Andrews Missing Parcel

[camgarsky4]

Ok.....finally got tired of compiling related testimony and statements to police. You all are free to add more relevant information, because I probably only captured half of it.

In summary, Andrew left home for his walk downtown around 9am. The best effort recreation of his trip has him getting a haircut, going to the post office next, visiting a couple banks, Clegg's old store and then Clegg's new store....and then walked on home.

There are multiple witness sightings of Andrew carrying a small white parcel. Important to note that the first sighting is after he left Clegg's new store. At that location, Andrew also picked up a damaged lock. The parcel was clearly described as being paper, book or journal like. So it wasn't the lock.

Upon getting home Andrew walked past Bridget with the parcel, went to the dining room where Bridget saw him reading something (presumably the contents of the parcel), talks to Lizzie about mail that isn't Lizzie's, goes up to his room and comes back down. Andrew then down in a chair in the sitting room and commenced reading again. He is killed very shortly after this. There is no accounting of paper, a book, journal, etc. being found with or close to his body. A bit later, Harrington see's what appears to be a roll of paper embers in the stove fire.

I'll share my deductions & suppositions from all this info.....and await your feedback.
1) Andrew got the parcel at the post office and placed in his coat pocket until he got to Clegg's new store front.
2) Andrew picked up the broken lock and carried up S. Main. At some point, he put the lock in his pocket and began carrying the parcel.
3) Except when Andrew went to his bedroom for a brief visit, the parcel/paper/book has a clean eye witness trail.
4) Since nothing of substance related to estate planning was found in the safe (my assumption based on no reaction when safe opened), the book/paper Andrew was reading in the sitting room the last time Bridget saw him was the same parcel he was carrying on the walk.
5) Since the book/paper was not found with the body, the rolled burnt paper in the stove was the original parcel.

Imaginative deduction: When Lizzie stopped Bridget from going into the sitting room, she had a moment of clarity and realized the paper was still there. When Bridget left, Lizzie scurried in, grabbed the paper and put in the stove. Key factoid....the stove is directly between the kill spot and the side door. Easy to grab and toss in as you walk past the stove.

What I have failed to do so far is come up with a reasonable explanation of what the parcel/paper/book/journal was. A deed, will, something else?

Ok....have at it!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Mary Gallagher Witness Statement
Miss Mary Gallagher, at McManus, saw Mr. Borden at the corner of Main and Spring streets, just
turning up Spring, with a small package in his hand, at 10.15. She remembered the time, for she was just
coming down town, and looked up at the City Clock.

Mrs. Dr. Kelly Witness Statement
Mrs. Dr. Kelly. “Left the house to go to the dentist’s; looked at the clock just before going out,
10.35. Saw Mr. Borden coming around the north west corner of the house, going towards the front door,
saw him put a key in the door. He had a small package in his hand. From the way was coming, I think
he was at the side door first.” The time when Mrs. Kelly left the house is also fixed by the work girl at
10.35.

Mrs. Dr. Kelly Trial Testimony (pg. 213) Mrs. Kelly passed Andrew as he approached his front door around 10:45am.
Q. Did you see whether he had anything in his hand?
A. A little white parcel, I think.

Bridget Preliminary Hearing (Andrew had just been let in the front door by Bridget)
Q. Where did Mr. Borden go when he came in?
A. Into the dining room.
Q. You were at work in the sitting room then?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did he do in the dining room?
A. He sat at the head of the lounge in a chair when I saw him.
Q. There is a lounge in the dining room too?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That is not the lounge he was found dead on?
A. No Sir.
Q. He sat in a chair? What doing?
A. Reading.
Q. You were still at work in the sitting room, washing the windows?
A. Yes Sir.

Bridget Trial Testimony (Bridget just let Andrew in the front door)
Q. Where did he go?
A. He came into the sitting room and went into the dining room.
Q. Did you see whether he had anything of not?
A. He had a small parcel in his hand, same as paper or a book’ I can’t tell what it was.
Q. Did you see what Mr. Borden did when he went into the dining room?
A. He sat down in a chair at the head of the lounge.

