Thoughts on Emma

[History&Mystery]

Hello, I'm new to the forum. I've been doing some research into this case both as a hobby and for an essay. I've never been fully convinced that Lizzie is guilty, too many things just don't add up. Honestly everybody seemed to be acting suspiciously, but something has always bothered me about Emma in particular. Emma seemed to have more motive than anybody to commit the murders. It's well established that she seemed to dislike Abby more than Lizzie did. Andrew doted on Lizzie with gifts and expensive trips. It's never mentioned that he ever did similar things for Emma, it's not unlikely that she may have resented him for favoring her sister.

How thoroughly was Emma's alibi investigated? Is there any record of her bags being searched during the investigation? If Emma came home late the night before and stayed in her room nobody would have noticed. She would know how to avoid being seen by Bridget. She could have killed Abby then waited in her room for Andrew to come home while Lizzie helped keep Bridget out of the way (this could explain the nonexistent note and telling her about the sale). She could have put the bloody clothes and the murder weapon in her suitcase and left when Lizzie sent Bridget for the doctor. She could have then disposed of them before returning to the house or kept them in her suitcase. If the police believed that she had been in Fairhaven for two weeks and didn't come home until after the murders they would have had no reason to search her bags. Forgive me if this seems a little far-fetched, but this could explain the missing weapon and the timeline.

[mbhenty]

Emma is an exceptional case since there is not official transcript of her stay in Fairhaven, that is to say, no testimony or preliminary statements of her actual whereabouts.

Much of what is out there about Emma's stay with the Brownells and Delanos are speculated in newspaper articles.

Though we know that police looked into where Emma was during the day of the murders there is no validated written proof that she was actually there all day and never left Fairhaven—that day. We can only assume, considering common sense, that the police interviewed residents of the Brownell house about the whereabouts of Emma for any specific time of day.

As you well know, Emma was staying with Helen Brownell, a dressmaker at 19 Green Street. It was an extended visit and she had been there two weeks.

Helen lived with mother Rebecca and Rebecca's brother, Moses. (The Delanos) Also there was Amanda, Moses wife. We have no formal or recorded statements to what was asked of all these potential witnesses, though I believe there exist some reports in the way of newspaper articles. Helen was in her fifties and her mother and brother and brother's wife, I believe, were in their seventies. So everyone was probably at home, or at the very least, homebodies and would have had some knowledge of Emma's itinerary for the day of the murders.

Thus, Emma becomes an interesting suspect, whether a rational one or not.

[History&Mystery]

Even if Lizzie committed the murders herself, it’s not unlikely that Emma knew and would try to protect her. Emma’s luggage would be a logical place to hide the hatchet and bloody clothing. If the police believed the luggage had been out of the house for weeks, they likely believed they had no reason to search there.

[LABRhush]

This is a fun topic! Personally, I believe Emma was a co-conspirator with a very handy, purposeful alibi.

[Abby]

This is a fun topic! Personally, I believe Emma was a co-conspirator with a very handy, purposeful alibi.

Yes, it is fun!

It's true that Emma had the best motive, if controlling the family fortune was the motive. As the older sister she would be the heir, since Abby Borden died prior to her husband, if only by a short time, and no will was ever found. (Which I find extremely odd, considering what a tight-fisted control freak Andrew was. Did he really not mind his carefully guarded wealth going to just whomever? )

But it seems that Lizzie was the dominant sister here. Imagine the nerve it took to commit crimes like these--I can almost understand why a jury of Victorian men couldn't believe that any woman could be guilty of crimes like these, especially a young woman of "good family". But we know crazy things happen with all kinds of people, and whoever did commit these murders was an extremely angry person--to put it mildly! To me that sounds a lot more like Lizzie than meek little Emma. Unless, of course, Emma was one of the greatest actresses of the 19th century.

It seems tho that at some point Emma did begin putting 2 and 2 together, and she didn't like the answer. I wonder how long it took her to suspect her sister? I'm betting not very long, but it's not the kind of thing you want to admit about your baby sister, right?

I feel truly sorry for Emma.

[Albanyguy]

I've never thought it strange that Andrew wouldn't have made out a will. For one thing, although he was seventy, he was strong and active and probably expected to live for another decade. More importantly, he probably thought making out a will was unnecessary. If he died without a will, then Abby would have been legally entitled to one-third of his estate (it was called a "widow's dower"). The other two-thirds would automatically be divided between his two surviving children, Lizzie and Emma. This is exactly what happened after his death, except since Abby had already pre-deceased him by about 90 minutes, the two daughters split everything 50/50. But since Andrew's estate was worth half-a-million dollars (about 14 million dollars in today's money), even split three ways there would have been more than enough for everyone.

I've also never put much stock in the speculation that Andrew was about to disinherit his daughters and leave everything to Abby. Emma and Lizzie may have annoyed him at times, but there's no evidence that he was ever angry enough to take such a drastic step. And if he did, Abby would have more than she could possibly spend in her lifetime and, at her death, it would go to her family, the Grays and Whiteheads and I'm sure Andrew had no intention of having all his money go to his in-laws.

[jcurrie]

Personally I have never believed that Emma was capable of planning her parents' murder. Although she was much older than Lizzie, she seemed totally dominated by her. I did read a book (title and author forgotten) that made out a case that Emma travelled all the way from Fairhaven to FR, committed the murders, and returned to Fairhaven. I don't know how long the journey is from Fairhaven to FR, but it's just ludicrous that Emma could have even returned to FR without being seen by someone who knew her. Everything in the household seemed to revolve around Lizzie and her moods. Emma volunteered to change bedrooms to please Lizzie, who also chose the colour scheme when the house was painted earlier in the year.

