Was Lizzie A Thief?

[Kat]

To me, this is as tough to decide, as whether she murdered! If Lizzie was innocent, then charges throughout her life of being a thief are just extra humiliation and damaging to her reputation.
I looked through several newspapers, just based on the robbery of the house at Second Street the previous year, 1891.
I am posting 3 transcriptions, and purposely leaving out The Boston Globe which had such terrible coverage I don't wish to expose anyone to it!
I'd never read the Fall River Globe's story!
And please be aware that what looks like testimony in The Evening Standard, may be paraphrasing made to look and read like "testimony." If anyone wants to verify this, please do!
There is probably more to collect, like from Knowlton Papers, and I think The Proceedings book was mentioned? You're welcome to add these, of course.
Then after gathering, maybe we can form a somewhat informed (rather than inflamed*) opinion.
[*Inflamed, because to me, this is a really touchy subject, believe it or not, for the reasons I stated]
And please also take into account these are newspaper renderings; the reporters are paid professionals to write something, and not necessarily the truth...

"Robbery"-Boston Globe-NO GOOD
-----------------

"Robbery"
Evening Standard
Saturday, September 24, 1892 Page 2

SHERIFF WRIGHT DISGUSTED......

.....Here is one thing that the newspaper men who were on the spot have never taken up, and why they haven't is a mystery. When Bridget Sullivan was on the stand she was subjected to a severe examination by Mr. Adams in regard to that last night at "Harrington's." The examination ran along something like this, after having fixed the time of her going home:
Question--- Did anybody go home with you that night?
Answer--- No, I went alone.
Q. Usually go home alone?
A. Not always.
Q. But you did go home alone that night?
A. I did.
Q. How did you go home, walk or ride?
A. I walked.
Q. Walked all the way?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't ride in the cars?
A. No.
Q. When you got home who was there?
A. The family.
Q. All of the family?
A. Yes.
Q. There had been a robbery at the house about a year before?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was the family then?
A. At home.
Q. All of them?
A. Yes.
Q. And something was taken out of the barn, too?
A. Yes.
Q. See anybody around at the time the robbery was committed?
A. No.

About this time lawyer Jennings pulled the coattail of Mr. Adams and there was a whispered conference. The district attorney winked at Marshal Hilliard and the marshal smiled. The robbery business was dropped by Mr. Adams, after that conference with Mr. Jennings, like a shot. Why? Well, that's for some bright newspaper man to find out. And it wasn't once alluded to by Mr. Jennings in his argument except in a general way, when he referred to the police knowing that the house had been burglarized when nobody in the house knew of the circumstances. Yes, the police did know that the house was burglarized, and they knew that some money and a watch had been missing after the burglary. And the police know something more, without a doubt. They know why the case wasn't followed, but it is questioned by those who ought to know if the police have found out yet just what the whole results of that robbery was, and how many articles disappeared besides the money and watch. It would not be surprising if it came out before this thing ended that the Bordens themselves stopped the police inquiry into that robbery, and it may be that Marshal Hilliard is backed up in his opinion of what course to take because in possession of certain facts which lead him to believe the worst of Lizzie Borden. It is hinted strongly that there were things taken from that house that an ordinary thief would have no use for, and that the money and watch was simply taken as a blind to throw Mr. Borden off the track. And when the real object of the thief was discovered proceedings were stopped and a family scandal checked right there. This is the theory of one or two who have been following the case pretty closely and who are well acquainted with all the parties interested.
----------------------

"Robbery"
Sourcebook
pg39
MYSTERIOUS ROBBERY.

And Its Relation To The Killing
Of The Bordens.

