Fun with %'s

[camgarsky4]

Simple % survey to compare where we currently stand on various Borden questions. Add any statements and % that you think would be interesting.

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 98%
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1%
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 55%
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 98%
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 1%
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 10%
The burned dress was worn during the murders 85%
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 95%
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 55%

[Reasonwhy]

Are these percentages drawn from current postings to the forum? Or might they reflect your current beliefs? I’m a bit confused…

[camgarsky4]

They are unscientific %'s that reflect my current POV.

[Reasonwhy]

OK, got it. Neat idea. Need to do some considering.

[mbhenty]

The only problem I have with the way the murders were committed was that it reflected a sense of passion, considering all the blows. But it could be someone that was unsure his/her victim was dead, or just enjoyed killing. Or perhaps had their own bone to pick with Andrew and Abby. I don't think Lizzie is guilty, but she sure is not innocent. I believe she was in cahoots with the real killer, who was awash in blood and took away the murder weapon while Lizzie went out to make certain the coast was clear and not for sinkers. So she would be 50% guilty.

Looking for fishing sinkers was an excuse. Oh sure, she was probably outside when she said she was. Only to avoid watching or listening to her father being killed. Looking for sinkers? Perhaps that's what she planned to do to keep busy or distract her mind from the killings while they were happening. But with no plans to go fishing. So that could be 0% or 90%

Crowe Barn was the Ax. Don't think so. I'd give that a 1 to 0%.

Morse knew that murder was a foot? Though I think he knew there was much conflict, the fact that he knew it would turn into murder is a 0%.

And as far as the dress? Not sure. That has changed in my studies over the years. As of 2021 I would say, again, close to 0%. I can't believe with all the police on the property that they would have missed the dress. And if there was blood on it it would have been drenched in blood. Not just a little around the hem. No, I don't think that was the dress if she indeed did do the murders. 0%.

And for my knowledge about the crime. I could say 100% but it is probably closer to 0%

To touch upon a couple, Camgarsky.

[camgarsky4]

MB -- thanks for the input!!

If lizzie was co-conspirator, are you thinking she let someone in the house when she got home Wednesday night? Is your instinct telling you it was a relationship based co-culprit or hired hand?

You may have missed a thread a few months ago, but Possum got me pondering on Curtis Pierce's possible involvement. He was the young man that reached out to Lizzie when she was in jail early on and Jennings had to tell him to get lost. We did a little research and found it very interesting that Augusta Tripp had introduced Curtis and Lizzie in prior years. As you know, Lizzie happened to visit Mrs. Tripp in the weeks before the killings. Maybe she squeezed in a little planning session with Curtis.

Likely just a red herring, but I found it a bit thought provoking.

[Reasonwhy]

Crowe Barn was the Ax. Don't think so. I'd give that a 1 to 0%.

—partial quote

Hi, mbhenty.
Wondering if you might say more about why you don’t think so?
Thanks.

[Kat]

Pardon, but it is Curtis Piece from Lizzie Borden Past and Present Len Rebello. Al-Zach Press, 1999:

Pg 14
"On the 6th day of October, Curtis I. Piece of Westport [Massachusetts], came to Fall River, and met Mr. A. J. Jennings. I was informed by [Mr. Edwin R.] Champlain of the Daily News that Piece was an old lover of Lizzie A. Borden. In order to sift the matter to the bottom, I [Officer William H. Medley] commenced a thorough investigation.

I found that Mr. Piece first met Lizzie Borden at the house of Mr. [Cyrus W.] Tripp of Westport, about ten years ago. At that time Piece was a sort of itinerant preacher, and was doing a little in that line in Westport at that time. While he was on speaking terms with her, yet there was not anything to indicate that Lizzie cared for him. I was told by Mrs. [Augusta D.] Tripp [an old classmate and friend of Lizzie's] that Lizzie could hardly tolerate him.


Mr. Piece told me he first met Lizzie at the home of the Tripp's about ten years ago. Was not intimately acquainted with her; he had not met her in over four years, and had not written to her in two years before the murders. He never was to her house in his life, and did not know her people, either father, mother or Emma, and had never spoken or written to any of them. He did write to Lizzie since she was sent to Taunton Jail; and the letter was answered by Mr. Jennings. He never wrote to any member of Lizzie's family, expressing regard for Lizzie, or in any other way.

The following is a copy of the letter he sent by Mr. Piece to Lizzie.

Westport, September 20, 1892.

To Miss Lizzie, with friendly greetings.

I am very anxious to meet you, and as I cannot presume upon your presence without your permission, will you be so kind as to appoint a day for me to visit you as soon as convenient. I can come any day or hour. Please [do] not deny this one request, believe me, you have my deepest sympathy and constant prayer. I am sincerely yours.

Curtis I. Piece
Westport, Box 34

Attorney Andrew J. Jennings quickly responded to Mr. Piece's letter on September 24, 1892.

Dear Sir:

Your letter to Sheriff Wright and to Miss Lizzie A. Borden have been handed to me by the latter. For your sympathy, as for that of everybody else in her suffering, she is grateful but she is at a loss to understand why you should presume upon her unfortunate position to open correspondence with her, or write Sheriff Wright asking for an interview. She does not [wish] to see you, nor to receive letters from you. She has not, tis true, a father to appeal to, or a family to compel you to cease your attempts to force yourself upon her notice; but there are others who can and will supply his place. She has told me of your previous conduct, and I am surprised that any man should attempt to renew it under the current circumstances.