The only independent thing that Emma did was to keep in contact with the Harringtons (Andrew's sister and brother in law). Lizzie didn't get on with either of them. The same goes for Uncle John, who said that he had never received a letter from Lizzie in his life (so presumably Emma used to keep in touch with him). On the Wednesday night before the murders, if you remember, Lizzie had been visiting Alice Russell and when she returned home, never bothered to pop her head through the sitting room door to say hello to Uncle John. What is it with Lizzie and her relatives?

[camgarsky4]

Emma seemed to be the 'peace maker' for all family issues that weren't Abby related. Kept in contact with Morse and Harrington, swapped rooms with Lizzie (has to be family drama behind that), convinced John to deliver jail meals to Lizzie even though she ignored him and I'm guessing many more such stories. That said, I suspect she was the 'spoon' when it came to Abby. Emma likely kept things stirred up on against Abby. At the age of 27, Lizzie turned on Abby when Abby became a perceived threat to Lizzies sense of entitlement. Emma likely helped Lizzie form that POV.

When it comes to Andrew, I don't think either woman (we call them girls too often) held their father in loving respect. He got remarried (when they were very young)but, as adults and 20 years later, refused to treat Abby politely. He gave them a rental house and in their eyes he wasn't doing them any favors. At the ages of 42 and 32, they lived for free (actually got an allowance) in his house. They had to know that their 70 year old father did not find the family tension enjoyable, but they probably couldn't have cared less. Were they appreciative even to the slightest extent.....probably not. They recognized that the house was unhappy, but didn't look in the mirror and put some blame on themselves. They were self-centered, spoiled grown women. I emphasize the grown part of that sentence.

This lack of emotional depth, empathy or compassion were big players in the events of August 4th. My view is that the intensity of the killings was less about rage and more about determination, single-mindedness and extreme focus on the task at hand.

[Lizzie A.B. MA]

Hello, I think according to the description Emma was an quiet withdrawn person. Who I think has felt the greatest hatred for Abby. Because, She loved her mother very much and I think, you can halfway imagine how bad this had to be for her.
However lizzie was too young, at the time and all this was not really understood and so I think she Abby loved in her young years.
But, with the time, the influence of Emma, among other, changed, I think Emma told her. Clearly that Abby was not your real mother, and all the prejudices, for example, Abby has only geht married on the basis of his money to show you. And more and more lizzie has started to belive enma and this not questioning why she, should even if her sister told this...!
Emma was honored to hold back on quarrels with Abby Mrs Borden the arms and lizzie to be honored, to tell someone what she thinks and what she wants.
I think a lot of that, she took over from Emma, who honoured, held back and then lizzie I kept, back her later years... So that nobody thinks Emma is a driving force.
However, I probably despise lizzies stubbornness and dominate nature, as she was probably the most dominant of the two sisters.
On the other hand, Emma could have been the one who tried again and again but, it the end unsuccessfully to keep the family together. Where, I have read, among other things, On page that miss Sullivan, According to statments, have also supported lizzie in disputes. And even there, for her had lies. Because, aus lizzie liked. She says, she was always honest, during the trial.
L.A Borden kersting

[Rolie Polie]

I was just over at Warps and Wefts Facebook and saw this post. I don't want to put the person's identity down, but you can find it there, now. I'd like for someone who knows more about the case to tell me if this is truth. If it is, then this is a piece of information that has to be investigated more thoroughly. I feel like digging! Did Emma expect someone to come get HER too? Was that the reason why she left Maplecroft? I often think that she left during an issue with the carriage driver, who Lizzie sided with.

It says,
"Troy Taylor’s book about Lizzie contains quite a bit of info about Emma and this house including that she put up most of the money for the it and also had a second stairwell put in from 2nd floor down to the kitchen and an electrical panel that allowed her to turn on every indoor and outdoor light at once. The door to the stairwell was hidden by a closet door and an axe was kept nearby. She allegedly told the Connors that “one night they’ll come for me”. Not saying who though. Neighbors also said she never left the house and could be seen often looking out from the 2nd floor porch and was always alone. The sisters did all errands and shopping."

[Reasonwhy]

Hi, Rolie Polie. I’m not on FaceBook, and I cannot answer questions as to the veracity of the material quoted, but can pass along that that information may also be found in Frank Spiering’s book, Lizzie, written in 1984. In the edition I have, published by Random House, the information appears on page 222: Spiering says the then-owner of the house allowed him to see “the hidden stairway,” and “the light panel that Emma installed.” He also mentions the other information within your quoted text.

Note that Taylor’s book, One August Morning: The True Story of Lizzie Borden, was written in 2015, 31 years after Spiering’s. I have not reviewed my copy to see whether Taylor credits Spiering for the information.

So, I don’t know if the material is true, but I do agree that if so, it’s intriguing. Could it be evidence of more than Emma’s senility?

One of the causes of her death written on her death certificate was senility:
“….Cause of Death: nephritis for 2 years contributing cause, senility, duration unknown…., ” from Leonard Rebello’s Lizzie Borden, Past & Present, p. 341

[camgarsky4]

Based on book reviews from forum posters I hold in very high respect, I have chosen not to read the Spiering book. Along those lines, I would caution against using any unsourced references (and check the sourced references) in any of the non-primary documents or books. That goes for Spiering, Lincoln, Radin, Brown, and the rest.

If you search "Spiering" in this forum, you will find some book reviews.

[camgarsky4]

For a good example of a sourced book on the Borden murders, consider "Case Against Lizzie Borden"....William Spencer does an excellent job of providing source references throughout the book.

Parallel Lives does the same.

[swinell]

Hi, Rolie Polie. I’m not on FaceBook, and I cannot answer questions as to the veracity of the material quoted, but can pass along that that information may also be found in Frank Spiering’s book, Lizzie, written in 1984. In the edition I have, published by Random House, the information appears on page 222: Spiering says the then-owner of the house allowed him to see “the hidden stairway,” and “the light panel that Emma installed.” He also mentions the other information within your quoted text.

