Why did the sisters split up?

[camgarsky4]

To my way of thinking, the decision of the sisters to leave home for an extended 'visit' (which apparently was an extreme rarity) just prior to the murders is key to understanding the full scope of the family and the murders.

The answer to why Emma & Lizzie split ways when they arrived in New Bedford for their extended "visit" away from home, may be as straight forward as "that was the way it was done then". But even looking thru that lens doesn't feel solid.

Backdrop:
1) Lizzie & Emma had received $2,500 each just days before they left Fall River. Cost of accommodations weren't an issue.
2) Emma stayed in Fairhaven and Lizzie in New Bedford. The only thing separating these towns was a river with a bridge.
3) Their friends were just miles away in Marion. (why not join them vs. conscience decision not to).
4) If they insisted on a boarding type house, there had to be facilities with two bedrooms for the same cost as the combined cost of the single bedrooms they did acquire.
5) Lizzie didn't go with her friends to Marion, but did decide to drop in on them one day that long weekend.
6) Lizzie also took a side trip to Westport and visited Augusta Tripp (Carrie Poole's sister & Lizzie's childhood friend)
7) Emma mentions that she and Lizzie met up once over Lizzie's time in New Bedford. Lizzie specifically does not mention this meeting.

Deductions:
Lizzie wanted maximum flexibility. So no to Marion and no to Emma as a roommate.
Lizzie had some specific reason to visit Marion on that side trip besides saying hi to friends that she had just chosen not to stay with.

Final note: It is very odd (to me) that Lizzie stayed with the Poole's and, just miles away, her friends were at Marion.

Would love to hear any everyone's thoughts on the "visits".

[PossumPie]

Some more information to "flesh out" your timeline above:
Witness testimony
WILLIAM H. MEDLEY.
Fall River August 5, 1892.
In accordance with instructions, I visited New Bedford. I find that Lizzie Borden arrived in that
city on Thursday, July 21st, and went to Mrs. Poole’s, the mother of a friend, a former schoolmate, living
near South Water street. While there she never went out alone, always going in the company of the
family, with one exception, that being Saturday morning July 23, when she went on the street to buy a
piece of dress goods of some cheap material, being gone about one and 30 minutes. She went alone and
returned alone. No one called to see her while here. She never made mention of her family affairs. On
Tuesday Lizzie, Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Poole’s daughter went to ride to Westport to see Mrs. Poole’s
daughter who was a schoolmate of Lizzie’s, and who is now married to Cyrus W. Tripp. They spent the
day there, leaving time enough for Lizzie to connect with train at New Bedford for Fall River. That was
the last time the Pooles saw her. While at Westport, Lizzie saw no one outside of the family. Made this
visit to New Bedford August 7.

She left alone, went to buy a dress pattern and material and returned. The only time she was alone that trip. Those who say that she tried and failed to buy Prussic acid in New Bedford would say that THAT was the real reason she went out alone. After all, Lizzie's own testimony is that she bought the pattern and material and promptly dumped it in a trunk in the attic when she got home. Wouldn't she be keen to make/have someone make her the dress? Why dump it in the attic? Maybe it was a ruse to go out alone for the poison...

LIZZIE TESTIMONY
Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
89 (46)
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.
Q. Your attention has already been called to the circumstance of going into the drug store of
Smith's, on the corner of Columbia and Main streets, by some officer, has it not, on the day
before the tragedy?
A. I don't know whether some officer has asked me, somebody has spoken of it to me; I don't
know who it was.
Q. Did that take place?
A. I [sic] did not.
Q. Do you know where the drug store is?
A. I don't.
Q. Did you go into any drug store and inquire for prussic acid?
A. I did not.

Here is an idea of the distance from where Lizzie was staying in New Bedford, to two drug stores who reportedly saw her asking for Prussic Acid.
Thanks to "InterestedReader" for the map:

[wall59]

Please forgive my ignorance, but Lizzie testified to buying a pattern for a dress that she took home and stored in the attic. I am confused on the purchase of material part of her testimony.

A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.

Does this mean she bought three different kinds of material to use with the pattern?

[camgarsky4]

Wall -- I'd read that a single piece of corded gingham material had three color stripes on it. But that might be the wrong take.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- love that map. pretty interesting that the Poole's were smack dab in the middle between those 2 pharmacies.

[Reasonwhy]

Must respond to this in two posts, Camgarsky. I’ve tried one and it’s unwieldy.