Yours truly,
Andrew J. Jennings

Page 15
Note: Both letters were arranged in letter form for appearances and readability purposes. The original letters were in paragraph form as part of Medley's printed testimony.

Source: Witness Testimony of William H. Medley, Stenographer's Minutes, Commonwealth vs. Lizzie A. Borden: 34-35.

[mbhenty]

Yes: Reasonwhy The Crowe Axe.

The Axe on the Crowe Barn was discovered almost a year after the murder. The trial of Lizzie started on June 5th 1893. Less than two weeks later an axe is found on the Crowe Barn roof. What are the odds. For the axe to spend 10 months without being seen from the windows of nearby homes was unlikely.

Again, as I have mentioned in another post. I have lived in countless 3 decker apartment houses in Fall River, a couple on the 3rd floor. Looking out a window it is very easy to see the top of lower buildings. The view of the Crowe barn would have been very visible from 3 deckers in the area and from the Borden' attic where Bridget had her bedroom. Bridget's bedroom overlooked the Crowe property. (taking into account the growth of trees in the yards which could block the view. But the axe supposedly was on the roof through the winter of 92/93 when there were no leafs on the trees.) And also, with all the police and spectators in the area the day-week of the murder, I believe that someone would have looked out the window or from a fair distance and seen it. After all, someone did ten months after the crime.

Also the police did not make much of it when it was found by a young boy who was looking for his ball and found the rusty axe.

And Finally.......

There was a later newspaper report about a workman that reported loosing a similar axe in the area. Also in the newspaper report it was mentioned that "Another axe was found". So others were turning up. One could see how.... with the start of the trial and all the hoopla there must have been.


(Click below to make Big)

[Reasonwhy]

My numbers (colors got a bit out of control here):

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 99%
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1%
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 75%
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 100%
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 50%
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 1%
The burned dress was worn during the murders 99%
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 50%
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 99%

[camgarsky4]

Pretty soon, let's dedicate a thread to diving into Andrew's parcel. I'll kick it off with the relevant testimony & statements. Give me a few days.

[PossumPie]

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 90%
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 0% She told others she was looking for Tin to fix a screen Obviously she was lying
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 10%
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 98%
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 0% No note found, no sick friend, never left, no telling Bridget that she was bringing home lunch...
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 5% The old goat liked his easy lifestyle too much to give it up for anyone else (hence the bachelorhood)
The burned dress was worn during the murders 85%
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 50% Methinks she didn't know it was that day, but she brooded about what Lizzie MIGHT do
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 5% Found a year later, right before the trial, by kids

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- you've got Lizzie at 85% as the actual murderer (using the dress %), but Crowe hatchet at 5%.

Would love to hear your theories on the hatchet/murder weapon not being found on the Borden property? How did she avoid discovery?

[PossumPie]

Possum -- you've got Lizzie at 85% as the actual murderer (using the dress %), but Crowe hatchet at 5%.

Would love to hear your theories on the hatchet/murder weapon not being found on the Borden property? How did she avoid discovery?

WITNESS TESTIMONY
Alfred Johnson made the following statement. “Have worked for Mr. Borden nine years. Have done
his work at the house, cutting wood and cleaning up the yard, when not busy at the farm. Think the two
last times I cut wood was early in the Spring, and again just before planting. Mr. Borden had two axes, a
single hatchet, and a shop or bench hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was
sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept
in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place,
and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about having one place for all
tools. When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there.

WITNESS TESTIMONY
At the outset of the search in the cellar, officer Medley found a small hatchet. I wrapped it up in a
newspaper, and gave it to Medley to put in his pocket. It had no handle to it.

WITNESS TESTIMONY
JOHN DEVINE
I arrived at the house of A. J. Borden, 92 Second street about 11.40 A. M. Went into the cellar of
the house with Officer Mullaly and searched there. Found two hatchets and two axes in cellar. One of
the hatchets had a mark across it that drew our attention to it, marks across the blade and a mark
diagonally an the inner corner of the same hatchet. We, myself and Mullaly, called the attention of the
Asst. Marshal Fleet to it at the time. Two hatchets were in the wash cellar, and two axes were in the next
room west of the wash room.

TRIAL TESTIMONY
Q. Where did you find that? (Hatchet without handle)
A. The afternoon of the 4th of August.
...
Q. And this you found in the middle room, as you told us, in the
Page 530
same box, near the chimney?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And right very near this ash pile?
A. Some few feet from it.
Q. In the same room where you understood at that time that Mr. Mullaly had taken the
other two hatchets

So, we have the man who used the hatchets swear that there were two, in a box in the cellar. We have a THIRD hatchet found with a broken handle in the same room. Lastly we have a hatchet found a year later on a roof. Any of the hatchets could have been the murder weapon--or none of them. That no blood was found on them could mean that the murder hatchet was washed. Why break the handle off though? I've broken a hatchet handle and it is no easy task as the handles are usually made of Ash and very strong. I broke one missing the firewood and hitting the handle on the log.
I tend to think the handleless hatchet was always there and overlooked by the hired man.