Note that Taylor’s book, One August Morning: The True Story of Lizzie Borden, was written in 2015, 31 years after Spiering’s. I have not reviewed my copy to see whether Taylor credits Spiering for the information.

So, I don’t know if the material is true, but I do agree that if so, it’s intriguing. Could it be evidence of more than Emma’s senility?

One of the causes of her death written on her death certificate was senility:
“….Cause of Death: nephritis for 2 years contributing cause, senility, duration unknown…., ” from Leonard Rebello’s Lizzie Borden, Past & Present, p. 341

Ah good ol Frank Spiering...tbh I've been waiting for the right time to break out this rant so thank you so much for this opportunity

Frank Spiering's book is a work of pure fiction. Plain and simple. Spiering of course knows (or knew) this, but he's trying to sell copies. All of his books are works of pure fiction. Not a shred of historical research or on-site investigation done in their preparation. Spiering even goes to the trouble of lying about having visited the locations...he never entered 92 Second St or Maplecroft, and even if he had he has no historical evidence to substantiate his claims about the lighting fixtures or this "hidden stairway" (which aren't in either house and no plans that are available indicate they were ever installed so likely just another fabrication...having stayed in 92 Second Street I can confirm there is no "hidden stairway")

His contribution to the case is, from a historical perspective, the same as Evan Hunter's (Ed McBain)...that is to say, of even less value than Victoria Lincoln's A Private Disgrace, and even less than Arnold Brown's book (itself full of fabrications and inaccuracies).

Now I will say it is intriguing that there is nothing documenting that Emma was in Fairhaven all day on Aug. 4, but we do know she was there for a period of about two weeks and that she arrived in Fall River by train later that evening...if it weren't for the record of Emma having boarded and de-boarded that train I'd be more inclined to give weight to the Emma theory but because we have such a record it would mean that Emma got the absolute fastest carriage available that not even Henry Ford would've dreamt of at that time, gotten back to Fall River (according to Spiering dressed in man's clothes with a beard and everything), murdered the couple, and then raced back to Fairhaven to board the train...given the length of time it would take a 2-horse carriage to go between Fairhaven and Fall River (about half a day) it doesn't work out.

As to why Emma left in 1905, I think there are four total possibilities, three of which have equal plausibility.
1. That she found out something about the murders...I don't think this one makes sense. I think if she knew anything about the murders (and I suspect she did), she would have known either before they'd happened or immediately upon returning to Fall River.

2. That she was tired of Lizzie's lavish parties for Nance O'Neil and her acting troupe. She was nearly sixty by that point and likely just wanted to have a nice quiet life.

3. That she was tired of the parties but absolutely appalled by Lizzie's potential affair with Nance O'Neil. In a 1914 interview (the only one she ever gave), Emma said "Queer? Yes, Lizzie is queer." Of course, the term meant "odd" or "unusual" at the time and was in common usage in that context at the time but it should be noted that the first instance of the term "queer" being applied to LGBTQIA+ folks is the trial of Oscar Wilde in 1895 - another trial that was widely publicized the world over - and the term had seeped into the public usage by 1914 as specifically associated with sexual oddities. Debatable either way but worth considering.

4. Emma did not like their hired driver while Lizzie adored him and his little daughter (who often wrote of her fond memories of Auntie Borden). There's also some speculation about the sisters fighting over the driver romantically but this hasn't been substantiated.

[camgarsky4]

Swinell, good post.

But I believe the 4th bullet has the drivers switched. The driver that may have caused some tension between the sisters was Joseph Tetrault (Parallel Lives pg. 635-636). The driver whose daughter recalls Lizzie and was named in Lizzie's Will was Ernest Terry. (parallel Lives pg. 990 and other pgs.).

[Reasonwhy]

Hello Swinell,

As I wrote to Rolie Polie, I’ve no cause to vouch for Spiering’s veracity. I share all reluctance to credit the information of writers who do not properly cite their sources.

In Spiering’s book he is referring to one of Emma’s later residences - not 92 Second Street or Maplecroft - when he writes about the staircase and lights.

I’ve not been to 92 Second Street. May I ask what your experience was like?

[Rolie Polie]

Hi, Rolie Polie. I’m not on FaceBook, and I cannot answer questions as to the veracity of the material quoted, but can pass along that that information may also be found in Frank Spiering’s book, Lizzie, written in 1984. In the edition I have, published by Random House, the information appears on page 222: Spiering says the then-owner of the house allowed him to see “the hidden stairway,” and “the light panel that Emma installed.” He also mentions the other information within your quoted text.

Note that Taylor’s book, One August Morning: The True Story of Lizzie Borden, was written in 2015, 31 years after Spiering’s. I have not reviewed my copy to see whether Taylor credits Spiering for the information.

So, I don’t know if the material is true, but I do agree that if so, it’s intriguing. Could it be evidence of more than Emma’s senility?

One of the causes of her death written on her death certificate was senility:
“….Cause of Death: nephritis for 2 years contributing cause, senility, duration unknown…., ” from Leonard Rebello’s Lizzie Borden, Past & Present, p. 341

I thought the senility also. But I also know that senility and kidney failure go hand in hand as a result of the toxic buildup that the kidneys do not excrete. It backs up in the blood and causes senility as a secondary diagnosis. I suspect that the senility was not long-term for some reason. She had nephritis for 2 years- with no dialysis, of course. I wonder at what point she said that.