Lizzie inquest testimony
Q. When you (Lizzie) did go into the sitting room to ask him (Andrew) a question, if it was the sitting room, what too place then?
A. I asked him if he had any mail. He said “none for you.” He had a letter in his hand. I supposed it was for himself”

Bridget Preliminary Hearing (continued from Bridget PH testimony above)
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.
Q. Did you hear her say anything to Mr. Borden?
A. I heard her ask him if he had any mail for her. I heard her telling her father very slowly that her mother got a note, that Mrs. Borden had a note that morning, and had gone out.
Q. You heard her telling that very slowly?
A. Yes Sir, to her father.
Q. Had got a note?
A. From some sick person. Of course the conversation was very low, I did not pay any attention to it; but I heard her telling her father that.
Q. What else did you hear her say to her father?
A. Not anymore.
Q. What happened then, did she stay there?
A. I do not know where she went then, I cannot tell.
Q. Do you know whether she stayed in that room or not?
A. No Sir, I do not.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I stayed washing the windows, right along until I got through.
Q. In the sitting room?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I came right into the dining room.
Q. Where was Mr. Borden when you came into the dining room?
A. After coming down stairs from his room.
Q. Did you see him go?
A. I saw him take the key from the shelf.
Q. Was that after Miss Lizzie spoke to him?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where did he take the key from?
A. Off the sitting room shelf.
Q. How did he go to go upstairs, which way?
A. The back way.
Q. How long was he gone?
A. I could not tell.
Q. Was you washing windows in the sitting room when he went up the back stairs?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Were you when he came down?
A. I was just taking the step ladder from the sitting room into the dining room.
Q. When you went into the dining room, did you see Miss Lizzie then?
A. No Sir.
Q. Was she in the dining room or sitting room?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see her in the kitchen?
A. No Sir. I did not go out in the kitchen.
Q. When Mr. Borden went out into the kitchen, you saw him go out?
A. Yes Sir, he came out of the kitchen door, and went back again.
Q. Did you see whether Miss Lizzie went with him then?
A. I did not notice.
Q. You saw Mr. Borden when he came back?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did he do then when he came back?
A. He let the window down, it was up with the screen in. He took a chair and sat down near the window with a book or paper in his hand.
Q. Which window was that?
A. The sitting room.
Q. Sat in a chair near the window with a book or paper in his hand?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was anybody in the room then?
A. Not as I saw

Policeman Harrington Trial Testimony (pg. 567) Harrington watched Bowen drop scraps of paper into the kitchen stove fire and noticed previously burned roll of paper.
Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands please?
A. Well, I would say it was about that long (indicating). Twelve inches I would say.
Q. And how large diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches.
Q. You had finished your description of the size of the burnt paper. Could you tell what sort of paper it was from the embers. If you can, say so.
A. I can tell the impression I have.
Q. I don’t’ think I will ask for that.

[Kat]

I see Mather at trial says he saw Mr Borden (who he did not know, nor spoke to) pick up the lock at the store he was working at and seems to be the last person on Main St, in the business section, to see Mr Borden as he walked away toward Spring St. at 20 min. to 11. The lady quoted, Mary Gallagher says 10:15...she has the wrong time.
Neither he nor Shirtsleeves mention a package. Why can't the lock be wrapped in paper then, and become the package? Did I miss something?

[PossumPie]

I think if the parcel was a critical piece to the murder, the person who gave it to him would have come forward. Burning a will does not destroy it. An attorney would have a copy and produce it even if Andrew's copy were destroyed. There was mention of Andrew picking up a doorknob so perhaps it was in his hand along with the mail. Since Abby was already dead when Andrew came in, logic tells us that it wasn't something Andrew said, did, or carried in that precipitated his murder.

[camgarsky4]

I've surfaced the topic of the missing parcel because logic (and the facts) tells us there is a missing parcel. Why is it missing? What where the paper embers in the stove?

Might a 'soon arriving' document have been a topic discussed by Morse and Andrew the evening before? Might the parcel have been something that Lizzie learned of in the dining room and felt compelled to destroy?

What if the sender of the parcel/letter was another attorney and, upon the murders, he told Jennings and they decided that the document was privileged or in the biased eyes of the defense, "not relevant"?

To Kat's questions.....I've added Kelly's PH testimony and description below and extracted Bridget's description from earlier post. Sure doesn't sound like a lock to me.

Also added Lizzie Gray's full statement. She is clearly describing Andrew when he was almost home. As was the case with multiple folks in this case, she had the time wrong.