I've lived in old homes in the past, and there was always a secret place you could stash things. One house had a short piece of the floorboard up against the dining room wall that if you pried it up with your fingernails, it lifted out to reveal the space between the floor joists. I could have put anything there and nobody would have found it. In Lizzie's room, it had been a kitchen that was remodeled. The strange-looking bookshelf in her corner used to be cabinets in the kitchen. There could have been a board or two that she accidentally found loose at some point and she could have secreted the dress and hatchet there. Being a woman, they never did ransack her room, or Emma's room well. Certainly not trying boards and panels for lose ones.
Today finding a murder weapon can lead to fingerprints, epithelial cells to run DNA, etc. But back then even if the weapon was left in Andrew's skull after the killing it wouldn't tell us much. I don't perseverate much about the weapon anymore. I did speculate somewhere else in the forum about Lizzie shoplifting a hatchet in New Bedford, that is an interesting thought.

[Reasonwhy]

You know, Possum, I’ve always thought if the hatchet had been in the house, they would have found it.
I still think the Crowe hatchet was the weapon for Abbey’s murder.
I even think it’s possible the handle-less hatchet could have been the weapon for Andrew’s murder.
But, trying to see it from your POV, it could be neither of those two hatchets were used. IF the murdering weapon was one different from those two, then where would Lizzie have hidden it?
Think about the dress the police did not find, the one Lizzie burned. If police did not look closely at the two or three heavier winter dresses in the clothes press, the Bedford cord could certainly have hung within one of them—she could even have hidden the hatchet within its folds! After all, Lizzie was nervous about that press, went to make sure it was locked several times on that Thursday…
And Lizzie could have kept switching the hatchet’s—and the dress’s—location. Maybe it/they spent some time at the foot of Emma’s closet, where there was that bundle that made the door difficult for the police to close (it beggars belief that they did not examine that).
If Lizzie had originally hidden the Bedford Cord in the coal closet by the stove, I believe police would have found it there, so I conclude it was almost certainly moved around.

[Reasonwhy]

Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 50% Methinks she didn't know it was that day, but she brooded about what Lizzie MIGHT do

—partial post

Exactly my thinking, too, Possum Pie.

[Reasonwhy]

Simple % survey to compare where we currently stand on various Borden questions. Add any statements and % that you think would be interesting.

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 98%
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1%
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 55%
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 98%
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 1%
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 10%
The burned dress was worn during the murders 85%
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 95%
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 55%

Camgarsky, wishing you will add some of your thinking after each percentage. I’m going to do that with mine.

[Reasonwhy]

Here are brief reasons for my percentages (should have done this the first time):

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 99% She had the greatest motive.
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1% Lubinsky said she had her back to the barn. Think it’s remotely possible she checked barn that day for alibi materials. Think due to short time window, more likely she checked before Thursday.
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 75% P. Harrington said remains of rolled paper were in stove.
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 100% Knowlton’s Witness List included five drugstore workers from three apothecaries, including two in New Bedford.
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 50% Andrew or Morse could possibly have sent word to Abby to come to a certain bank at a certain time to sign title transfer/s. Would explain pale-faced man—waiting to drive her? And could explain a rage-filled Lizzie’s Abby overkill.
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 1% Believe Morse could have helped arrange title transfer, but expressed shock at Lizzie after he first saw bodies.
The burned dress was worn during the murders 99% Mrs. Churchill described it well as Lizzie’s dress on murder morning.
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 50% Emma feared what Lizzie might do after the big family blow-up, but had not planned murder w/ Lizzie.
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 99% Daring but easy way to get rid of weapon and make it look like culprit escaping over back fence had thrown it there. Interestingly, defense kept directing police to re-search area of woodpile by fence—and close to Crowe’s barn.

[Reasonwhy]

Simple % survey to compare where we currently stand on various Borden questions. Add any statements and % that you think would be interesting.

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 98%
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1%
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 55%
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 98%
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 1%
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 10%
The burned dress was worn during the murders 85%
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 95%
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 55%

Camgarsky, wishing you will add some of your thinking after each percentage. I’m going to do that with mine.

Kat and wall59, would you consider adding your percentages? Enquiring minds want to know what you think

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders 98%. Lied about note, alibi and prussic acid. STRONG exclusive opportunity & motive. So much more....[
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th 1%. Iterative versions of why in the barn. Sinkers are cheap in 2021, must have been a penny or two in 1892. Was planning to shop for other fishing gear. Rummaging thru a barn loft to save a penny does not match with my view of Lizzie
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders 55%. Multi witnesses that he brought home a parcel; Bridget mentions seeing him with book or papers after coming back down from bedroom; no papers or book found with body; roll of paper seen burnt in stove.
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid 98%. 3 reliable eye witnesses; no verified alibi; closest pharmacy to Borden's; sealskin cap reference
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 1%. Zero proof of note. Why would abby tell Lizzie and not Bridget or Andrew who were only feet away when she told Lizzie.
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd 10%. Don't believe he had pre-knowledge, but sliver of doubt.
The burned dress was worn during the murders 85%. She hung onto paint dress for months, but destroyed morning after being named suspect. Police didn't find bloody (or painted) dress because it was hidden.
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger 95%. Too weak a personality. Lizzie would worry about her talking beforehand. Lizzie likely danced around the subject for a while with Emma and realized that Emma would be a burden if in the know.
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon 55%. Hatchet murder weapon; Lizzie did the deed; hatchet not found in Borden home; Crowe barn logical destination of toss; Lubinsky saw her returning from backyard. Would go with 75%+, but timing of discovery is bothersome.