This is Emma Borden reading Jason Bourne's mail! I think it's really tantalizing that she was so concerned about someone coming in the night to take her away. That wouldn't be the police because they could and would just as easily present their warrant for arrest in the daylight and bring her to the jail. She sounds so much like she's expecting shady characters, or assassins of some kind. As someone said on Facebook, she sounded like she was going to be "disappeared" and swimming with the fishes. Watching from the second floor window and always alone. It's too good to let go.

I always thought that she left Maplecroft because of Joseph Tatrault, the single gentleman famous with the ladies, who was their carriage driver. I read somewhere here that he was employed by Emma and Lizzie from 1899-1902 and 1904-1908. Emma left Lizzie in 1905. I could see a disagreement over his behavior and Lizzie coming in against Emma and not believing her, favoring Tatrault instead of her flesh and blood, and offending Emma very much.

[swinell]

I stand corrected on the driver, camgarsky4.

Reasonwhy, my experience was very illuminating with respect to knowing the layout of the house, also helpful was getting a sense of how sound traveled in the house (enlisted another guest to help run some experiments on that front). The company running it is big on playing up the ghost-hunting angle and it is very well-suited for that kind of eery experience, like, they have headless mannequins in the room with dresses from 1975 TV movie all over the place along with creepy dolls holding hatchets and stuff like that. But for those interested in the case, a good day-trip to Fall River is absolutely worth it! You can see the outside of Maplecroft, the whole Oak Grove Cemetery with the Borden plot, Andrew Borden's extant buildings, the Borden's church, and, of course, the Fall River Historical Society which has been instrumental in the scholarship of the case.

[Kat]

Hi!
Did you stay overnight or take a tour, may I ask? Did you see the cellar?
Do you have any pictures?
They had one dress from the Liz Montgomery movie - you mention " dresses...all over the place"?
Please, is there more you can describe? Thanks!

[Kat]

Hi, Rolie Polie. I’m not on FaceBook, and I cannot answer questions as to the veracity of the material quoted, but can pass along that that information may also be found in Frank Spiering’s book, Lizzie, written in 1984. In the edition I have, published by Random House, the information appears on page 222: Spiering says the then-owner of the house allowed him to see “the hidden stairway,” and “the light panel that Emma installed.” He also mentions the other information within your quoted text.

Note that Taylor’s book, One August Morning: The True Story of Lizzie Borden, was written in 2015, 31 years after Spiering’s. I have not reviewed my copy to see whether Taylor credits Spiering for the information.

So, I don’t know if the material is true, but I do agree that if so, it’s intriguing. Could it be evidence of more than Emma’s senility?

--partial

Just noticed this topic, sorry.
I'm very into Emma, as you all may know. I followed her to Newmarket in one of my Hatchet essays. Had to research Spiering to get there, tho. I wanted to see that light panel!

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... ights.html

I had interviewed the homeowner in Newmarket, over the phone, in preparation for my article, and was invited to visit! Permission to bring Harry and Stefani and Len Rebello and Bill Pavao! What a day that was in the car with everyone, driving from Fall River to New Market, New Hampshire and back! Saw my first chipmunk!
That was a stellar trip!

[Reasonwhy]

To get to see that house- and on the inside, too - ooh, man! Okay, were you able to take more pictures?

But, seriously, about reading Spiering, or any of the other badly sourced books…I like reading theories, as long as people explain their reasoning. It helps me to weigh new possibilities against what I already know has been verified. Reading Victoria Lincoln hooked me so well, I’ve now read, and own, most every book on the case (and I know that’s true for many of us on the forum). And like many of us, I went on to focus on the primary sources.

And yes, a critical reader needs to carefully discern the quality of what he is reading. If interested enough, people will follow up and dig out the facts, as well as look for authors who interpret the facts more analytically.

Let’s remember, though, Carl Sagan got his start reading pulp science fiction comic books. And the rumors/oral history about Sally Hemings’ child(ren) being fathered by Thomas Jefferson proved true, with the advent of DNA testing. Sometimes people have reason to know things they will not be quoted on. Sometimes people who may be illiterate, without formal schooling, or who wish to remain out of the newspaper may tell what they know, and I believe it’s okay for us to listen (with a skeptical ear).

So I think it’s okay to keep our minds, and reading choices, open, forming more reasoned views as we learn more information better grounded on what can be proved. Secondary, tertiary, and even oral sources have their place.

[Kat]

I agree, mostly, in theory.
But Spiering doesn't deserve any credence, IMO, because of stuff he made up and plagiarism. If you can find his back-and-forth correspondence with Kendrick in The Village Voice about his book, he was unregenerate. He was a sensationalist, always.
When I got to Newmarket I ran into the local historian, Sylvia Getchell (she and her husband founded the Historical Society there), and I asked her all the questions about what Spiering had to say about the neighbors, etc.
She was v e r y reticent, and reiterated "that was then,this is now, we don't talk about that, period." Very New England Attitude. I just don't know what to believe when Spiering writes.
Personally, I would hope that Spiering and Brown had never written their books. I refrain from saying that about Lincoln because she is still beloved by many Bordenites as their first "read" on the case.

[Reasonwhy]

Wow. Interesting response from Ms. Getchell, and after all this time has passed; I’m surprised. But I’m from the Mid-West, so can’t know the New England character without knowing more of these folks.

I agree anyone who writes a book should assume the responsibility for at least crediting how he got the info.
For ex., he could say, “Can’t get quotes but two ladies told me their grandmothers said….” Some are not so responsible. Fie on them! But I still might read what they have to say for myself before I make a studied judgment.

Kat, I so appreciate your willingness to engage on so many issues. Never do you give off any air of impatience with issues you must have previously considered (and usually written about, thoroughly, with impeccable sourcing!).