Mrs. Kelly Preliminary Hearing Cross Examination by the defense:
Q. You say he had a white package in his hand?
A. I think he had a little square white package.
Q. Did it look as though it might be a letter, or something like that?
A. No, it was bigger, looked as though it might be a small box.
Q. It looked like a small box?
A. Yes Sir.
(Mr. Knowlton.) Give me the size of that package or box as near as you can.
A. It might have been five inches square, and perhaps an inch thick, as near as I can remember; it was wider than that book. (Note book.)
Q. Something that shape?
A. No Sir, it was square, about that square.
Q. Something that shape?
A. Yes Sir, but a little wider, as far as I can remember.

Bridget Trial testimony
Q. Did you see whether he had anything of not?
A. He had a small parcel in his hand, same as paper or a book’ I can’t tell what it was

Lizzie Gray witness statement
Lizzie Gray saw Mr. Borden as he came up Spring St. and turned north on 2nd St. towards home. She cannot fix the exact time, but between ten and 11 o'clock.

Edited summary of part of Bridget’s testimony
Bridget watched Andrew go straight from the front door into the dining room. Upon arriving in the dining room, Andrew commenced reading something.

[camgarsky4]

After searching amazon.com, I found a vintage door lock with dimensions of 5.5" x 1.25".

So if the lock did not include a doorknob and Andrew wrapped it at the store (unseen by Mather/Shortsleeves), then that could have been what was in the parcel. I apologize for not catching this sooner.

I've decided to take a sabbatical from the forum. I'll talk to you all soon. Happy Holidays!

[Reasonwhy]

I've decided to take a sabbatical from the forum. I'll talk to you all soon. Happy Holidays!

—partial post

Camgarsky, your absence from the forum, for any amount of time, will be our loss. With intelligent, probing posts and curiosity for every corner of the case, you have certainly stoked my interest. May your sabbatical be brief and temporary! But please do what you need to do.

All the best,
Reasonwhy

[Reasonwhy]

“Q. You had finished your description of the size of the burnt paper. Could you tell what sort of paper it was from the embers. If you can, say so.
A. I can tell the impression I have.
Q. I don’t’ think I will ask for that….”
—partial post of Camgarsky (trial testimony of Officer Harrington)

My first reaction to the topic is incredible frustration with the prosecution. Why would they cut off eagle-eyed P. Harrington, he of the designer-catalogue description of the pink wrapper, from giving his impression of the burned paper? It could not have been because they thought it was not relevant…

[Reasonwhy]

Though Camgarsky has posted that he’s taking a break from the forum, I’m going to post some reactions to his deductions, above, for anyone interested (my comments, in bold, follow his):

1) Andrew got the parcel at the post office and placed in his coat pocket until he got to Clegg's new store front. Not sure he could not have picked it up elsewhere, say, at one of the banks.
2) Andrew picked up the broken lock and carried up S. Main. At some point, he put the lock in his pocket and began carrying the parcel. Could have been a paper/book, could have been the lock, wrapped up.
3) Except when Andrew went to his bedroom for a brief visit, the parcel/paper/book has a clean eye witness trail. Agreed.
4) Since nothing of substance related to estate planning was found in the safe (my assumption based on no reaction when safe opened) (agreed), the book/paper Andrew was reading in the sitting room the last time Bridget saw him was the same parcel he was carrying on the walk. The paper/book Andrew may have carried and been reading at home could have been a piece of mail or something picked up from a bank that had nothing to do with a will/deed(s).
5) Since the book/paper was not found with the body, the rolled burnt paper in the stove was the original parcel. Well, Andrew could have put the “carried paper/book” into the safe on his trip upstairs, and picked something else up from his desk/safe to read. Seems logical that Andrew’s reading material would have been the burned item, as no paper/book found on body, true. But, Andrew himself could have burned it. And it might not be a paper/book related to the case.

I’m taking a devil’s advocate’s approach here, as I tend to believe Camgarsky’s deductions may be sound. Yes, a paper got burned. The timing makes it suspicious. We just don’t have enough info. to make a strong argument, one way or the other.

[PossumPie]

Also, Andrew could have decided the "parcel" wasn't worth keeping and threw it in the stove himself... Daily as I walk back from my mailbox, I stop at my burn barrel and throw in the mountains of junk mail. So many trees cut down for nothing...

