When Lizzie went a Thieving...Or did she?

[Curryong]

There appears to be some evidence that Lizzie enjoyed stealing from shops and stores. Could we please (leaving aside the robbery at No 92) discuss this, whether we feel Lizzie was a full-blown kleptomaniac or not, and if we believe that she was a thief, give any reasons why.

Was Lizzie frustrated, starved of attention, of her father's love? Was she just completely bored? Was it a symptom of another mental condition?
Or is it a myth that she stole, borne out of ill-natured Fall River gossip?

Incidentally, there is apparently a good article in The Hatchet (May 2006) entitled '92 Seconds: Light fingered Lizzie and the Kleptomania Craze' by Mary Naugle. Pages 40-46.

[irina]

I'm not doing very good with searches today, but in failing to find what I wanted to find I found something I wasn't looking for.

In general I discount the allegations against Lizzie concerning her being a thief because at the base of all of the claims that I have read, they originate from gossip. I re-read what you posted from Rebello, Curryong, and that is the closest I have seen to something concrete on the matter but Jennings' grandson's statement could mean a number of things including that Lizzie was a difficult client and he did not want to represent her again.

Was Lizzie a kleptomaniac? I would say no if kleptomania was defined as a compulsion to steal. The original rumours about her habits allegedly came from Fall River shopkeepers. Among her intimate friends, of which there seemed to be a number such as the Marion guest list in the summer of 1892, she did not seem to have a negative reputation at all. With the same provenance as the shoplifting tid bit, friends of Lizzie allegedly said she was so honest that they could understand her committing murder easier that they could see her lying about it afterward. Dishonesty on the one hand and scrupulous honesty on the other hand, made up the gossip of the day. At any rate if she had a compulsion to steal I think she would have stolen from more than shopkeepers.

Some of us here could understand Lizzie shoplifting knowing that Andrew would pay the bills. We have compared it to a charge account. I can see Lizzie doing this and not considering it stealing because items were paid for. It would be a game between her and her father. Keep in mind also that in those days~even into my mother's day early in the last century~shops didn't have tables full of goods to snatch. Most items were behind the counter or otherwise out of the reach of the customer.

Then we have the Tilden Thurber affair. This is where I stumbled onto something unexpected. I wanted to be sure of my facts because I remember Tilden Thurber lumped in with an extortion attempt and a false confession to murder signed by Lizzie. My basic comment is two wrongs don't make a right~or the truth.

I stumbled on an article that quotes Stefani Koorey who said, "There's really no evidence that she [Lizzie] stole anything." In the article Tilden Thurber is lightly covered with the comment that Mr. Gardiner helped sort out the situation whatever it was. 'Local Historian Deciphers Letter Penned by Lizzie Borden', 8/16/2010; 'The Herald News; www.heraldnews.com. It could be that Jennings helped Gardiner sort everything out quietly. This is a far cry from the elaborate tale of a warrant being sworn, police department alerted, confession signed under duress, etc. 'Lizzie Borden's Confession', 8/18/2010; www.murderbygaslight.com. (I have no idea of the quality of this source but the story is the same as I have read other places.)

I surely lean toward what Stefani has to say considering her credentials. If she said the opposite of what she did I would give it the same amount of credence because I respect her knowledge.

I have not heard of any other Lizzie stealing rumour or charge after the trial other than Tilden Thurber so again I have the feeling Lizzie wasn't a thief. Stefani in the article mentioned that the Tilden Thurber incident could have been a number of things including a bookkeeping error. I would add that if we believe the whole nasty story I would say Lizzie was set up for extortion, but I doubt the bigger story. Tilden Thurber wouldn't want the reputation of being involved in something so overtly nasty if they were a quality gallery.

When I get my head on straight after the latest headache I think I want to look at a pattern I think I see in some statements and testimony. It seems to me police and working class people like Bridget communicated freely but that people of Lizzie's class didn't communicate willingly with people in those classes. My point here is that shopkeepers may have felt comfortable prattling to police and reporters and may not have had a problem passing gossip. Among Lizzie's class, even relatives who didn't like her, did any say she was a thief? Some of them said some fairly harsh things but I don't remember thievery mentioned.

[Curryong]

I bought (on Kindle) the book I mentioned, 'When Ladies Go A'Thieving...' and it's fascinating stuff! Middleclass women were of course the backbone of the retail trade, especially as the century progressed and larger stores multiple stores came into being.

There seems to have been something of an epidemic of shoplifting in these larger stores but the ladies were rarely prosecuted. Management preferred not to 'catch' any of their clientele. Even when an arrest had been made an appeal from husband or father would usually cause the shop/stores' management to withdraw the charge.