[Kat]

Thanks again, for being interested! Wished you had been in that car! I bet you would have helped me get all those people there on time.
The New England Attutude was really being strict about gossip and hear-say. Mrs Getchell said those people are dead and we can't ask them. She was intense about truth in history, sources, first-hand recollections... Yes, like you described : "...two ladies told me their grandmothers said..." She was adamant about that. She was feisty, opinionated and real old New England. I was sad to see when I googled the correct spelling of her last name, that she passed away 2012.

[Kat]

Oh, and anyone going to that link will at least be able to see for themselves that light panel.

[Reasonwhy]

Thanks again, for being interested! Wished you had been in that car! I bet you would have helped me get all those people there on time.

You all would have thrown me out of the car as I would have pestered you with a million questions.

And, clearly, we are still in the getting-to know-you phase: When I shared your “on-time” remark with my husband and daughter, they guffawed. I am late for everything!

[Kat]

Well, we were pretty squished with 5 people, already. But questions are always welcome! We stopped and loitered at Lizzie's pet cemetery on the way back, as well. I saw the dogs but then went back and sat in the car. I was so sad to read those warm & loving epitaphs. Sadder than a people cemetery, which surprised me. Everyone else enjoyed it tho...
And see, I already know you better from your family's response!

[Reasonwhy]

I love dogs, too, Kat.

The helplessness of many pets brings out the unconditional maternal/paternal affections of most of us, I think. And of course we can control them so they do not threaten us. For Lizzie, pets not her own, and so not within her own control, irritated her and made her “nervous,” and she even suggested they be ‘removed’ (see her bird and dog letters to neighbors from the Maplecroft years). I feel all of her affections were quite conditional…

[Kat]

To get to see that house- and on the inside, too - ooh, man! Okay, were you able to take more pictures?

Yes, I've been attempting to gather the Newmarket photos. The first 2 are from my article in The Hatchet, called "Looking For Emma" (Feb/March 2006), I believe taken by Stefani. I didn't take any pictures but one, of the beautifully serene porch! Stef is going to send me a few more. Sometimes I get so caught up in the experience, I actually forget to take photos!

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... -emma.html

The homeowner and I became friends and kept up a correspondence for several years and I just came across the letters this past week!

[Reasonwhy]

I surely hope Emma was able to sit on that porch and feel some peace. Possibly, she may stand guilty of biasing Lizzie against Abby, maybe even transferring a hate for Abby; but Sarah bound her with a promise too big for any twelve-year old to fill. Emma was too young and ill-equipped by personality to be a “mother” to Lizzie. And it seems she had little nurturing herself from Andrew.

We will never know the truth of the seemingly twisted relationship between the sisters. But Lizzie surely put her through decades of hell. That Emma had loyal friends who loved her shows she had good in her, so I’d like to think of Emma resting on that porch in that rocker.

[swinell]

Hi!
Did you stay overnight or take a tour, may I ask? Did you see the cellar?
Do you have any pictures?
They had one dress from the Liz Montgomery movie - you mention " dresses...all over the place"?
Please, is there more you can describe? Thanks!

Sorry for the late reply - been a bit hectic on my end haha. I'm just finishing up the Preliminary Hearing - will make a longer post on that.

I stayed overnight in the Guest Bedroom (now the "John Morse Room"), I have a reservation there for the 130th anniversary next August as well to do it again! I did see the cellar, they were in the process of putting together another room in there, there's one bed immediately under the sitting room that they claim has a huge warped stain in the wood from Andrew's blood (though I suspect it's got nothing to do with the case beyond marketing). But yes, so you walk down into the cellar and immediately in front is a lot of storage space they're in the process of clearing out. But if you were to walk towards the back left corner that's where the partition used to be where the hatchets were found. If you're at the bottom of the stairs and turn left and then left again you'll be in the laundry/wash room including the little alcove where the bloody rags were found, this is also the room with the door to the outside. If you take a photo with the flash on in that alcove sometimes you can make the outline of a face in ashes on the back wall (kinda spooky xD).

The pictures I took weren't of much use to those looking for a better layout of the premises - just the touristy stuff (photo of the placard on the door of my room, photo of my bag in the spot where Abby Borden's body was found, photo of the "face" in the cellar alcove, photo of Lizbeth's gravestone, photo of the outside of Maplecroft).

To my recollection they had one dress on a headless mannequin in the front hall beside the front staircase (a white one), one dress (also on a headless mannequin) in my room (the green one I recognized from the movie, I'll admit it startled me quite a bit when I woke up in the middle of the night). They had another dress (blue) in the corner of the dining room near the windows on the side closest to the door where Andrew's killer would've likely stood. I think there was another one in Emma's room and one in the parlor but I can't be sure.

Most instructive to me was when I enlisted another guest to run some experiments with me to gauge how sound travels in that home. First, I had them go upstairs to Bridget's room while I stayed in the cellar and I put my metal water bottle on the cement floor (short but resonant), then I walked into the room under the sitting room, did the same test but on the carpet, then I walked into the laundry room, same test but in the alcove. We repeated the test with the attic door closed. When the guest came back down she said she heard the six times the bottle was placed down as well as my walking into the different rooms...all the way up in the attic! Then I went up there and had her replicate the tests - same thing, with the door open or closed, I could hear her walking as well as the bottle placements. Our next test was to try to see if a noise comparable to a hatchet blow from the sitting room would be audible from Bridget's room. The noise we settled on was us slapping one of the throw-pillows on the sofa. It made a nice thump but didn't carry very far or anything. It was clear as a bell - she heard it when she was up there, I heard it when I was up there, door open and closed. This is my basis for why I believe Bridget 100% knew what was going on - there's no way she didn't hear anything, unless she had some kind of hearing difficulty or if there was even more heavy floral carpeting then than there is now (and that would be quite a feat). I wish we'd run a test of whether a loud "human-person-falling" kind of thump from the Guest Room would be audible outside the house near the fence or the barn but by the time we'd finished it had reached quiet hours (from 11:30pm-7am). I hope to find another willing participant when I go back next August so that we can film the experiments!