[camgarsky4]

Extract from Reason post above.
"Interestingly, defense kept directing police to re-search area of woodpile by fence—and close to Crowe’s barn"

Good observation. It is interesting how the defense did seem to want that area searched specifically. They couldn't very well say...."Hey, while your back here, you might look up on that neighbor barn! It will help you believe a crazy intruder killed them, hopped the fence and tossed the murder weapon!!"

[Reasonwhy]

But if defense knew about this, Lizzie had to have told them: doesn’t that open a can of worms.

Lizzie could claim she had just “seen it” from the 3rd floor guest window (with the same good luck with which she’d spied the 6 or 8 penny nail after the house robbery ).

If Emma or Morse had seen it, surely the defense would have tried to use this for her defense? Or, maybe not, if they just thought it would look too suspicious coming from family—so decided to drop it. They might also have concluded prosecution could just as easily paint Lizzie as the hatchet-tosser, and dropped it for that reason?

Why else might defense have urged multiple searches of that area, though?

[Reasonwhy]

From Camgarsky, partial:
“Abby received a note the morning of August 4th 1%. Zero proof of note. Why would abby tell Lizzie and not Bridget or Andrew who were only feet away when she told Lizzie.”

Maybe she didn’t tell Lizzie: maybe Lizzie answered the door and read the note, then got…mad.

[wall59]

Kat and wall59, would you consider adding your percentages? Enquiring minds want to know what you think

Reasonwhy, thanks for asking. I'll put something together.

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- I doubt the defense suggesting the police make sure to search the wood pile area had anything to do with the Crowe hatchet, but it is still an interesting thought since it was a bit odd for them to be worrying about the thoroughness of the search outside. The wood pile was relatively near the Crowe barn.

[Kat]

Actually, the curator of the B&B described to me that Lizzie's room had been the dining room up to thru when the McGinns lived there. Andrew's area of rooms were the kitchen for the upper flat. Not that it makes much difference when one describes hiding something...

[Kat]

Lizzie stayed on her lounge in her bedroom for quite a while, after the murders. And just before that, she claims someone told her she should go to her room. But she was coming from Emma's room as she donned her pink wrapper, according to Alice. And almost as soon as Alice entered the room, Lizzie sent her away saying she wanted Windward for the undertaker. I had pictured Lizzie, if she wanted to hide something, lying on it on that lounge. And you know, later on, authorities became suspicious for some reason and returned to check that lounge and the beds, specifically. And what did Lizzie do in the cellar alone Thursday night, on that second trip down? Things needing to be "hidden" may have been temporarily in her room, or Emma's and moved around when needed, as was surmised. There's been some agreement here that Lizzie would want to retain control over the situation (which, I think, would include the weapon and the dress).

[PossumPie]

Actually, the curator of the B&B described to me that Lizzie's room had been the dining room up to thru when the McGinns lived there. Andrew's area of rooms were the kitchen for the upper flat. Not that it makes much difference when one describes hiding something...

Not that it is too important, but I remember researching a few weeks ago and finding that it had been a kitchen. The built-in shelves had been kitchen cabinets. I can't find a reference as to where I got that information. I would think the current owner would know better than most though. I'll have to dig around some more.

Many "Lizzie was innocent" folks over the years point to no hatchet and no dress being found. They seem to think that hiding these in or around an old house is virtually impossible. Also, her original hiding place only needed to serve to hide them temporarily. Once she had privacy and time, she could do anything she wanted to with them. In all of the original sources, the first searches were cursory, fumbling, apologetic pokes around the place. Nothing was sealed off, Lizzie was allowed to stay in the crime scene after the police left, The lack of a dress or hatchet doesn't bother me at all.
Here is something I posted a few years back It sums up my opinion perfectly so I'm going to re-post it:

I got into quite a lively debate with an old member awhile back about all the hiding places in a home that it could have been placed in. Think about your own home, there are places no one would know to look. Even under your couch or bed, if you look, there is material stretched across it. A tug on a corner, drop the hatchet in push the upholstery pin back in place, and even if you moved the couch/bed, and looked under, you would not see a hatchet- it is up inside the furniture. Under my corner cupboard is about a 4-inch space where my cats knock their toys. BUT if I reach up there, there is a board going across that makes a nice little "shelf" a hatchet could sit on (I actually tried it b/c the member kept insisting the police checked "everywhere") Everywhere is a relative term. There are "obvious" places the checked...in closets, up under the eves, behind furniture, but I guarantee that they did not tap every piece of kick-board molding around the house to see if maybe one was loose and had a space behind it. Remember in the days before banks were insured, you hid your money in and around your home. Even if a thief had all day, you wanted it hidden such that it wouldn't be found. People had loose floorboards in closets etc. they had valuables hidden in.

[camgarsky4]

Extract from Kat's post above:
"And you know, later on, authorities became suspicious for some reason and returned to check that lounge and the beds, specifically."