[Kat]

I did take Camgarsky's research and post seriously. I understand he took a lot of time and effort to craft his post.
I awaited a response but there were several "views" but no replies, so I spent the evening watching football and looking at trial testimony, out of respect to answer him, or stimulate more discussion. If I didn't seem responsive, I apologize. I tried.

"Back when...," Harry and I even did an experiment, at my suggestion, because I was so interested in the "pkg."
He got the daily newspaper, and I didn't, so I asked him to fold his newspaper up to match the dimensions of the "pkg." He did that a few times and achieved the look described as the "pkg." This was 15 years ago, or so...but it didn't prove anything. We never really knew how Andrew got his newspaper, and we were also debating the wrappers Lizzie said she had to address.
Just not enough info, we decided...thinking of wills, deeds, etc...paper-related things.

[Reasonwhy]

‘What if the sender of the parcel/letter was another attorney and, upon the murders, he told Jennings and they decided that the document was privileged or in the biased eyes of the defense, "not relevant"?’
—partial post by Camgarsky

I have had this thought also. It could have been a draft of a transfer of stock or land (the farm?) that needed Abby’s signature to be put into effect—could even have been a draft copy of a new will. (I’ll again mention the possibility that notifying Abby of the time and bank to meet Andrew at that morning could have been the purpose of a note, which Lizzie intercepted that morning, causing her to become enraged—just a possibility).

If Andrew’s parcel was such a draft, and Lizzie saw it, perhaps when Andrew went upstairs—I realize Lizzie’s testimony is that he did not go upstairs, Bridget says he did—then she would have had reason for burning it. Such evidence of treachery could also have ignited enough fury to have resulted in eleven strokes of depersonalizing overkill to Andrew’s face.

Of course, these scenarios are suggestive, but are only what-ifs. Now if P. Harrington had only been allowed to finish giving his “impression”…

[PossumPie]

I've surfaced the topic of the missing parcel because logic (and the facts) tells us there is a missing parcel. Why is it missing? What where the paper embers in the stove?

1. Might a 'soon arriving' document have been a topic discussed by Morse and Andrew the evening before? Might the parcel have been something that Lizzie learned of in the dining room and felt compelled to destroy?

2. What if the sender of the parcel/letter was another attorney and, upon the murders, he told Jennings and they decided that the document was privileged or in the biased eyes of the defense, "not relevant"?

3.To Kat's questions.....I've added Kelly's PH testimony and description below and extracted Bridget's description from earlier post. Sure doesn't sound like a lock to me.

1. This seems a reasonable possibility. I don't know if Lizzie could hear clearly what was said downstairs though

2. Any attorneys in the forum? Seems if a lawyer knew Andrew had a legal document/documents upon coming home and none were found...wouldn't they have at least a legal obligation to say "I won't disclose what was in it, but Andrew had some very important documents that morning"? That seems like a motive and withholding evidence is unethical in the law field...I defer to any lawyer though to answer.
3. Andrew was proud and stingy. I believe someone saw him pick up the lock, put it down, go back, and pick it up again. I would be willing to bet he wrapped it in some junk mail as to not be seen carrying it around town.

[camgarsky4]

Hi! My sabbatical only lasted one day!! Literally kept thinking about checking in on the forum the entire time, so apparently I have an addiction and really no interest in breaking it.

Couple of tidbits regarding if the lock was the wrapped up parcel that the witnesses describe.

James Mather Preliminary Hearing Cross Examination:
Q. You say he went to the window, and took something?
A. And old lock that was there, an old store lock.
Q. Was it an iron lock?
A. A Yale lock.
Q. Brass?
A. A brass bolt and brass springs inside.
Q. Did he wrap it up in anything?
A. No Sir, took it in his hands.
Q. Did he have anything else in his hand that you noticed at the time?
A. I did not notice.
Q. Did he carry that away with him?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did he have it in his hand when you last saw him?
A. Yes Sir.

Per Mather, Andrew was carrying the lock unwrapped as he walked up S. Main towards Spring St. He would be seen moments later by Ms. Gray, Kelly and Sullivan with a wrapped parcel.

Speaking of junk mail and an interesting factoid......in the late 1800's, direct marketing via postal service was in its infancy stage. Montgomery Wards had a single sheet catalog that was first mailed in 1872 and Sears Roebuck began mailing their famous catalog in 1888.