[Reasonwhy]

Swinell, did you bang the metal bottle down hard? Just curious as the sound went through to the attic…interesting to read about your experiences.

[PossumPie]

Swinell, Sounds like a great time!!! We could use your first impressions here in the forum. I think the actual murders were quite quiet, a hatchet blade into a soft skull makes little noise. Other things may have made more noise, like Lizzie running upstairs to her room, or slamming the screen door as she ran outside.

[swinell]

Swinell, did you bang the metal bottle down hard? Just curious as the sound went through to the attic…interesting to read about your experiences.

No, I made a point of placing it down rather than banging it.

[Reasonwhy]

Then that is sound traveling pretty easily. Hmmm. Can see why that might make you think more about what Bridget knew or suspected.

[Kat]

Thank you so much for your experiences! Better late than not at all. You're the first to report back here after staying at the house under new ownership!
The wood of the ceiling in that chamber in the cellar located under the sitting room sofa, is, I believe, the actual original planks, and that Luminol was tested there by the Producers of the Discovery Channel documentary to check for blood over 100 years old. They believed they got some reaction there in that test.
It's been my impression (during an interview) that those boards were cut out and flipped, when some renovations were made to rent the house out after Lizzie and Emma decided to keep the place for income purposes. So, yes, it's likely the wood planks exposed in the cellar ceiling is the floor that could have been saturated with Andrew's blood.

[camgarsky4]

Swinell -- if Bridget did hear suspicious noises while up in her room, any thoughts on why she chose not to testify to that, but did open up on things like Lizzie suggesting she go shopping, Lizzie heading back into the dining room as Bridget was going upstairs and Lizzie laughing upstairs when Andrew got home?

If she was protecting Lizzie, these types of added details of that morning could have been easily omitted from her testimony and Lizzie would have looked even less guilty.

I do find it somewhat odd that Bridget specifically mentions not seeing anything out of her window while she was up in her room. That feels like an out of place and unnecessary detail. I've wondered periodically if, glancing out the window, Bridget did see Lizzie heading to the SE corner of the house to do her thing. Again, not sure why she would lie by omission on that fact, but not on other suspicious actions by Lizzie.

[PossumPie]

As an observation, the killing of Andrew would have been relatively quiet as he was already lying down so no thud. A hatchet into a skull on a pillow would make a relatively sickening but quiet sound similar to cutting a head of cabbage in half. The potential noises Bridget could have heard in my opinion would be the grunts from Lizzie, as the rapid and emotional swinging of the hatchet would have caused her to make some exertional noise. She would have then had to go somewhere to change and get rid of the hatchet, but these noises could have been filtered out by Bridget as "normal" household noises.

[swinell]

Swinell -- if Bridget did hear suspicious noises while up in her room, any thoughts on why she chose not to testify to that, but did open up on things like Lizzie suggesting she go shopping, Lizzie heading back into the dining room as Bridget was going upstairs and Lizzie laughing upstairs when Andrew got home?

If she was protecting Lizzie, these types of added details of that morning could have been easily omitted from her testimony and Lizzie would have looked even less guilty.

I do find it somewhat odd that Bridget specifically mentions not seeing anything out of her window while she was up in her room. That feels like an out of place and unnecessary detail. I've wondered periodically if, glancing out the window, Bridget did see Lizzie heading to the SE corner of the house to do her thing. Again, not sure why she would lie by omission on that fact, but not on other suspicious actions by Lizzie.

I've been wrestling with that exact question myself, camgarsky! PossumPie has already said that the noises being made would be quieter than a hand on a throw pillow so that does throw a bit of a wrench into things...an update to the next round of tests xD. Best thing I can think of is, purely speculative, that Bridget had a prepared/rehearsed testimony from the defense team (or the sisters by themselves) that either was careful to not be too damning of Lizzie while keeping all suspicions off Bridget or that this rehearsed testimony was so exonerating of Lizzie that it incriminated Bridget so she made alterations to that end...again purely speculative and not very strong. Another possibility is that they were trying to prevent any possibility of Bridget being booked as an accessory to the murder and that they were so confident that Lizzie would be acquitted that they only felt the need to omit some red-handed bits from the testimony...again..tenuous at best.

I'll reserve my official judgement for whether Bridget could have heard something that was clearly wrong for when I return next summer and can run the now updated tests (I'll put a head of cabbage on my list of things to get before heading down), but if, as Possum suggested, Lizzie had made any grunts or sounds of exertion, those definitely would have been heard. The two avenues of approach I keep waffling between is treating Bridget without any suspicion at all - she did as she said, heard as she said, saw as she said, nothing more or less - and treating Bridget as, if not a participant, a willing bystander who knew significantly more about the goings on than she testified. If it weren't for those tests, I'd be inclined to go with the first route but because sound travels so easily in that home, even to the degree that you can hear someone walking on carpet in the cellar all the way up in the attic, I just can't close that second door altogether...

[Reasonwhy]

“I do find it somewhat odd that Bridget specifically mentions not seeing anything out of her window while she was up in her room. That feels like an out of place and unnecessary detail….”
—Camgarsky, partial post

Somewhere in my readings, I’ve seen—testimony? speculation?—that Bridget, before she lay down, looked out her window and saw the barn door open. Thinking she had closed it, when finished with getting water for the windows, and afraid Mr. Borden would fuss about its being open, she went back out to close and lock it, then returned to her room. My vague memory is that prosecution did not want her to mention this; can’t recall why.