Much has been heard about a mysterious robbery which took place at the Borden house about a year ago. Detectives were put on the search, but they could never find any trace of the missing articles. This case is recalled at present as indicating that somebody had before visited the house very mysteriously, perpetrated a crime and departed
The robbery was done June 24 of last year. How the entrance was effected is not known. The only article in the house that was disturbed was a small desk belonging to Andrew J. Borden. This was rummaged through and through. A lady's gold watch with a chain and locket, a bunch of horse car tickets and a small sum of money were stolen.
Mr. Borden was in Swansey at the time, but when he learned about the break he hastened to inform the local police. Capt. Desmond, then inspector of the department, was detailed to look after the stolen articles. He made a long search, but could find no trace of the missing valuables.
--------------------------

"Robbery"
Fall River Globe
The Fall River Daily Globe, Saturday, August 20, 1892, 8

“FREE RIDES.
The Kindness of An Alderman Recalled
By the Borden Murders.
The murder of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Borden has brought to light the fact that
several months ago the Borden house was robbed of about $100 in cash, an old watch and
a lot of horse car tickets. Two police officers were detailed to work up the case. They
concluded that the burglar would use the car tickets and in order to apprehend the villain
they notified every horsecar conductor in town to be on the lookout for complimentary
tickets.
Those taken from the Borden house were the blue tickets known as "directors'
complimentary tickets" and they were at about the same time furnished to the members of
the Board of Aldermen. The conductors from experience knew all the directors and the
aldermen, and a course when one of those gentleman surrendered a blue ticket there was
no questions asked. At regular intervals the policemen would meet the conductors and
get reports.
It was surprising how many people were riding on blue tickets. And still more
surprising the kind of people who were sporting directors' tickets. The police soon
discovered that about every good-looking girl they met was a director in the Globe Street
Railway, at least they rode on a blue ticket. For a time this puzzled their brain more than
the mysterious robbery at the Borden house.
The directors were seen and they denied having furnished passes to the goodlooking
girls and mentioned the fact that possibly the Board of Aldermen would explain.
The police couldn't for a moment think of asking a city father what disposition he made
of his non-transferable blue tickets. It would have been impertinent and they didn't want
to incur the ill will of the board.
They got at the bottom of the affair however by visiting two very pretty all night
French girls who at the time lived on Fourth street. Each of the beauties had a pocketful
of blue tickets and they had used them so often that the conductors on the Hartwell street
line concluded that they had a "pull" somewhere and finally the girl's rode without being
questioned.
The policemen accused them of getting the tickets by favor of a certain alderman
and they acknowledged the soft impeachment. The mystery of the tickets was solved, but
the robber of the Borden house is yet unpunished.
"What alderman was it?" you say.
Well, guess.”
----------------------

[Kat]

Topic note by Harry! It's not the daytime robbery, but includes damage to Lizzies reputation, by Mrs Gifford. I'm getting a little ahead of our topic, plz excuse.

[PossumPie]

Thank you so much Kat! Even though Harry's anecdote is "hearsay", the fact that it was the daughter of the shop owner gives it more weight than idle gossip.

Lincoln in "Private Disgrace" (p51) states that Mr. Borden asked the police 3 times to drop the case and stated that they would never find the real thief.

Rebello has this quote:

"Chief Hilliard [allegedly] told the members of the grand jury why it was the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs. Borden's watch ...The chief said he was satisfied that Lizzie committed the theft, and went on to say how he convinced Mr. Borden that such was the case. All the articles stolen at that time were the property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie had never any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation. A number of such points were brought before the grand jury which never before made public, and they added much strength to the case. ...,” New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892: 4. Rebello, L., (1999). Lizzie Borden, Past & Present

The burglary has all of the marks of someone acquainted with the house, NOT a stranger. Stranger burglaries when people are home are exceedingly rare. Here is a post I made years ago:

Generally, home burglaries by strangers are opportunistic. Knock on the door, if someone answers, pretend to be lost, etc. If no one answers, break in grab the obvious stuff, get out. They are much more common in the rural area where no one will see them coming and going.
The other type of burglary is one where it is someone who is friends/family. They are familiar with the house, know where valuable stuff is, and go right for it. Other areas are NOT torn apart, they know nothing is there. Generally, it is easy to tell the difference. The Borden case certainly looks like an "inside job". The silverware wasn't snatched from the dining room, valuable to a stranger. The target of the burglar was obviously Mr. and Mrs. Borden, as no other room was bothered.
Generally, people think it was Lizzie, which makes sense. Rumor has it that when the tickets were traced, everyone said Lizzie gave them to them. Andrew quietly dropped the whole matter and locked their bedroom door from then on.
As to why Passive-aggressive act I'd imagine. Like an angry puppy will poop on the floor, Lizzie probably was upset over something with Mrs. Borden, and wanted to scare her...after all one of the most vulnerable feelings in the world is to believe a stranger was in your bedroom rooting through your stuff.