Kat -- glad you mentioned this event. The targeted, follow up search was timed for Saturday morning when Lizzie would be at the funeral. They were already scheduled to visit home after the funeral. So they show up unannounced 2 days after murders, when they know Lizzie will be out and recheck a specific location.

I've wondered if there was a snitch, but of course there could only be a few candidates. Maybe one of her lady friends mentioned to police that Lizzie acted odd about who sat on the lounge or bed. Who knows, but interesting all the same. They came focused for some reason. And whatever they thought might be there wasn't. And then you have a mysterious 2nd cellar visit Thursday night. To your point, could these two events be directly connected?

I think they were.

[wall59]

Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders - I think this statement needs to be split up. For me, there is little doubt Lizzie was at least a co-conspirator (85%) but i am less convinced she was in this by herself (55%)
Lizzie looked for fishing sinkers on August 4th - Lizzie was never in the barn that day (2%)
Andrews 'missing' parcel was directly related to the murders
Lizzie attempted to purchase prussic acid - while there are some fairly credible witnesses, was Lizzie really that stupid? I don't think so. (35%)
Abby received a note the morning of August 4th - no note arrived at the Borden house on August 4, 1892 for any reason (0%)
Morse knew murder was afoot August 3rd
The burned dress was worn during the murders
Emma did not know her father was in mortal danger
Crowe barn roof hatchet was the murder weapon - just like the axes and hatchets in the cellar there is no evidence to link this hatchet with the crime (20%)

I'll get back to you with the rest of my answers.

[Reasonwhy]

“Lizzie was sole or co-conspirator in murders - I think this statement needs to be split up. For me, there is little doubt Lizzie was at least a co-conspirator (85%) but i am less convinced she was in this by herself (55%)….”
—partial post by wall59

So, wall, does that mean you give a 15% chance of an outside killer? Any suspects you think more likely, if an outsider?

Looking forward to the rest of your answers.

[Kat]

Actually, the curator of the B&B described to me that Lizzie's room had been the dining room up to thru when the McGinns lived there. Andrew's area of rooms were the kitchen for the upper flat. Not that it makes much difference when one describes hiding something...

Not that it is too important, but I remember researching a few weeks ago and finding that it had been a kitchen. The built-in shelves had been kitchen cabinets. I can't find a reference as to where I got that information. I would think the current owner would know better than most though. I'll have to dig around some more.

---partial PossumPie
The "current owner" has had the house since June, maybe?

I have been lucky enough to be Staff on The Hatchet, and I have researched, studied, interviewed and written about 92 Second Street several times for The Hatchet, including my first series called "The Borden House Frame by Frame," (4 installments), and also "Some Residents of the Two Properties on Second Street" besides this one called "Demolition Begins." (These latter 2 in the same issue, sources documented at end of each essay.)

Link to Hatchet Article
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... egins.html

2 of my 4 sources for this article were phone interviews with Curator Bill Pavao, and Len Rebello, who pretty much put that house back together and made it period and did a fabulous job!

Here is the pertinent paragraph:
The Hatchet, June/July 2005
“Demolition Begins”
By Kat Koorey
Pg 36 (excerpt)
... Eventually, John Sr.’s mother was housed on the second floor, the area set up like her own apartment, and Lizzie’s bedroom became her dining room, the family gathering there at Holiday meals. It was probably at this time, as there was a need for a buffet, that Lizzie’s shallow closet was converted to shelving and cupboards for china storage. At some period an aunt came to stay and her bedroom was Abby’s dressing room. Andrew and Abby’s bedroom had been, once again, converted to a kitchen to serve the second floor apartment. Thus the Master Borden’s bedroom had been first built as a kitchen in a two-tenement property in 1845, renovated by him into his master suite in 1872, returned to kitchen status in the late 1940’s for Mrs. McGinn senior and under Ron Evans in the 1990’s returned to master bedroom state to replicate the Borden era while preparing the house for a B&B. This room probably suffered the most drastic changes over time, including a window being “lost” sometime on the east wall when a bathroom was installed. The pipes for this convenience taking precedence over a window and so there no longer is a symmetry of windows in the view of the house from the back yard, as was there when the house was first designed and built, and through the Bordens residency there.

[Kat]

Extract from Kat's post above:
"And you know, later on, authorities became suspicious for some reason and returned to check that lounge and the beds, specifically."

Kat -- glad you mentioned this event. The targeted, follow up search was timed for Saturday morning when Lizzie would be at the funeral. They were already scheduled to visit home after the funeral. So they show up unannounced 2 days after murders, when they know Lizzie will be out and recheck a specific location.

I've wondered if there was a snitch, but of course there could only be a few candidates. Maybe one of her lady friends mentioned to police that Lizzie acted odd about who sat on the lounge or bed. Who knows, but interesting all the same. They came focused for some reason. And whatever they thought might be there wasn't. And then you have a mysterious 2nd cellar visit Thursday night. To your point, could these two events be directly connected?

I think they were.

-- Camgarsky

I used to first picture Lizzie actually sitting on the dress and hatchet on that lounge, or even wearing it under the wrapper..then I expanded my own view and began to realize there could have been a hollowed out hiding place underneath and inside the thing. Maybe loose material, hanging down, giving access to the actual innards of the upholstery. I think that idea came to me from imagining the search of the beds when Lizzie was gone...and the fact that Mr Borden had been a furniture maker. If she sits on that lounge, no one is going to make her get up off it to search on that day, and she retains complete control of the weapon. Think how comfortable she would be having that knowledge, rather than some random toss onto a roof outside, hoping it lands where she wants it.
After Alice was so shocked at finding that stick under Andrew's bed, maybe that inadvertently gave someone in authority a suspicion...