Another prosecution-suppressed Bridget bit I have been looking for, this one, I think, in testimony: that Bridget saw Lizzie coming down the BACK steps sometime that morning. The implication is that she came through the elder Bordens’ room, from her own room (of course, she could have been coming from the attic). Anyone remember where this one is?

I’ve looked before posting this, but have not found where these are written. Ring bells for anyone? I will keep looking.

[camgarsky4]

Reason - those are both new pieces of info to me. Pretty positive neither are in any formal testimony. Hope you find the source, because they are pretty powerful pieces of intel if they have merit.

[Reasonwhy]

Associated with the possibly coming from her room through the senior Bordens’ is the “I-could-not-tell-you” controversy with Bridget, where the prosecution shows her words on a paper (and this part of it is in the trial testimony, I read it yesterday). The speculation came in as to what was on the paper: the words “”I could not tell you, “ supposedly printed there, and spoken to her (because she was illiterate?) by the prosecution as a reminder of what to say if asked about that issue. Like I said, know I read it, but will keep trying to find out where. The importance of these things would be two-fold:
1. possibly revealing important clues to commission of the crimes
2. revealing of obfuscations/omissions in Bridget’s testimony

[camgarsky4]

Yep! I'm busy watching the Chiefs so you're on your own looking for a little while! :)

[Reasonwhy]

’S okay :)

[Kat]

Yep! I'm busy watching the Chiefs so you're on your own looking for a little while! :)

I watched the Chiefs AND worked on The Heritage Project! they still won, even thru my divided attention

Reasonwhy: no, sorry, never heard of either thing- maybe an author?
BTW because of the paper shown Bridget, we had a discussion as to whether she was illiterate, and we also wondered if she could read a clock face!

[Reasonwhy]

“I do find it somewhat odd that Bridget specifically mentions not seeing anything out of her window while she was up in her room. That feels like an out of place and unnecessary detail….”
—Camgarsky, partial post

Somewhere in my readings, I’ve seen—testimony? speculation?—that Bridget, before she lay down, looked out her window and saw the barn door open. Thinking she had closed it, when finished with getting water for the windows, and afraid Mr. Borden would fuss about its being open, she went back out to close and lock it, then returned to her room. My vague memory is that prosecution did not want her to mention this; can’t recall why.

Another prosecution-suppressed Bridget bit I have been looking for, this one, I think, in testimony: that Bridget saw Lizzie coming down the BACK steps sometime that morning. The implication is that she came through the elder Bordens’ room, from her own room (of course, she could have been coming from the attic). Anyone remember where this one is?

I’ve looked before posting this, but have not found where these are written. Ring bells for anyone? I will keep looking.

Okay, I have found these items. Both feature in the speculations included in Rebecca F. Pittman's "The History and Haunting of Lizzie Borden, 2016. (Hold on with me through the explanations, and I'll explain a bit below about why I value this book--though with reservations).

Let's take the second bit first, about Bridget having seen Lizzie come down the BACK steps that morning. This one comes from a newspaper: The New York Sun, August 28, 1892, quoted from and discussed on pp. 229-30 in Pittman's book:

"The New York Sun, August 28, 1892, during the Preliminary Hearing ran the following story quoting Bridget's testimony as she is washing the inside windows:
Bridget:...Finally, I got the door open and let in Mr. Borden. He locked the door after him.
"I am sure Mrs. Borden was not downstairs then. I walked through the house back to the kitchen. Mr. Borden went into the dining room. Lizzie came down the BACK stairs as I reached the kitchen. She went into the dining room where her father was."
"...The laugh showed that she was near that door. The fact that she came down the BACK stairs a few seconds later proves that she walked from the front hall upstairs, past the door, to the back stairs." (bolding, italics, and capitalization by me, Reasonwhy)

Here is Pittman's commentary on the Sun's story, p. 230:
"What the reporter missed, was that Lizzie coming down the back stairs also proves she had unlocked the door separating her bedroom and Abby's from both sides; something she could only have done if she had taken the key from the sitting room mantel, unlocked her parents' bedroom from the second-floor landing, and slid back the bolt on the door leading into her bedroom. She would have already unhooked her side of the door."

What Pittman does not do (that I have so far found) is to explain why Lizzie would want access from her own room through to her parents' room that morning. My surmising is that would have given Lizzie greater flexibility in terms of murder locations. That could be important in terms of showing planning/premeditation. For example, if Andrew did not come back to the sitting room after briefly going to his room upon his return home; or, if Abby did no further work on the guest room.

Thoughts, anyone?

Two caveats: 1.The newspaper story could have gotten its facts wrong; we've seen that before. 2.Bridget could have seen Lizzie descending from a trip to the attic (though such is never mentioned by Lizzie).

Please see discussion of Bridget's back window in my next post, below.

[Reasonwhy]

“I do find it somewhat odd that Bridget specifically mentions not seeing anything out of her window while she was up in her room. That feels like an out of place and unnecessary detail….”
—Camgarsky, partial post

Pittman starts with the relevant testimony from the Preliminary Hearing (p. 460):

Bridget: "When I got through with my work downstairs, if I had not anything else to do, I always went upstairs before I started to get dinner, if I had time."
Knowlton (to Bridget): "Did you look out the window when you were upstairs, you did not, did you?"
Bridget: "No, sir."
Knowlton: "You lay right on the bed."

Pittman continues, in a discussion lasting four pages, (pp. 461-65), to question why Knowlton would so lead this witness, and why he so wanted to get her away from the view out her back-facing window. She speculates Bridget did look out of the window; that she saw the barn door open, and fearing Andrew's disapproval, went down to shut and lock it, then returned to her room. Pittman has Bridget later ruminating that Lizzie could not have gone to the barn as she testified, or else she would have been locked in by Bridget, and hence has Bridget fearfully scurrying to the Bowen's to stay Thursday night. Pittman reminds us that "Bridget blurted out the morning of the Inquest, while sequestered in Marshall Hilliard's office, that she "didn't believe Lizzie Borden ever left the house at all."