Curryong had a great theory that Lizzie used the burglary to cover up looking for Andrew's will. Breaking into his desk and rummaging his papers.

[Kat]

Well, here is that theory, in the Fall River Daily Herald

The Fall River Daily Herald, Tuesday, August 9, 1892

INQUEST BEGUN.
.......
....MYSTERIOUS ROBBERY.

And Its Relation To The Killing
Of The Bordens.

Much has been heard about a mysterious robbery which took place at the Borden house about a year ago. Detectives were put on the search, but they could never find any trace of the missing articles. This case is recalled at present as indicating that somebody had before visited the house very mysteriously, perpetrated a crime and departed
The robbery was done June 24 of last year. How the entrance was effected is not known. The only article in the house that was disturbed was a small desk belonging to Andrew J. Borden. This was rummaged through and through. A lady's gold watch with a chain and locket, a bunch of horse car tickets and a small sum of money were stolen.
Mr. Borden was in Swansey at the time, but when he learned about the break he hastened to inform the local police. Capt. Desmond, then inspector of the department, was detailed to look after the stolen articles. He made a long search, but could find no trace of the missing valuables.
The peculiarity about the robbery was that the only thing disturbed was Mr. Borden's desk in his room on the second floor of the building. The thief evidently knew the way around the house, and the breaking open of the desk where a man might be believed to have kept his private papers was significant. Mr. Jennings, who is steering Supt. Hanscom in his efforts in behalf of the Borden family, was asked about the robbery today, but he said he could not say a word about that.

[Kat]

I was wondering if the interior and exterior of the house and barn were kept locked up after the robbery? Do we know anything about before?
Also, these reports differ. Some say they were all at home when the robbery occurred, and others say the senior Bordens were away.
And who is "The Alderman?"

[Reasonwhy]

At one point Bridget says she was gone, too—can’t remember whether this may be the Preliminary Hearing? If no one else knows off-hand, I will look tonight or tomorrow. It really surprised me when I saw that. I do believe it may be in testimony.

[Kat]

And why wouldn't Lizzie claim the murders were due to a robbery, if some think the robbery of June 1891 was a sort of "rehearsal?"

The same newspaper published this also, supposedly quoting Lizzie:

The Fall River Daily Herald, Saturday, August 6, 1892

NO CLEARER!

"'Did you go and look for your stepmother?' I asked. 'Who found her?' But she did not reply. I pressed her for some idea of the motive and the author of the act, and after she had thought a moment, she said, calmly: 'A year ago last spring our house was broken into while father and mother were at Swansey, and a large amount of money stolen, together with diamonds. You never heard of it because father did not want it mentioned, so as to give the detectives a chance to recover the property. That may have some connection with the murder. Then I have seen strange men around the house. A few months ago I was coming through the back yard, and, as I approached the side door, I saw a man there examining the door and premises. I did not mention it to anyone. The other day I saw the same man hanging about the house, evidently watching us. I became frightened and told my parents about it. I also wrote to my sister at Fairhaven about it.' Miss Borden then gave it as her opinion that the strange man had a direct connection with the murder, but she could not see why the house was not robbed, and did not know of anyone who would desire revenge upon her father."

[Kat]

Whenever I read a source cited that states The Grand Jury said this or that... I cringe. Grand Jury's are Secret.

[wall59]

Alice Russell trial testimony

"Well,” she says, “they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there."

Alice testified that Lizzie told her the above.

[PossumPie]

A break in in broad daylight with three women at home going in, out, up, and down...Possible but Not likely. Just doesn't seem plausible. You break in when nobody's home, or the middle of the night if you have real guts...but in the middle of the day with three women home?????

[wall59]

The rest of Alice's testimony on the break-in

And I said, “I never heard of that before.” And she said, “Father forbade our telling it.” So I asked her about it, and she said it was in Mrs. Borden’s room, what she called her dressing room. She said her things were ransacked, and they took a watch and chain and money and car tickets, and something else that I can’t remember. And there was a nail left in the keyhole; she didn’t know why that was left; whether they got in with it or what. I asked her if her father did anything about it, and she said he gave it to the police, but they didn’t find out anything; and she said father expected that they would catch the thief by the tickes. She remarked, “Just as if anybody would use those tickets.”