[camgarsky4]

I've pondered whether Mrs. Holmes or Brigham mentioned something to their husband or someone and that person scurried off to Marshall Hilliard with their 'inside' info! Everyone likes to feel important. Figured it wasn't Buck because of his occupation or Alice because she wasn't spilling the beans yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My image is she had the 'murder clothes' under the lounge cushion. So 'sitting on it' as Fonzie would sort of say! :)

The way I have mentally recreated the actions of the house occupants that morning is based on smooth movement flow. So based on the timeline (and assuming Lubinsky was correct), I think it would create awkward movements if Lizzie had jogged upstairs to hide the hatchet and then come back down and dart out to the barn or wherever and then return. It just feels (to me) like an unnatural set of added movements by Lizzie.

Because I think she was ad-libbing at that point, my mental image is that her first (and final) thought of weapon disposal was to heave it off the property and out of sight. She went outside, ran to the furthest 'out of sight' corner of the property, saw the barn and heaved it. Instant plausible deniability.

[PossumPie]

The "current owner" has had the house since June, maybe?

I have been lucky enough to be Staff on The Hatchet, and I have researched, studied, interviewed and written about 92 Second Street several times for The Hatchet, including my first series called "The Borden House Frame by Frame," (4 installments), and also "Some Residents of the Two Properties on Second Street" besides this one called "Demolition Begins." (These latter 2 in the same issue, sources documented at end of each essay.)

Thank you for the clarification. Evidence is strongest that Lizzie's room had been a dining room. Another example of how accepted "facts" may not stand up to the scrutiny of research. All of the previous renovation before Lizzie took it over as a bedroom strengthens my theory even more that had she needed to hide a dress and hatchet, there may have been plenty of non-obvious places. The only place we can be sure they were not hidden immediately after the murders would be the attic as Bridget was up there lying down and would have seen/heard her moving about.

The way I have mentally recreated the actions of the house occupants that morning is based on smooth movement flow. So based on the timeline (and assuming Lubinsky was correct), I think it would create awkward movements if Lizzie had jogged upstairs to hide the hatchet and then come back down and dart out to the barn or wherever and then return. It just feels (to me) like an unnatural set of added movements by Lizzie.

Great deduction! If Lizzie hid it anywhere on the second floor it WOULD have been awkward to go up then down then out then in...The only way I can see is if she already had a secure hiding place in her room that she felt was safe, and also needed to change her dress in privacy. The 20-25 minute timeframe is often maligned by some who say that is not enough time to do everything, but that has been disproven to my satisfaction in part by me "recreating" her actions and having done so in less than 12 minutes...

[camgarsky4]

You guys are correct that if the hatchet attack on Andrew had been planned for a few hours, she would have figured out what she would do with the hatchet. Also agree that she (or anyone for that matter) had plenty of time to kill, cleanup and relocate.

My starting premise is that Lizzie had intended to kill Andrew in the afternoon, but learning of Morse's impending arrival for lunch had blown up her 'thought out' game plan. Hiding the hatchet was not a necessity in the original Plan that was altered around 10:45ish.

In the afternoon, I think she would have removed the hatchet from the house as part of going shopping and establishing a better alibi than searching for a penny sinker out in the dirty loft of the barn.

From my way of thinking, the original design to kill Andrew in the afternoon is the only 'logical' explanation for the note story or her mentioning the dress sale to Bridget. Otherwise those were unnecessary complications.

[PossumPie]

I think she would have removed the hatchet from the house as part of going shopping and establishing a better alibi than searching for a penny sinker out in the dirty loft of the barn.

A sudden thought struck me yesterday. I am no avid fisherman but have tried it a few times. You can't "make" a sinker out of a hunk of lead, can you? The ones I used were molded and had a hook in them so you could tie them to your line. A hunk of lead is worthless as a sinker since you couldn't attach it to a fishing line. If Lizzie had said she was in the barn looking for sinkers, that would be plausible but looking for a hunk of lead makes no sense. In the inquest she was more specific- lead with a hole in it. THAT makes sense as she could thread the line through the hole. At the time of the murder she said "A piece of lead to make into a sinker"

TRIAL TESTIMONY
A. The Mayor asked Miss Lizzie where she was at the time that her father was killed.
She said that she was out in the barn, and he asked her what she was out there for; she
said that she went out there to get some lead to make some sinkers with. He asked her
about how long she remained there and she said about twenty minutes.

INQUEST LIZZIE TESTIMONY
Q. That is the reason you went into the second story of the barn to look for a sinker?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What made you think you would find sinkers there?
A. I heard father say, and I knew there was lead there.
Q. What made you think you would find sinkers there?
A. I went to see, because there was lead there.
Q. You thought there might be lead there made into sinkers?
A. I thought there might be lead with a hole in it.

[camgarsky4]

You are correct unless the Borden's were dirt poor....which they weren't. Just go to the store and buy a proper sinker along with the other fishing gear she was planning on purchasing.