Pittman concludes this argument (p. 463):
"Then why does Attorney Knowlton...lead Bridget away from the window, and her proof Lizzie was never out of the house? Bridget testifies she spent part of the time at the "front" of the house, and "may have made considerable noise as she raised and lowered the windows," even calling down to a friend. Does Knowlton believe the Defense will use that time to show Bridget was away from her window at the back of the house--long enough for Lizzie to eat a couple of pears in the back yard, and go into the barn, leaving the door open? Will they grill Bridget asking for the specific time she went down to close the barn door? Does the open door prove Lizzie had indeed been out to the barn? Can Bridget swear she didn't close the door after washing the windows that morning? All it takes are those kinds of questions to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or jury. Did Knowlton decide it was not worth it to bring it up, and open that door?'"

Please do consider, everyone, and not reject Pittman's book out of hand, as that took a long time for me to type, just for your consideration. Thanks.

[Reasonwhy]

(Again, please excuse the triple post)
So, Pittman's book has value but we should be cautious.

Its good points:
1. Quality speculation. Yes, it is opining, but she takes mysteries pertinent to most who are curious about the case, and plausibly explains her thinking. You probably won't accept all of it, but she's thorough about why she comes to her conclusions, down to how one could easily break the handleless hatchet.
2. Great photos of the inside of the house, and objects hard for us to visually imagine, such as suitably sized locks, papers burned to still retain their shape, the size of various deeds and wills, etc. I really did enjoy the book.

Its problems:
1. She does cite, but not specifically enough. Her conclusions can lack a suitable evidentiary basis. And, there is no index.
In sum, this is a popular, not a scholarly work, and it shows throughout.
2. The fact that she deals with ghost stuff at all is, to me, a mark against her, as I consider all of that to be nonsense (sorry if I offend anyone here). But she is pretty careful with it, and very brief (just a few pages out of 827, total).
3. She needs a better editor and proofreader.

Think of the book as you might a long series of very interesting posts to our forum. It is good for provoking thought!

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- promise to give Patterson's book and theory serious consideration. That said, the Sun article quotes some of Bridget's testimony that I can't find replicated in the actual transcripts. Below are relevant excerpts from Bridget's PH testimony that directly contradict the Sun article. So unless I missed something, I think we can disregard that information.

I suspect Patterson got the idea of Lizzie coming down the back stairs from the defense's question to Bridget during their cross examination. It is not impossible that Lizzie did indeed use the back stairs and had accessed the elder Borden bedroom via her bedroom that morning. But testimony does not tell us that....just speculation.

Bridget Prelim Hearing testimony Discussing when Andrew got home from downtown walk.
Q. He sat in a chair? What doing?
Q. Had you finished washing the sitting room windows when she came down?
A. No Sir.
Q. You were still engaged in washing the windows?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you see her when you let Mr. Borden in, or only hear her?
A. No Sir, heard her.
Q. When she came down, what room did she come into from the front hall?
A. In the sitting room where I was; then she went into the dining room.
Q. That is where Mr. Borden was?
A. Yes.

Bridget Prelim hearing Cross Examination: Discussing Lizzie talking to her around 9-9:30am as she was beginning to wash outside windows.
Q. You said you had some talk with Lizzie at the screen door?
A. Yes, as I was going out with the pail, she spoke to me.
Q. You spoke to her as you were going out, and not when you came back?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Tell us about that.
A. Miss Lizzie asked me if I was going to wash windows. I said yes.
Q. Where was that?
A. That was at the back door; I was outside, and she inside.
Q. You were outside, just as you were going out?
A. I had a pail and brush.
Q. You were going out, and she followed you?
A. Yes Sir, she was in the hall, in the back entry.
Q. Did you go by her when you went out?
A. I did not see her.
Q. Could she have come down the back stairs?
A. I did not see her.
Q. The first thing you know, after you got outside the screen door, having the pail and brush, she spoke
to you?
A. Yes Sir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason -- could you check Pittman's book and see what the source for: "Pittman reminds us that "Bridget blurted out the morning of the Inquest, while sequestered in Marshall Hilliard's office, that she "didn't believe Lizzie Borden ever left the house at all."?

I do seem to remember reading this, but don't recall where. Would like to check the source to get more context for Bri'sgets comment. Thanks!!

[PossumPie]

While I enjoy exploring new twists on things, I realize we have to be EXTREMELY careful pulling a single word or phrase out of testimony on which to build a case. I've read and re-read all trial, inquest, hearings, etc testimony and there are a ton of instances where someone misspoke and corrected themselves (Not just Lizzie). We do it all the time in our conversations. My mother used to call us kids by the wrong names (usually when angry) I've said I went to work this morning at the such-and-such hospital when I haven't worked at that place in years. Slips of the tongue, thinking of something else while speaking, all can cause innocent slips. When we were first married, my wife occasionally called me by her ex-husband's name. Luckily I wasn't sensitive about it though she would turn red and profusely apologize.
Under oath, after a murder, with people staring at you, and someone rapid-fire-asking you questions, Any one of us would trip over our own tongues. Add to that an excited reporter jotting things down, running it to the office to print, and you have a recipe for misunderstanding and mistakes.
Bridget let Andrew in at the front door, standing at the base of the front steps, heard Lizzie laugh on the front landing, Lizzie admitted to coming down the front steps (then retracted it). There is no cause to think it was backstairs.
I'll refrain from commenting on Pittman's book in particular, but I'll say that I've read many a Borden murder book that sprinkled references in where they suit their theory, but had wild claims interspersed with no reference or citation whatsoever. Caveat Emptor!