It was on a thread when Catbooks was here and we were joking that maybe 'they' were those household imps that
always move keys and mobile and your purse from where you last left it and also the second of pairs of socks that you put in the washing machine. The point being that we didn't believe that even submissive Abby would stand for Andrew and her step daughters taking her front door key.

My bet is that Abby did sometimes use the front door with visitors and partial strangers for the same reason that people do so today ie the kitchen is sometimes in a bit of a state at various times during the day and they don't want people they don't know very well to go through it. That would be even more the case with the Borden house as the rooms had no passageways between them. Remember, John Morse rang the front doorbell earlier in his visit on the Wednesday and Abby let him in. Abby was friendly enough with Mrs Bowen for it not to matter.

So Abby may have wanted to have come in through the front door sometimes, which accounts for Lizzie 'hearing' her come in on the day of the murder and urging people to go find her even though she knew she hadnt unlocked that front door so Abby wouldnt have been able to even if she'd not been killed.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:49 am

From the thread it would appear that Andrew came and want via the side door but no one was there to unlock it on August 4. This makes Lizzie look guilty as she makes sure no one can interrupt her upstairs business with Abby and the following clean-up.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:49 pm

Yes debbie, 'Andrew at the side door' highlights some very interesting points. For instance Shelley posted a long piece of Bridget's testimony. I'm pinching a bit of that here.
The prosecution is examining her about the front door and Lizzie giggling.

Q. She laughed when you said something?

A. Yes sir. I did not expect the door was locked. I went to open it. I was puzzled; I went to unlock it twice.'

I'm not worried here about whether Lizzie giggled or not or what she was laughing about. However, it's clear that Bridget was used to the front door being left on the spring lock during the day, not in its usual Fort Knox triple lock condition. I think she's using the word 'puzzled' in the sense of 'confused' and during the struggle to open the door for Andrew may have accidentally locked it again momentarily.

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:42 am

I would guess Bridget didn't deal with the front door often enough to be that familiar with it. Maybe when she had opened it on other occasions it wasn't triple locked and she wasn't familiar with the triple locks.

What was missing on that day was Abby. Ordinarily Abby would have been available to open the side door or Abby would have been working around the ground floor and the door may have been unlatched. I am curious however why Bridget didn't hear Andrew at the back door or what anyone planned to do about his eventual return. Had he been much later and had Bridget gone to her room Andrew may have been locked out indeed.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:09 am

Irina, please read the 'Andrew at the Side Door' thread, which I pulled out for some reappraisal by us at the same time as the other one, a couple of days ago. It's got some interesting points about the door and Andrew, but it's slipped down a little in the threads today.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:57 pm

Curryong wrote: A. Yes sir. I did not expect the door was locked. I went to open it. I was puzzled; I went to unlock it twice.'

Or could she mean that she unlocked it once, earlier and then it was locked again when Andrew arrived home?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:13 pm

I thought of that, but it was Lizzie's job to unlock it. Also, nowhere in her testimony does Bridget say "miss Lizzie told me to unlock the front door" or "Someone came with a parcel so I unlocked the door at 9 o clock," or anything like that, not even in her witness statements. The front door's not mentioned by Bridget at all, except in connection with Andrew coming in. So I just thought it was one of her quaint ways of expressing herself.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:31 pm

You may well be right, Curryong, but what she says is, "I was puzzled, I went to unlock it twice." To me this likely means she had unlocked once before, for some reason unstated, and again found it locked. The prosecution should've pursued this...and a number of other loose ends like burning scrolls and flea bites.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:44 pm

That right, it's capable of several interpretations (like so much in this case!) However, the front door had three locks which were firmly in place. Andrew's key hadn't budged them. Bridget admitted she had to struggle with them. If she unlocked the two main locks and the spring lock, (which John Morse testified wasn't working properly) was for some reason causing the door to stick even then, that would have caused Bridget to be confused. She would have thought to herself, probably, "I've unlocked these two locks" ("I went to unlock it twice") "and the d--- thing still won't open. What's the matter with it!" So she yanked at the door (she may have further damaged the spring lock in so doing) and finally succeeded in opening it. JMO, anyway! smile.

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:39 pm

debbiediablo wrote:You may well be right, Curryong, but what she says is, "I was puzzled, I went to unlock it twice." To me this likely means she had unlocked once before, for some reason unstated, and again found it locked. The prosecution should've pursued this...and a number of other loose ends like burning scrolls and flea bites.