I think she would have to tie the fishing line around the weight without a hole to thread line thru or notch to properly secure the line to the sinker. Not even sure what kind of knot that would require.

At the inquest, Knowlton tried to nail her on the absurdity of searching for a lead sinker, but she held firm. He dropped the ball on making sure the inquest would be admissible or maybe he truly thought he had crossed his t's and dotted his i's.

I think if Bence and the inquest had been admitted we would have had a hung jury.

[PossumPie]

You are correct unless the Borden's were dirt poor....which they weren't. Just go to the store and buy a proper sinker along with the other fishing gear she was planning on purchasing.

I think she would have to tie the fishing line around the weight without a hole to thread line thru or notch to properly secure the line to the sinker. Not even sure what kind of knot that would require.

At the inquest, Knowlton tried to nail her on the absurdity of searching for a lead sinker, but she held firm. He dropped the ball on making sure the inquest would be admissible or maybe he truly thought he had crossed his t's and dotted his i's.

I think if Bence and the inquest had been admitted we would have had a hung jury.

On one hand, the sinker story is so absurd that it could be true. I've often gone to the garage for something simply because it popped into my mind. If questioned, someone would say "So, you left the pot on the stove and went to the garage to look for an "S" hook? Why? "Well, I know the chicken coop needed an "S" hook to hang the waterer up off of the floor." "So you dropped everything and went to find one?? " Does sound silly but I did do that a while back. We do silly things we can't explain well. BUT Lizzie kept changing her story: Find lead to make a sinker, find a sinker, find a piece of tin to repair a screen... Stick to one story!

[camgarsky4]

Per Lizzie's inquest testimony:
* Wore a Bengaline silk dress that morning. (my google search tells me this was a 'going out' type of dress)
* Did not wear an apron that morning

I can't wrap my head around a wealthy, Victorian age woman volunteering to go rummage thru a dusty/dirty barn loft to avoid spending a penny. Per Bridget and Emma's testimonies, it is clear that Lizzie did very little in the way of housekeeping (besides her bedroom and ironing her handkerchiefs). So she does not strike me as an industrious problem solver.

Frankly, I find it somewhat ludicrous that the woman described above would go to that barn loft for almost any reason. It's no more plausible than Abby going to visit a sick friend and only telling Lizzie, whom 'per Lizzie' didn't usually tell her where she was going, and not tell her husband or maid.

She had the early afternoon in her room to think up this excuse, she shared it first with Uncle Hiram and then it became 'fact'.

On the topic of the dress, this is another situation where Lizzie somewhat tripped over the various stories she was telling. To avoid admitting she wore the paint dress she said she wore a Bengaline silk dress. Problem is I can't imagine any woman would wear such a dress into a barn loft and search thru debris when she had a paint damaged dress readily available.

[Reasonwhy]

I agree it’s highly unlikely Lizzie went to the barn during Andrew’s murder. Yet she must have been there recently enough to almost perfectly describe the contents of the “box” and “basket” at the Inquest: She only had their locations switched, between downstairs and upstairs in the loft.

[Reasonwhy]

I used to first picture Lizzie actually sitting on the dress and hatchet on that lounge, or even wearing it under the wrapper..then I expanded my own view and began to realize there could have been a hollowed out hiding place underneath and inside the thing. Maybe loose material, hanging down, giving access to the actual innards of the upholstery. I think that idea came to me from imagining the search of the beds when Lizzie was gone...and the fact that Mr Borden had been a furniture maker. If she sits on that lounge, no one is going to make her get up off it to search on that day, and she retains complete control of the weapon. Think how comfortable she would be having that knowledge….”

—partial post

Kat, I like your thinking of the lounge underbelly as a hiding place for the dress, since we know it stayed around somewhere until its burning on Sunday morning. Lizzie may not have had time to securely plant it there when she changed into the pink wrapper, with Alice returning to Lizzie’s bedroom just as she was tying the wrapper’s red belt. But, she could have snugged it under the cushion, at first, sat upon it to prevent police from finding it, then firmly implanted it as soon as the others vacated her bedroom.

I do think something went into that blanket bundle at the foot of Emma’s shallow closet though, given Lizzie’s haste to change while Alice was gone (on her Lizzie-sent errand to inform them of Lizzie’s choice of Winward’s funeral services). Perhaps Lizzie did dump the dress there, instead? Or, at least her shoes, stockings, or any stained under-clothes?

[Reasonwhy]

I have been lucky enough to be Staff on The Hatchet, and I have researched, studied, interviewed and written about 92 Second Street several times for The Hatchet, including my first series called "The Borden House Frame by Frame," (4 installments), and also "Some Residents of the Two Properties on Second Street" besides this one called "Demolition Begins." (These latter 2 in the same issue, sources documented at end of each essay.)
Link to Hatchet Article
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... egins.html

—partial post

Kat, thanks for pointing our attention to these. I had read your series on the house before, but just read the other two articles. I had been so naive about the extent of demolition and reconstruction necessary to convert the house. I went a bit slack-jawed, seeing the nakedness once the Leary Press building was torn off. But it gave me a realistic sense of the true age of the house, though I lost my innocence about how much of the house was original…I know we are lucky any of it remains.