So, first, why the split? Emma and Lizzie had a common desire to get out of that house after the sturm and drang of recent weeks—more on this in the second post. Yet I believe their resolves were quite different.

Quiet Emma must have wanted respite, and even from Lizzie. Though she shared Lizzie’s resentments against Abby and Andrew, she did not share Lizzie’s temperament. Their uncle, Hiram Harrington, told the press Lizzie was the haughty contender for her rights, while Emma ‘keenly felt any disparaging word from her father.’ I believe all of the fighting was harder on Emma, the less ‘demonstrative’ sister. Emma was duty-bound by Sarah to support Lizzie, but living with her had to present a constant strain and trial. There is no evidence that Emma ever invited Lizzie to vacation with her in Fairhaven.

Nor do we see recorded desire of Lizzie’s to be with her sister then. Lizzie I see as sullenly brooding and already plotting revenge. One could conclude the sisters planned this separation, if conspiring together, to keep Emma above suspicion, should Lizzie be recognized while trying to buy the prussic acid in New Bedford. Instead, I don’t think Lizzie trusted Emma would have the fortitude to kill the old folks. Therefore, she needed to be away from Emma’s prying eyes and prepare on her own.

[Reasonwhy]

—On July 15, 1892, Andrew bought back the Ferry St. property from the sisters.
—July 19, Lizzie turned 32.
—On July 21, the sisters left home, separating en route.
—A few days before the murders, Andrew had told a business associate that ‘he and Abby would not be be living at the Swansea farm that summer as there was so much trouble in his family that he didn’t feel like going.’ ***Please see bottom of post.

Did Andrew buy the property back at that time partially as a placating birthday gift to Lizzie? The gift seems to have failed to buy peace, as merely four days after the transfer, the girls set off on out of town trips, unprecedented in their planned duration: Emma planned to stay in Fairhaven for the rest of the summer; Lizzie was to have gone on to visit Marion again, before she changed her mind and came home.

Hiram Harrington—a source hostile to both Andrew and Lizzie in his remarks—talks about previous financial efforts of Andrew’s to appease the two women and how well those went over in The Fall River Daily Herald, August 6, 1892:

Mr. Harrington was asked if he knew whether or not there were dissentions in the Borden family. ‘Yes, there were, although it has been always kept very quiet. For nearly ten years there have been constant disputes between the daughters and their father and stepmother. Mr. Borden gave her some bank stock and the girls thought they ought to be treated as evenly as the mother. I guess Mr. Borden did try to do it, for he deeded to the daughters, Emma L. and Lizzie A., the homestead on Ferry street, an estate of 120 rods of land with a house and barn, all valued at $3000. This was in 1887.

‘The trouble about money matters did not diminish, nor the acerbity of the family ruptures lessen, and Mr. Borden gave each girl ten shares in the Crystal Spring Bleachery company, which he paid $100 a share for. They sold them soon after for less than $40 per share. He also gave them some bank stock at various times, allowing them, of course, the entire income from them. In addition to this he gave them a weekly stipend, amounting to $200 a year.

‘In spite of all this the dispute about their not being allowed enough went on with equal bitterness….I have heard many bitter things she has said of her father, and know she was deeply resentful of her father’s maintained stand….

‘This house on Ferry street was an old one, and was in constant need of repairs. There were two tenants paying $16.50 and $14 a month, but with taxes and repairs there was very little income from the property. It was a great deal of trouble for the girls to keep the house in repair, and a month or two ago they got disgusted and deeded the house back to their father.’


I think heated family arguments surrounded Andrew paying the sisters for that deed. In the weeks before it, the daughters may have also had intimations from Morse, or overheard him discussing with Andrew and Abby, or heard other rumors about upcoming plans to make a will or deed the Swansea farms to Abby, or give her substantial stock. (Each of these possibilities has some substantiation, and we should discuss each more thoroughly, I believe.) Any fear of such plans, kept secret from them as had been Andrew’s gift of the half-house five years’ previous, would have enraged them as a threatened final betrayal.

Andrew was probably uncomprehending and angry that buying the Ferry St. property back was not enough to pacify Lizzie and Emma. He, too, was probably furious at their ingratitude toward him and hateful treatment of Abby. If so, he may have made them finally understand that he meant to manage the final disposition of his property in his own way, and that daughters and wife would each get only what he felt they needed and deserved.

This was the penultimate crisis.