I admit to being fuzzy about the three locks. The bolt, I get. You can only open it from the inside, by turning the lever. The description of the spring lock sounds like a the kind of lock where you can open the locked door by turning the knob on the inside, but the outside knob won't turn. The keyed lock could be opened from the outside with a key, but how is it opened from the inside?

So my understanding is incomplete here, but my impression of Bridget's statement that "I went to unlock it twice" is that when Bridget heard Mr. Borden at the door, she left the sitting room to go to the entry and perhaps turned the spring-locked knob, thinking that would do the trick, and then started going back to her work. But when Mr. Borden still couldn't get in, even though he had used his key, she had to go back and then saw that the bolt needed to be undone too. (It sounds like that was unusual for the time of day - that the bolt was undone in the morning, by Lizzie, Emma, or Abby.)

So she undid the bolt and let him in.

Just fumbling on the locks, which she may not have been used to, could be the source of her "puzzling" but her mild curse (if she really did say "pshaw" and not something more earthy) may have been due to the exasperation of running to the door twice because just undoing the spring-locked knob wasn't enough this time.

And as others have pointed out, this unusual event is important. When Lizzie said not one, but two people came by that morning, why would the door have been bolted again by 10:40 a.m. unless it was Lizzie herself? And for what purpose other than to keep Andrew from coming in without her knowledge?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:36 pm

I have always thought the front door had (1) a lock which could be unlocked from the outside by key and could also be locked on the inside with a key. It was this night lock which was supposed to be unlocked by Lizzie on the murder morning and wasn't. It was this night lock that prevented Andrew from entering.

(2) a spring lock which added to the general security of the house and at the time of the murders wasn't working properly, and (3) a bolt arrangement which slid across and which Lizzie or Emma was supposed to pull back in the mornings. Have I been wrong about this all this time, says I in frustration, attempting to strangle myself with my scarf!

There are some good things about the family habits re doors/locks on the 'Andrew at the Side Door' thread, but I'm going to have to investigate this locks business a bit more. To make things even more weird, I'm sure Bridget makes reference to Andrew locking the front door again (from the inside) after he was let inside. Putting the slide bolt back into position?

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:14 am

Could Bridget's unlocking the door twice be because Andrew was applying a key from the outside? Sounds like the spring lock could be unlocked from either side. Did she turn a knoib inside at the same time Andrew fumbled outside, thus they were locking and unlocking the same thing?

Someone who is good at cut & paste could look up some old locks~like the "spring lock"~from the era. Perhaps if we picture them we will have a better idea. I imagine we all think back to old doors we have known. Maybe we picture it correctly and maybe not.

On and off topic: I found an antique pear/apple orchard out in the wilds. There was a massive pear tree with huge green pears the size of gourds and not ready to come off the tree even now. I was able to grab a couple though most were high up due to cattle and wildlife trimming the branches. There were other trees with small pears. I got a bunch of them. They must be winter pears as none of them are anywhere near ripe even now. I can't see a pear without thinking of this forum. Pears are one of my favourite fruits though I only like them uncooked.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:33 am

I sound as if I'm about 104 when I write things like this, but I haven't eaten a really delicious pear for absolutely years. Whether it's modern marketing methods in picking them too early when they are green and hard, or whether Australia (with the exception of the island of Tasmania which does grow lovely apples and pears) can't grow really nice ones, I don't know.
However, I can remember very delicious and juicy pears in my childhood. Don't like them mushy! Strawberries and cherries are my absolute favourite fruit, though.

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:08 pm

Curryong wrote:I have always thought the front door had (1) a lock which could be unlocked from the outside by key and could also be locked on the inside with a key. It was this night lock which was supposed to be unlocked by Lizzie on the murder morning and wasn't. It was this night lock that prevented Andrew from entering.

Unlike some issues that are interesting to talk about, but don't really tell us much about how the murders might have happened, the front door locks are very much in play. The fact that the door was unexpectedly locked at that time of day is an irregular event worth delving into, especially in light of 1) Lizzie saying that there had been two callers, one of which was for business purposes, and would have used the front door; 2) the murderer would have benefited from that door being locked so that Andrew doesn't stumble in earlier than usual; and 3) this was the time Bridget says she heard Lizzie laugh somewhere upstairs, placing her where Lizzie really does not want to be at this moment. So I'd like to follow the clues as far as we can.