Did you happen to learn anything about in what era the exposed bluish gray paint would have been applied? Did they see any colors (Lizzie’s “drab”?) under that blue? Can’t believe my good fortune in being able to ask you these types of questions—many, many thanks, Kat!

[Kat]

I remember while this was all happening, we were very excited and interested here and were asking the very same questions about what color was the house in which era!
I'm not sure about the answers- I really was more involved with the interior. I was able to visit the house with Leary Press still attached, and then visit again when it was gone.
There would be posts about it, I would think. Maybe knowing the dates, you might check archives here? Or even search Lee-ann's posts here as well. I think you are probably very good at that!
Mark Amarantes was our "Fall River Lad" who reported on the demo as often as he could get to the house, and took all the pictures for The Hatchet. He was on assignment as our roving reporter. His article is interesting to read as well!

[Reasonwhy]

I did read his, too. Thanks, Kat. I will check for other posts

[Reasonwhy]

From post (partial) by mbhenty, Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:47 pm:

“The color drab described several colors. That is why there is so much debate about what tone the Borden house carried. The three main "drab" colors in Lizzie's day are beige, green and gray.

The most popular color was gray, similar to the color of the clapboard in the photo below.

There's an equal chance that this was the original color of the Borden house. It was by far the most popular color in fall river (and probably elsewhere) in the 19th century and early 20th.

When I hear drab this is the color I think of.”

download/file.php?id=4230&mode=view


Reasonwhy here: I think I see bluish-green tints in that…

[mbhenty]

Yep, right you are Reasonwhy:

I remember back in the 50s and 60s, just before the vinyl siding craze, many clapboard houses that were painted gray still existed. Especially in Lizzie's old neighborhood of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and Corky Row. Gray was by far the most popular color for large three family homes in Fall River and throughout historical New England. The house I was born in had gray clapboard. One may find gray clapboard beneath shake shingles which were applied over the narrow cedar siding.

And the house you posted in the photo below is a perfect example of old gray clapboard hidden beneath new cedar shingles. I would guess that that three-decker was shingled some time in the late 50s or early 60s.

As a matter of fact that photo you posted is of my old house and I am the one who tore off the shingles and doing the labor. It was a portion of a major renovation and improvements I did to the Davenport House next door to Maplecroft. I tore off shingles all around the building as I inspected the condition of the clapboard siding underneath. My endeavor was to keep the old clapboard. I concluded that they were not in good condition and kept most of the cedar shakes. As for the front of the house I tore everything off, cedar shakes and old gray clapboard and replaced the clapboard.

Below is a photo of the finished product of the back door. The brackets on each side of the door, were not native to the house but a separate purchase I made to enhance the back door of the Davenport House. They were purchased off an old large house somewhere in Ohio.

[mbhenty]

In one of the photos below you can see Lizzie's garage just off to the left. You can see the cedar shingles, the clapboard beneath, and the structural siding beneath that. Then the new clapboard.

(click on photo to make BIG)

[Reasonwhy]

“As a matter of fact that photo you posted is of my old house and I am the one who tore off the shingles and doing the labor. It was a portion of a major renovation and improvements I did to the Davenport House next door to Maplecroft….”
—partial post by mbhenty

I’ll be darned, mbhenty. You did a fine, handsome job on that entryway. The detail adds so much.

And I really appreciate all of the photos of the “drab” gray clapboard. Actually, I quite like the color, if trim was a deeper shade of that same hue.

[Kat]

I used to first picture Lizzie actually sitting on the dress and hatchet on that lounge, or even wearing it under the wrapper..then I expanded my own view and began to realize there could have been a hollowed out hiding place underneath and inside the thing. Maybe loose material, hanging down, giving access to the actual innards of the upholstery. I think that idea came to me from imagining the search of the beds when Lizzie was gone...and the fact that Mr Borden had been a furniture maker. If she sits on that lounge, no one is going to make her get up off it to search on that day, and she retains complete control of the weapon. Think how comfortable she would be having that knowledge….”

—partial post

Kat, I like your thinking of the lounge underbelly as a hiding place for the dress, since we know it stayed around somewhere until its burning on Sunday morning. Lizzie may not have had time to securely plant it there when she changed into the pink wrapper, with Alice returning to Lizzie’s bedroom just as she was tying the wrapper’s red belt. But, she could have snugged it under the cushion, at first, sat upon it to prevent police from finding it, then firmly implanted it as soon as the others vacated her bedroom.

I do think something went into that blanket bundle at the foot of Emma’s shallow closet though, given Lizzie’s haste to change while Alice was gone (on her Lizzie-sent errand to inform them of Lizzie’s choice of Winward’s funeral services). Perhaps Lizzie did dump the dress there, instead? Or, at least her shoes, stockings, or any stained under-clothes?

In the Jennngs Journal, pg 253, under Alice Russell, I quote from her unsworn deposition, taken down by Jennings, himself:
"Sat & Sunday night I slept in E's room & E in L's bed and L on couch."
That is the lounge! She pretty much kept to that lounge. I had always pictured Emma putting Lizzie to bed, like in the "Legend" movie; but no. Hmmm....
Alice had already found the stick under Mr Borden's bed and was scared to sleep there anymore, and Lizzie's solitary trip to the cellar was Thursday night after the murders, the bodies were taken away Saturday, and Lizzie had burned a dress Sunday already, so why stick to the lounge?