***

In regard to Andrew saying he could not go to Swansea, I too was unable to locate any Martin Blaine. However, the story is very similar to the one told by one Cyrus Rounseville. Here is what the newspapers reported on this,

Boston Advertiser, Oct.11, 1892: "...Mr. Borden talked with Secretary Rounseville of the Manufacturers Association, shortly before his death about his family affairs. He told Mr. Rounseville that he was not living on his farm during the summer because there was so much trouble in his family that he did not feel like going. ..."

Almost identical wording appeared in the Boston Globe, NY Times and Evening Standard.

He is also mentioned in the Jennings' notebook:

"i. Rounseville--told Phillips that Mr. Borden speaking to him about going over to his farm for the summer said his family affairs were such this summer that he would not be able to go."

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- that was a extremely well written overview of the situation and I completely agree with literally every piece of your posts. You compose your posts wonderfully and they read smooth......

I view the Rounseville quote as a key piece of the 'table setting'. We are often encouraged to be wary of newspaper articles, so I look for signs of collaboration, so in addition to the comment in Jennings notebook, Rounseville was summoned as a trial witness by Knowlton. He never actually testified, but being summoned clearly indicates that Knowlton knew of Rounseville's information and placed weight on it.

The list of summoned witnesses is in the Knowlton Papers. Would provide the page #, but I am in North Carolina and the book back home in Florida.

[camgarsky4]

Another small follow up to your post.....many posters keep mentioning that "Lizzie loved her father".

I don't think Lizzie had a 'positive' deep emotional attachment to anyone. Most of us have read enough information to know that Lizzie didn't foster many long term relationships. I tend to think (amateur psychologist alert!!) this was because her 'one-sided' approach to relationships 'burned out' her acquaintances.

[Reasonwhy]

I view the Rounseville quote as a key piece of the 'table setting'. We are often encouraged to be wary of newspaper articles, so I look for signs of collaboration, so in addition to the comment in Jennings notebook, Rounseville was summoned as a trial witness by Knowlton. He never actually testified, but being summoned clearly indicates that Knowlton knew of Rounseville's information and placed weight on it.

The list of summoned witnesses is in the Knowlton Papers. Would provide the page #, but I am in North Carolina and the book back home in Florida.

—partial post

Camgarsky, yes, Andrew’s statement reads as testimony of a dead victim. It gains importance as it reads as so unusually open, for him, about the emotional problems of the family.

Very thorough of you to include that Rounseville was to be on the witness list! And that does add credence to his statement. Please be aware that I cut off Harry’s full posting as I was concerned about the length of my reply. Harry had all of the information, scholar that he seems to have been, even a biography and and address! Here is his full post:

In regard to Andrew saying he could not go to Swansea, I too was unable to locate any Martin Blaine. However, the story is very similar to the one told by one Cyrus Rounseville. Here is what the newspapers reported on this,

Boston Advertiser, Oct.11, 1892: "...Mr. Borden talked with Secretary Rounseville of the Manufacturers Association, shortly before his death about his family affairs. He told Mr. Rounseville that he was not living on his farm during the summer because there was so much trouble in his family that he did not feel like going. ..."

Almost identical wording appeared in the Boston Globe, NY Times and Evening Standard.

He is also mentioned in the Jennings' notebook:

"i. Rounseville--told Phillips that Mr. Borden speaking to him about going over to his farm for the summer said his family affairs were such this summer that he would not be able to go."

Rounseville appears in the Glossary of the Knowlton Papers. A condensed version reads:

"ROUNSEVILLE, CYRUS COLE 1852 - 1919: born in Acushnet, Massachusetts, ...He attended Bryant and Stratton Business College in Boston, Massachusetts. Following graduation, he relocated to Fall River, Massachusetts, and, in 1869, worked as a clerk for the Narragansett Steamship Company. He subsequently gained employment as an administrator in various textile corporations. His interests also leaned toward banking, where he was vice-president of both Union Savings Bank and Troy Co-operative Bank. ...Summoned as a witness, he was not called upon to testify."

He's listed as living at 120 Rock St. in the 1892 city directory.

Now why Spiering would use another name only Spiering could answer.

[Reasonwhy]

Rounseville was summoned as a trial witness by Knowlton. He never actually testified, but being summoned clearly indicates that Knowlton knew of Rounseville's information and placed weight on it.

The list of summoned witnesses is in the Knowlton Papers. Would provide the page #, but I am in North Carolina and the book back home in Florida.