I don't remember seeing anything that says conclusively which of the locks were left open during the day. But if Andrew expected to be able to come into the house by the front door, then both the spring lock and the bolt had to be the ones that were supposed to be unlocked, and here's why:

All this time, I had thought the spring lock was like a bathroom door lock, where you push a button and it will lock when you close it. After googling around for spring locks, I'm wondering if it might not be part of a door knob at all, but is one of those gadgets you screw on the inside of a door to keep it closed, often near the top of the door. You can manually undo it, but when it is "tripped" it should keep a door shut. It would explain why there were reports of it being faulty. Anyway, a spring lock that is working properly is not accessible from the outside, so if Andrew expected to come in just using his key, that lock should have been undone in the morning.

The bolt could be a bolt that you slide across, or it could be similar to a modern "deadbolt" that moves into a recess in the doorjamb when you turn a lever. It doesn't really matter for this discussion, but it would be nice to know. There is no way Andrew could get in if a bolt was in place.

So the last lock, the keyed lock, must have been kept locked day and night, and the other two had to be left undone if Andrew (or any other family member with a key) used the front door to get inside.

When Bridget uses the words "I went to unlock it twice" I think she means that she went to the door and took care of one of the two locks, either the the bolt or the spring lock because it was obvious, and then was frustrated about having to go back a second time because the other one was unexpectedly still in place, and then finally the door opened because Andrew had already turned the lock mechanism with his key.

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:35 pm

I can't substantiate that ANY visitor/guest/business caller came to the Borden's front door the morning of the fourth. That's a good place to start. Did they or didn't they? Yes or no. I say no.

I think of the spring lock as something on the door above the door knob, almost eye level. A "spring lock" also fits into the story of Jack the Ripper's last accepted victim in that there was such a lock on the door and the door could be unlocked by someone reaching through a window and pulling back a lever. That was 1888, 4 years before the Borden case.

I'll bet Bridget unlocked something, Andrew turned his key, re-locking it, she tried again, etc.

I rather think Lizzie was upstairs and later told whatever [aka a lie] to distance herself. With my theory it doesn't matter because I believe the door to the guest room was closed and the killer was either inside or he had migrated down to the parlour where nobody ever went. I would bet among all of us here we believe Lizzie was upstairs when her father came home, whether we vote guilty or innocent.

=====>>>>>Curryong, I'll start a pear thread at 'Stay to Tea'.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:29 pm

John Morse gave testimony at the trial about the spring lock not working properly.

Q. I will ask you whether you have observed anything in the use of the front door, in regard to the spring lock, Mr Morse?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that?
A, Well, if you shut the door hard, the spring lock would catch; if you didn't, it would not.
Q. Then, if it did not catch-?
A. You could open it without any trouble.
Q. Push it, or turn the ordinary knob, and it would come right open. And when had you noticed that?
A. That was after the tragedy.

Well, even if we don't know what kind of spring lock it was, we know it wasn't working properly!

regofam · Post by **regofam** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:34 pm

We know it wasn't working properly...after the tragedy! On August 4, who knows?

Anyway, I would dearly love to get a better understanding of these locks. The spring lock is most confusing to me, so I looked into some of the testimony to see (again) what they said. It seems the spring lock on the front door did take a key, Curryong.

And the Borden's side door was replete with locks as well, and at least one was a spring lock with a key that was left locked at night when Bridget was out.

Here is Bridget's trial testimony:

Q. How was the [front] door when you let Dr. Bowen in Wednesday?
A. The spring lock had the key in it.
Q. Sprung locked, was it?
A. Yes.

(snip)

Q. When you went out on Wednesday evening, how did you leave the back door?
A. Sprung locked.
Q. The wooden door, was that shut?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a key?
A. Yes, sir.

(snip)

Q. When you came back how did you find the door?
A. It was locked.
Q. You unlocked it, I take it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With your key?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone else have a key to the back door?
A. I think Mrs. Borden had a key to it.
Q. After you passed in through that door did you notice anything as to how it was locked---whether locked or otherwise.
A. I locked it myself with three locks as I came in.
Q. How did you lock it after you came in?
A. There was a lock, a spring lock, a bolt and spring. There were two spring locks and a bolt.
Q. In what condition were all those locks left on the Wednesday night when you last came in?
A. Well, I hooked the screen door. I came in and locked the wooden door, and sprung the latch, and a catch which couldn't be opened from the outside with any key, and then bolted the other lock.