If in her bedroom and interested, could Lizzie hear voices from the Sitting Room?
This topic has been discussed extensively on the forum. Shelly mentioned that conversation could easily be heard if someone was in the upstairs landing. Voices might also be heard (if the eavesdropper was focused on overhearing) if the sitting room and bedroom windows were open.

[Reasonwhy]

Yes, you have shown with testimony that Andrew did not wrap the lock up before he “took” it. And I doubt Andrew was so fastidious he would have wrapped up a broken lock, anyway. He didn’t mind using slop pails, the barn privy, and the kitchen sink for cleaning his teeth, so why worry about germs (or even a little rust) from this lock? Of course, he might have wrapped it, even so. That does not exclude the possibility of him having other papers on him.

In a previous posting, years ago, someone had come up with the information that books published then were often in a compact 5” x 5” format. So, that could have been instead the something Mrs. Kelly saw. He could have put the lock into a pocket. But he could still have tucked a document inside his coat or vest pocket, along with (any other?) paper mail.

And, Lizzie had arguably shown a propensity to eavesdrop by positioning the head of her bed so near to the keyhole of the door she shared with the elders. I’m thinking she found a way to listen in on Wednesday’s afternoon and evening conversations!

[camgarsky4]

All this information seems to indicate that Andrew brought home paperwork that he continually read from the time he arrived home to when he was killed. No paperwork was recorded being found with or near the body.

We also have police testimony of burnt paper embers in the stove. The paper must have been placed in the stove recently or the embers would not have maintained any shape.

So three plausible interpretations:
1) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, walked to the kitchen, tossed the paperwork into the stove and laid down on the sofa. Killed seconds later.
2) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer put the paperwork in the stove.
3) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer took the paperwork and placed elsewhere. The embers in the stove were not paperwork, just looked like it.

Any other high probability scenarios?

[PossumPie]

All this information seems to indicate that Andrew brought home paperwork that he continually read from the time he arrived home to when he was killed. No paperwork was recorded being found with or near the body.

We also have police testimony of burnt paper embers in the stove. The paper must have been placed in the stove recently or the embers would not have maintained any shape.

So three plausible interpretations:
1) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, walked to the kitchen, tossed the paperwork into the stove and laid down on the sofa. Killed seconds later.
2) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer put the paperwork in the stove.
3) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer took the paperwork and placed elsewhere. The embers in the stove were not paperwork, just looked like it.

Any other high probability scenarios?

Welcome back camgarsky4! Your input and research is invaluable to the forum so it is to all of our benefit that your "addiction" brought you back.

Your scenarios are logical, I have something else to throw in here: WHERE IS THE LOCK? He had it, but it was not mentioned in any of the documents as being there after his death...I can see NO reason the killer would have taken the lock. The only logical thing that I can think of is he threw it away before returning home. BUT his miserly ways would have pushed him to hang on to it as it may be wasteful to throw it away.

[Reasonwhy]

I quite like your #2 scenario, Camgarsky. That being said, here’s a further scenario—and it’s a bit off the wall:

What if Andrew lay down his reading material somewhere in plain sight, spread out somewhere in the sitting room, or unfolded on the dining room table. Maybe he was more alarmed by Abby’s cry to Dr. Bowen of poison than we know. Maybe he wanted Lizzie to see what he’d been reading. Perhaps it was meant to serve as a warning to Lizzie.

Recall, this is the same Andrew who placed the key to either his room or his safe (Bridget seems to indicate both in different testimonies) on the sitting room mantel shelf after the burglary of the house—one year prior. Bridget referred to that as “his shelf,” so I doubt the key was placed there so Abbey had access to it. Andrew may have been signaling that he knew Lizzie was responsible, and he would be watching for any further thieving in his home.

And this is the same Andrew who twisted the heads off of some, and hatcheted other, pigeons who may have been Lizzie’s pets—just three months’ prior. And brought them into the house. For Lizzie to see?

With each action, Andrew would have been upping the ante of implied threat to try to force Lizzie back into proper behavior. Escalation between two strong-willed people, so much alike, and each determined to get his/her way. Lizzie, if the culprit, moved beyond threat—and “won.”