In the literature of the times the atmosphere of larger stores was often described as 'stimulating' and, as females were regarded as childlike creatures, the whole thing was obviously too over-exhilarating, causing them to behave in a manner that was completely out of character!

Magistrates became rather cynical over time about middleclass shoplifting. Quote 'Faced with a typical action in 1893- wherein a genteel young woman 'from one of the best-known families in the city' was before him on a charge of stealing a piece of silk and two pairs of gloves at Stern Brothers, New York, Judge Voortis displayed his skepticism.
"I suppose" he said "this is another of those RESPECTABLE FAMILY cases." The judge interpreted the situation perfectly. When Sterns discovered the woman's identity they withdrew the charge and the case was dismissed.' End Quote.

These women shoplifters were apparently usually in the age group 35 plus, most were married, some single, others widowed. What is notable is that the author's research uncovered very few if any professional women among them.
(There was one manager of a suburban church building).
Whether this was because any conviction for theft of any kind would result in instant dismissal and therefore loss of livelihood, I don't know, though I presume that would be a big deterrent.

I do wonder whether, due to the social restrictions and expectations of the time, whether women who shoplifted were just subconsciously seeking some excitement, a bit of danger, a little diversion from the domestic duties and the dullness of their lives.

[debbiediablo]

Kleptomaniacs steal out of compulsion, to relieve anxiety, and is similar to cutting or hair pulling or skin picking. This is not Lizzie. Others steal for need, out of boredom, for attention, and for revenge against either the theft victim or the person who has to pay. I see Lizzie as possibly being all three of these. Interestingly pyromania can also be a compulsion, or engaged in for the same reasons as stealing. I will always think Lizzie seriously considered burning down the house.

[irina]

I would suggest shoplifting was a way for women in a restricted society to get a bit of control into their lives that were run by husbands and fathers. Surely the phenomenon must have been largely in the US? I always think of Britain having extremely harsh penalties for theft.

[debbiediablo]

I would suggest shoplifting was a way for women in a restricted society to get a bit of control into their lives that were run by husbands and fathers. Surely the phenomenon must have been largely in the US? I always think of Britain having extremely harsh penalties for theft.

It's pretty fair to say that every behavior there is beyond those that originate biologically like Tourette Syndrome is driven by control issues.

[Curryong]

The book I quoted from was a US publication, dealing with cases in and around New York, which had many of the large stores of the time. In the 1890's these were still quite a new phenomenon. I can't say I have ever seen a British study dealing specifically with middle-class shop-lifting in the 19th century.

It is true that Britain had very harsh penalties for larceny in the 19th century. However, British society was also very class-based, more so than in the U.S.. I'd suggest that there would be a great deal of difference in attitude by British police and storekeepers between a working class woman caught stuffing something she wanted or needed under her shawl and those responses to a 'lady' tucking items into her bag.

I think social mores in both countries was much the same, and probably many well-connected women on both sides of the Atlantic got away with stealing from shops, for whatever reason.

[snokkums]

I think that maybe that's the one thing she had control over. Daddy warbucks always bailed her out and payed for whatever it was that she stole. I just think that there was a lot of garbage going on in the house and stealing was something she could do.

[Curryong]

Yes, Andrew certainly paid, one way or another!

[snokkums]

Yup, he certainly did! And Lizzie still kept stealing , even after she inherited daddy warbucks money!!

[debbiediablo]

Poor old spinster out shoplifting for thrills. <<< This is a joke, although I think there's an element of thrill-seeking to her behavior.

[snokkums]

Me too, I think she was doing some of the stealing for the thrill. A bit of a rebel.

[irina]

IF...just saying IF Lizzie stole and Andrew paid, the scenario would also imply to me testing Andrew's love. Every time he paid he once again proved he loved her. I have a lot of problems with Victoria Lincoln's book but she did make a strong point that Lizzie (another IF in my estimation) killed her father it was so as not to lose his love over the murder of Abby. Very dramatic.

I believe everything is genetic including behaviour, that very little is due to so-called nurture. I have always been fascinated by identical twin studies. Behaviours can be controlled, even Tourette's as mentioned (I have a mild touch of it that is pretty much un-noticeable), but I believe the proclivities to do certain things are genetic and only circumstances change outcome.

[debbiediablo]

My youngest is co-morbid with Tourettes and was totally uncontrolled when younger. Under stress she was just like turning on the word faucet – 30 minutes of non-stop nonsense spouting out of her mouth, including obscenities I had never before heard but she managed to assimilate God-knows-where. Then she watched What About Bob and figured out Tourettes could be fun! Now, as an adult, her real Tourettes manifests by mumbling obscenities under her breath. The fun Tourettes is shouted out for her own enjoyment, "Feces! Pancake! Lobotomy!".