(snip)

As to the morning of the murders, after Bridget opened the door to get the milk:

Q. And so far as you know, was the [side] panel door closed again that day down to the time and after the time of the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
A. The wooden door?
Q. The wooden door.
A. No, sir.

(snip)

Now to Bridget hearing someone at the front door on Aug. 4:

Q. When you got to the front door what did you find the condition of the locks there?
A. I went to open it, caught it by the knob, the spring lock, as usual, and it was locked. I unbolted it and it was locked with a key.

(snip)

Q. What did you do with reference to the lock with the key?
A. I unlocked it. As I unlocked it I said, "Oh pshaw, " and Miss Lizzie laughed, upstairs. Her father was out there on the door step. She was upstairs.

(snip)

Q. I am reminded that one question was unanswered. How many locks on the front door were unlocked as you went there -- locks and bolts, I mean?
A. There was a bolt and there was a spring lock, and there was a key.
Q. And those were all locked?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the morning hours, usually, was that door kept locked otherwise than by the spring lock?
A. I don't know anything about the door; I didn't have nothing to do with it.

So we come full circle - on Wednesday Bridget was able to let in Dr. Bowen just fine, by turning the key in the spring lock. On Thursday, that was not enough because the bolt and a SECOND (?) keyed lock were still locked.

I see an older thread about the front door has just been updated. I'll go take a look...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:22 pm

Yes Regofam, take a look as there are photos etc, especially at the beginning, which I think are helpful.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:32 am

Howard Brown on the Jack the Ripper Forums posted, on the 'Lizzie Borden murder thread, a set of photos he had taken when he was on holiday in the US in 2012 with Ripperologist Martin Fido and his wife. They visited the Borden B and B, and on the text accompanying the photos it mentioned that on the bookshelf in Lizzie's room there was a book on cutting tools!

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:20 am

I saw those pictures, Curryong. Wasn't sure how to mention it here and wasn't sure if they had been shared here before. Those are some of the best pictures of the house I have seem.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:54 pm

They are very clear photos, though there are a few on older threads, notably some that Allen took on a visit there, which were also clear. I didn't think the bedspreads looked particularly Victorian, but that's just me nit-picking. I would love to go visit the B and B.

Regofam was going to take a look at the old locks thread I pulled up the other day, but hasn't posted since. Wonder whether the answers were found? It looks clearly as if Abby had a key to the back door, though in the summer months the safety door just seems to have been kept on a hook arrangement and the actual door was kept open. Because of heat presumably, just as the door between kitchen and sitting room was kept shut because of the heat from the kitchen stove. Poor Bridget! If no-one would come to the safety door and unhook it family and close friends would just rattle it and call, I suppose, as Andrew did that day. Abby and Bridget were usually about.

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:30 pm

I found more tidbits about keys in Bridget's trial testimony. I may start a separate thread but have another migraine today. Interestingly Bridget testified that Abby got her key to the back door the same day Bridget did! Think that over!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:32 am

I am so sorry about your new migraine. Hopefully it won't linger.

Well, he gave exactly the same allowance to his wife as he did to his daughters (a whole $12 a month and don't spend it all at once) but she, as she told her relatives, had to buy items for the house, napery etc with hers., while theirs was to spend as they pleased.

So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, poor woman. If I had been Abby I would have fiddled that money in the safe that was for household bills to buy myself a nice dress occasionally, and I wouldn't have a conscience about it.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:03 am

Using an Inflation Calculator: $12.00 in 1892 had the same purchasing power as $315.79 does in 2014. So, when you think about it, ‘the girls’ had quite a bit of money to spend as freely as they wished, while poor Abby had to scrimp and budget her money. Abby went to the market on a regular basis to purchase food. It has always been said that Andrew was a 'waste not, want not' sort of guy, but perhaps it was Abby who was the one that refused to throw out swordfish, mutton, etc., which had gone bad. After all, the mutton and swordfish had been purchased with her allowance money!

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:42 am

In Bridget's testimony she mentioned a "refrigerator" in the closet. I know they got ice presumably for an ice box. Did they have a paraffin refrigerator also? I think they were invented then. We always assume the food on the table was bad and that is how they got sick, but re-serving food till it was gone was the way back then. Did they cook more than needed because they expected Lizzie to eat when she came home, and she didn't? Did they expect Uncle John earlier? I still go along with Dr. Bowen suggesting "cream cake", with a custard base, as the source of illness. It could have been turned before it was even brought home.