The pattern was there…

[PossumPie]

I quite like your #2 scenario, Camgarsky. That being said, here’s a further scenario—and it’s a bit off the wall:

What if Andrew lay down his reading material somewhere in plain sight, spread out somewhere in the sitting room, or unfolded on the dining room table. Maybe he wanted Lizzie to see it. Perhaps it was meant to serve as a warning to Lizzie.

Recall, this is the same Andrew who placed the key to either his room or his safe (Bridget seems to indicate both in different testimonies) on the sitting room mantel shelf after the burglary of the house—one year prior. Bridget referred to that as “his shelf,” so I doubt it was placed there so Abbey had access to it. Andrew may have been signaling that he knew Lizzie was responsible, and he would be watching for any further thieving in his home.

And this is the same Andrew who twisted the heads off of some, and hatcheted other, pigeons who may have been Lizzie’s pets—just three months’ prior. And brought them into the house. For Lizzie to see?

With each action, Andrew would have been upping the ante of implied threat to try to force Lizzie to back into proper behavior. Escalation between two strong-willed people, so much alike, and each determined to get their way. Lizzie, if the culprit, moved beyond threat—and “won.”

The pattern was there…

Interesting, but remember this key fact: Abby was killed before Andrew did anything. He hadn't returned, antagonized, or brought anything home. THe seeds of killing them were planted before Andrew's return. Lizzie had determined, planned, and acted on murdering them both before he returned.

[Reasonwhy]

Possum, I did mention this possibility, which could tie the two killings together:

“(I’ll again mention the possibility that notifying Abby of the time and bank to meet Andrew at that morning could have been the purpose of a note, which Lizzie intercepted that morning, causing her to become enraged—just a possibility).”

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- do you recall where it is documented that Abby was writing up a list of Andrew's holdings? In my memory bank I think it was actual testimony, but maybe it was 'just' a newspaper article.

[Reasonwhy]

Camgarsky, know you asked Kat, but hope it’s okay that I answer…

Harry posted April 22, 2009:

The news items I referred to above was from the Boston Globe. Apparently the original story came from the Fall River Globe (February 17th, 1893). Rebello has this on page 135:

"The [Fall River Daily] Globe reported on the existence of a list of financial holdings supposedly written by Abby or possibly dictated by Andrew Borden. The list reportedly contained some $80,000 worth of stock in the Troy Mill, the Merchants Mfg., and other local ventures. The [Fall River Daily] Globe implied that money was at some point discussed in the Borden home. The Fall River Evening News quickly responded the next day to the [Fall River Daily] Globe report. The 'memorandum was not of Mrs. Borden's holdings, but some of Mr. Borden's personal property, and Mrs. Borden died possessing none of the stocks referred to.' The [Fall River] Evening News reported that the list was written in 1891 and "That it is not improbable that Mr. Borden dictated this memorandum, that he intended to leave these stocks to his wife, that it certainly suggests that the money in question was discussed occasionally in the household is purest assumption. There is nothing to show, if we are rightfully informed, that Mr. Borden or his daughters had any knowledge that such a list was kept by Mrs. Borden ..."

[Reasonwhy]

The topic in which I found Harry’s post was “Jeffery’s Theory.” I need to read the whole thing, but in skimming I’m seeing much you in particular might be interested in, Camgarsky.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for finding that article!

I know I have a more liberal view of the usage of articles to buttress theories, but I do lean into articles with direct quotes or, as in this case, multiple papers reporting essentially the same storyline.

The way I interpret the Evening News swift story follow up with corrections and added 'non shock value' details, I would lean towards the EN article for tighter accuracy. Now I need to find the full articles to better look for nuances in the comparisons and will the full articles provide anything more of use.

[PossumPie]

Possum, I did mention this possibility, which could tie the two killings together:

“(I’ll again mention the possibility that notifying Abby of the time and bank to meet Andrew at that morning could have been the purpose of a note, which Lizzie intercepted that morning, causing her to become enraged—just a possibility).”

This is indeed intriguing. How could it be explained that Andrew came home and just lay down for a nap if he knew that a note had been delivered to Abby and she never showed up? Wouldn't he come home and immediately try to find out what happened to her? Even if Lizzie had told him that Abby had gotten a note and gone out to see a sick friend, Andrew would know that Abby may have fibbed about the friend so as not to tell Lizzie the real reason for going out.