[PossumPie]

The something else had no monetary value but sentimental value...A purse with a lock of hair in it. Possibly Sarah's

[Kat]

I thought the lock of hair was special to Abbie? Can we verify that, plz?

And thanks wall59 for Alice at Trial.

Here is Desmond's report in The Knowlton Papers:

HK067
Letter, typewritten, with enclosure handwritten in ink.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.
New Bedford, Mass., Sept. 9, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Dear Sir,
The enclosed reports gives all the facts the police had in regard
to the burglary. It certainly lends some additional mystery to the case.
Please keep it among the papers.
If you see Wood ask him if he thinks there would be any use in
now examining a gossamer which was found in the closet with no appar-
ent stains upon it, whether it could be easily cleaned so that blood could
not be found anywhere upon it.
What has become of the fifth hatchet?
Yours truly,

H. M. Knowlton,
per M. E.

Enclosure:

On or about the 24 of June 1891 I Was called into City Marshal's office.
"Marshal Hilliard said "Mr Desmond, Mr Borden says his house has been
robbed. You go with him, and see what there is to it." Mr Borden and
myself left the office and went direct to Mr Borden's house Second St. I
found there Mrs Borden, Emma Borden Lizzie Borden & Bridget
Sullivan.
On 2nd floor in a small room on north side of house I found Mr Borden's
desk. It had been broken open. Mr Borden said "$80.00 in money and
25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H car tickets had been
taken. The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman."
Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co. Mrs. Borden
said "her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached,
some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book
containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much,
and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never
will." Nothing but the property of Mr & Mrs Borden reported as missing.
Page 75
The family was at a loss to see how any person could get in, and out with-
out somebody seeing them. Lizzie Borden said "the cellar door was open,
and someone might have come in that way." I visited all the adjoining
houses, including the Mrs Churchills house on the north, Dr Kelly's
house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon's house on the east,
and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person
who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr Borden's
house; but I failed to find any trace.
I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which "Lizzie Borden said she found in the
Key hole of door," leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of
building. So far as I know this robbery has never been solved.
P .S. Mr Borden told me three times within two weeks after the robbery in
these words "I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief."

(Note: "Capt. Desmonde" [sic] and "Robbery Case" handwritten in lead and ink respectively on reverse side of document.)

[wall59]

Mrs. Borden said "her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken.

I doubt it was Sarah's pocketbook or hair.

[wall59]

Does anybody know when Desmond's report was actually written?

[Kat]

Good question: found this...partial

[Kat]

Here is a partial quote from Proceedings which was referred to:

The Legend 100 years after the crime- A conferences. The LizzieBorden case-Proceedings, Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA, August 3-5, 1992, Editor Jules R. Ryckebusch.

"The World Owed Her: Lizzie Borden's Shoplifting," by Joyce G. Williams, Ph.D,
Pg 73+
Excerpt
"Next to murder I find shoplifting to be the most interesting of crimes. Lizzie Borden was a shoplifter.

This has not been recorded in every book, though Agnes de Mille notes it's occurrence, but more importantly, my impeccable sources In Fall River have testified to its veracity. What exactly Lizzie took is not a matter of record, or for that matter, real importance. What matters is that Lizzie shoplifted through her entire life...before the murders, and later when she lived at Maplecroft.

Psychologists have many theories about shoplifting. Curiously, many of the motivations ascribed to shoplifters parallel those of the murderer: a seeking of revenge at real or imaginary injustice at the hands of a parent or parents; feelings of deprivation- lack of love, of money, of material goods; the development of a poor self image because of real or imaginary parental rejection. ....

...One of my friends from Fall River said she had shoplifted all her life and that when notified, her father simply paid the bills. This friend also stated that she thought Lizzie did it to get attention from her father. This is surely a simple, but compelling rationale. In keeping with the times, however, some storekeepers felt sorry for her because Andrew Borden was a tyrant and not a man with whom you could have a discussion. If his difficult daughter was a kleptomaniac it was easier all around to take the money when he offered it and keep quiet."...