—partial post

It’s on page number 185, Camgarsky (spelled Rounsceville there; it’s as Rounseville in the glossary of the book).

[Reasonwhy]

“….Camgarsky, yes, Andrew’s statement reads as testimony of a dead victim. It gains importance as it reads as so unusually open, for him, about the emotional problems of the family….”
—partial post by me

I should have said his statement reads almost like what the law terms as a “dying declaration,” or as an “excited utterance.” (Both fall under hearsay exceptions, as they are considered to be weighty testimonies.)

[wall59]

A dying declaration is a statement made by a declarant, who is unavailable to testify in court (typically because of the declarant's death), who made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death. The statement must also relate to what the declarant believed to be the cause or circumstances of the declarant's impending death.

It is entirely possible Andrew's statement may have been ruled as hearsay and is the reason the testimony was not presented.

[Reasonwhy]

Hi wall59,

I was thinking metaphorically, really. Of course Andrew was not on his actual deathbed when he spoke to Rounseville. Even as a metaphor, his comments probably fit better as an excited utterance. Good idea to give definition for folks who may not be familiar with those terms:

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is defined as a statement that concerns a startling event, made by the declarant when the declarant is still under stress from the startling event. An excited utterance is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.

I say Andrew’s “utterance” is more useful as a metaphor, too, because there was no startling event—yet!—just Andrew characterizing the conditions at home.

[camgarsky4]

If I'm tracking with you guys, it is understandable why Rousenville was summoned as a witness....Knowlton believed his recollection of Andrews comments might be admitted at trial. But perhaps based on the Judges tough filter for admitting testimony, he decided not to call Rousenville to the stand.

Is that a fair interpretation of your viewpoints?

[Reasonwhy]

So, the Federal Rules of Evidence were actually codified at the national level 80 years after the crimes, so of course would not have been in effect in 1892/3:
www.https://rulesofevidence.org
“….The Federal Rules of Evidence are a set of rules that governs the introduction of evidence at civil and criminal trials in United States federal trial courts. The current rules were initially passed by Congress in 1975, after several years of drafting by the Supreme Court.…”

However, courts then would have been applying decisions on hearsay based upon common law precedent and any then-existing codifications. I am not familiar with how this area of law would have been applied in Massachusetts at that time.

But I believe it is fair to think that Prosecutor Knowlton would have been quite knowledgeable as to that, and would not have placed Rounseville on the witness list if he had qualms about his testimony being excluded. As wall59 pointed out, though, it remains a legitimate possibility Knowlton withdrew him as a witness for that reason. Especially considering that this is the court which unreasonably decided to exclude the prussic acid testimony, despite Moody’s excellent presentation as to its relevance based on prior cases.

By the way, for those not familiar, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

[Reasonwhy]

Another small follow up to your post.....many posters keep mentioning that "Lizzie loved her father".

I don't think Lizzie had a 'positive' deep emotional attachment to anyone. Most of us have read enough information to know that Lizzie didn't foster many long term relationships. I tend to think (amateur psychologist alert!!) this was because her 'one-sided' approach to relationships 'burned out' her acquaintances.

[Reasonwhy]

Camgarsky, I’m going to post my reply to you under a new thread: “Did Lizzie Really Love her Father?”

I hope you don’t mind. I’m hoping your post is one several might wish to give their opinion about.

[camgarsky4]

[camgarsky4]

While cross examining Bridget during the preliminary hearing, defense attorney Adams probed on Bridget's recollection of Lizzie's visit away from home in the days/weeks prior the murders. Presuming, he knew the answer to his questions before asking them, what do you suppose he was trying to establish by pushing Bridget to state whether she recalled Lizzie going away the Saturday & Sunday prior to the killings?

Could he have known that Lizzie did go somewhere which Lizzie hadn't disclosed during her inquest testimony and was as working to document Bridget's recollection for use at a future potential trial?

To my recollection, no testimony or contemporary news articles provide insight into Lizzie's activities during the weekend immediately before the murders.

Bridget preliminary hearing testimony (cross examination by defense attorney Adams)
Q. So when you said that, you meant she was gone about three days, not exactly three days? Emma was away from that time up, until after this tragedy, this trouble?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did Lizzie go away any time after that, and before the tragedy?
A. I cannot tell.
Q. Did she not go away a Saturday?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did she go away the Saturday before the tragedy?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. Did she go away Sunday?
A. I do not know.