[Reasonwhy]

That is the sticking point in the possibility. But Andrew might have decided to wait her out for a few minutes while he napped briefly. He may have thought she went to the wrong bank or office, or otherwise misunderstood the note so that they just missed each other, time-wise, and that she would walk in the door any minute.

[Kat]

Thanks for finding that article!

I know I have a more liberal view of the usage of articles to buttress theories, but I do lean into articles with direct quotes or, as in this case, multiple papers reporting essentially the same storyline.

The way I interpret the Evening News swift story follow up with corrections and added 'non shock value' details, I would lean towards the EN article for tighter accuracy. Now I need to find the full articles to better look for nuances in the comparisons and will the full articles provide anything more of use.

The Boston Globe, Saturday, February 18, 1893 – 4

IN MRS. BORDEN’S POCKET.

Bit of Paper Found Which
May Be Important.
Memorandum That Shows Her Interest
in Mr. Borden’s Property.

Contains List of His Investments in
Local Enterprises.

FALL RIVER, Mass., Feb. 17. – Shortly after the murders at the Borden house the wearing apparel and other personal effects of Mrs. Borden were turned over by the stepdaughters to her immediate heirs.
In the pocket of one of the garments a paper was found which is regarded as a significant piece of testimony. The details are set forth in the following, published here in the Globe today:
“Much has been said about the unpleasantness in the family, which arose when Mr. Borden purchased and gave to his wife a half-interest in a small house which was once owned by her father, and it has been maintained that the trifling sum which was paid for the property in question ought not to have caused an estrangement between Miss Lizzie and her stepmother, and that the quarrel which took place was occasioned by some discussion regarding the division of the entire estate.
“Whether the assumption is correct or not may never be known, but there is evidence in existence which gives some color to the suspicion. It is reported that among Mrs. Borden’s effects a memorandum has been found which suggests that at some time or other she was more directly interested in her husband’s property than has been generally supposed. A list, written by her, of some $80,000 worth of stocks in the Troy mill, the Merchants’ Manufacturing Company and other first-class corporations, has been discovered, and that her attention was called to it at a comparatively recent date is proved by the fact that she wrote the word ‘sold’ opposite a certain number of shares in the Globe Street railway company.
“Whether this memorandum was dictated by Mr. Borden is not known, but it is not improbable that he contemplated giving his wife these stocks as her portion of his property, leaving the real estate to be divided between the daughters.
“The list contains substantially a record of all of Mr. Borden’s investments in local ventures. It may or may not have any significance, but it certainly suggests that the money question was discussed occasionally in the household.”
________________________________________________________________________

[camgarsky4]

Thanks Kat! Do you happen to know if the Boston Globe and the Fall River Globe were sister newspapers (i.e. same ownership group)?

[camgarsky4]

Apparently 1892 was a big year in Fall River outside of the Borden killings.

Three Fall River newspapers combined in 1892 to form The Herald News. The Fall River News, founded in 1845; the Fall River Daily Herald, 1872, and the Fall River Daily Globe, 1885.

Source: Wikipedia

[Kat]

Thanks Kat! Do you happen to know if the Boston Globe and the Fall River Globe were sister newspapers (i.e. same ownership group)?

No, sorry, that was Harry's purview.

[Kat]

Apparently 1892 was a big year in Fall River outside of the Borden killings.

Three Fall River newspapers combined in 1892 to form The Herald News. The Fall River News, founded in 1845; the Fall River Daily Herald, 1872, and the Fall River Daily Globe, 1885.

Source: Wikipedia

We also have the Fall River Evening News and The Fall River Weekly News.

[camgarsky4]

Extract from Reason post above:
What if Andrew lay down his reading material somewhere in plain sight, spread out somewhere in the sitting room, or unfolded on the dining room table. Maybe he was more alarmed by Abby’s cry to Dr. Bowen of poison than we know. Maybe he wanted Lizzie to see what he’d been reading. Perhaps it was meant to serve as a warning to Lizzie.

Reason -- I really appreciate that you post ideas that make us think deeper upon our existing beliefs on this case. Keep 'em coming!

I carefully thought thru your idea pasted above and, at this point, don't think what you describe occurred. When I try to 'relive' the Borden episodes, context is always key to what I think occurred.

For example, I believe Lizzie had a Plan for August 4th, but the timing was dramatically thrown off after she learned of Morse's impending arrival for dinner and subsequently having zero idea when he would then leave the house. So all her actions after her brief dining room conversation with Andrew were a frantic mix of original Plan and ad hoc decision making. That is the context I apply when considering the Crowe barn hatchet being the weapon and why I seem to find it more viable than others.

When evaluating Andrews actions and interactions during his walk and upon arriving home, there are multiple clues that Andrew was feeling VERY poorly as he arrived home, so much so that he was extremely absent minded and likely unfocused (I've listed these illness indicators earlier on this thread). With that setting, I can't imagine Andrew attempting any mind tricks on Lizzie. It is very possible that he was actually regretting inviting Morse to stop by.....I think Morse's upcoming arrival is why Andrew came back down from his bedroom and why he didn't dress down at all despite not feeling spunky.

[PossumPie]

Extract from Reason post above:
What if Andrew lay down his reading material somewhere in plain sight, spread out somewhere in the sitting room, or unfolded on the dining room table. Maybe he was more alarmed by Abby’s cry to Dr. Bowen of poison than we know. Maybe he wanted Lizzie to see what he’d been reading. Perhaps it was meant to serve as a warning to Lizzie.

Reason -- I really appreciate that you post ideas that make us think deeper upon our existing beliefs on this case. Keep 'em coming!

I carefully thought thru your idea pasted above and, at this point, don't think what you describe occurred. When I try to 'relive' the Borden episodes, context is always key to what I think occurred.

For example, I believe Lizzie had a Plan for August 4th, but the timing was dramatically thrown off after she learned of Morse's impending arrival for dinner and subsequently having zero idea when he would then leave the house. So all her actions after her brief dining room conversation with Andrew were a frantic mix of original Plan and ad hoc decision making. That is the context I apply when considering the Crowe barn hatchet being the weapon and why I seem to find it more viable than others.

When evaluating Andrews actions and interactions during his walk and upon arriving home, there are multiple clues that Andrew was feeling VERY poorly as he arrived home, so much so that he was extremely absent minded and likely unfocused (I've listed these illness indicators earlier on this thread). With that setting, I can't imagine Andrew attempting any mind tricks on Lizzie. It is very possible that he was actually regretting inviting Morse to stop by.....I think Morse's upcoming arrival is why Andrew came back down from his bedroom and why he didn't dress down at all despite not feeling spunky.

Not sure how important this may be...but do we know if the Borden's had advanced notice that Morse was coming or did he just show up Wednesday unannounced? If he just showed up, or if Lizzie was unaware of his pending arrival then she would have indeed had any plan thrown off. If Lizzie did commit the murders, she had some cold nerve doing so one at a time and in a house where Bridget, Morse, or Andrew could see her. Imagine Morse knocking on the screen door while Lizzie was chopping her father!

[camgarsky4]

We sort of dropped this topic abruptly.

I think option 1 below is flawed. The amount of time between when Bridget saw Andrew reading in the sitting room by the window and when she went upstairs was likely around 5 minutes, give or take. After seeing Andrew, Bridget finished washing the two dining room windows and went to the kitchen to clean up her washing supplies. While in the kitchen, Lizzie had her couple of chats about shopping and then upstairs Bridget went.
The stove was in the kitchen, so if Andrew put the paper in the stove fire, he did it in the minute or two that Bridget was in the dining room. I don't believe Andrew took the time to sit down to read something and within seconds hopped and scurried to the kitchen to burn it.

Option 3 could work, but what were the embers? The kitchen stove fire was mere feet from where Andrew was seen reading something minutes before being killed. That does not compute.

Unless a better explanation surfaces, I believe firmly that the paper embers Harrington saw in the stove fire (within 1 hour of murder) were the same as the papers Bridget saw Andrew reading in the sitting room minutes before being killed.
============================================
So three plausible interpretations:
1) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, walked to the kitchen, tossed the paperwork into the stove and laid down on the sofa. Killed seconds later.
2) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer put the paperwork in the stove.
3) Andrew was reading in the sitting room chair, got up from the chair, laid down on the sofa and continued to read the paperwork or place it down near himself. Killed seconds later. Killer took the paperwork and placed elsewhere. The embers in the stove were not paperwork, just looked like it.

[Reasonwhy]

Option two makes the most sense to me, too. Andrew wasn’t feeling well, another reason for not hopping up to burn what may even have been unimportant papers quickly. On that day, burned papers smell like important papers.