...After the murders, finally home on the Hill, Lizzie shoplifted two pictures from a store in Providence in 1897. The owners said they would not prosecute if she signed a confession admitting the murders in 1892. It is a bizarre story, but one validated by Mr Thurber, the store owner who wrote me of its authenticity." ...

<<<Mrs Gifford, Mrs Eva Kelly Betz and Mrs Brigham (the daughter-in-law of Lizzie's friend) were those talking about Lizzie. But they were not of Lizzie's generation, right? I also was under the impression that the Thurber Williams corresponded with was the son of the original? Can anyone verify which Thurber?

[PossumPie]

FROM AN EARLIER THREAD BY MBHENTY:

Fall River Historical Society

2h ·
BREAKING NEWS: 128 YEARS LATER
The Daylight Robbery As Recalled By Emma L. Borden:
In recognition of the 128th Anniversary of the Borden murders, the FRHS is releasing this interesting tidbit of new information … the story continues to get curiouser and curiouser!
In 2011, two red leather notebooks were bequeathed to the FRHS; the volumes are extremely fragile. The first is a journal of defense team notes, with excerpts culled from interviews with various individuals conducted in 1892, recorded in preparation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden. The second is a collection of newspaper clippings, marked in ink with cross-references to the journal.
Time-consuming research and transcription in preparation for publication by the FRHS is ongoing.
The volumes descended in the family of Andrew Jackson Jennings (1849-1923) a prominent Fall River attorney and a member of the defense team for Lizzie Andrew Borden (1860-1927). Following Jennings’ death, they passed to his daughter, Mrs. Marion (Jennings) Waring (1887-1973), and then to her son, Edward Saunders Waring (1924-2011), who bequeathed them to the FRHS.
Following is an interview with Emma Leonora Borden (1851-1927) regarding a burglary that occurred at the Borden house on June 24, 1891. The text has been slightly edited for readability, as indicated in square brackets.
The Burglary at Borden House -
“$75 or 80 in money [and] some horse car tickets [was] the only thing of fathers [that was stolen,] – though his desk was ransacked. Good watch & chain, breast pin & earrings [of] plain Roman gold, no stones, shawl pin with ball at each end, & some other little things [that belonged to Mrs. Borden].
[The] first I knew of it I was sitting in front room. Heard father knock on door of my [bed]room – now Lizzies – he called me. I unlocked [the] door & went in – everything was thrown about. He said he found [the] door to hall open & [a] nail in [the] lock. Put it in hands of officers – asked us to say nothing about it. We talked about it.
remembered we were all shelling peas in [the] dining room in [the] morning, L[Izzie] & father & [my]self, with dining room [doors] shut.
Officer took up piece of chain [and] showed [it] to Mrs. B[orden, and she] said it did not look like hers.”
Why is this important?
The “daylight robbery” at the Borden house was brought up at the trial of Lizzie Borden as an example of an event where someone snuck into the home and left without anyone in the family, or neighborhood, knowing about it. Such a situation might work to Lizzie’s advantage as she claimed innocent of the charges and if true, someone came into the house that day and murdered two people without notice.
The report filed by Captain Dennis Desmond Jr. (1854-1926) and relayed to District Attorney Hosea Morrill Knowlton (1847-1902) in preparation for the trial relates details of this incident (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A Borden: The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1892, Fall River Historical Society, 1994, page 74-75, see below). This document is a bit at odds with Emma’s statement to Attorney Jennings above. Additionally, it is believed by some that Andrew and Abby had been at the farm in Swansea that day and only discovered the burglary upon their return home. Emma’s recollection differs in this regard, which could very well lead us to a different context for this crime, occurring the year before the murders.
Interesting? We think so.
Captain Desmond’s report.
The following is transcribed from the original document and has not been edited.
On or about the 24 of June 1891 I was called into City Marshal’s office. Marshal Hilliard said “Mr Desmond, Mr Borden says his house has been robbed. You go with him, and see what there is to it.” Mr Borden and myself left the office and went direct to Mr Borden’s house Second St. I found there Mrs Borden, Emma Borden Lizzie Borden & Bridget Sullivan.
On the 2nd floor in a small room on north side of house I found Mr Borden’s desk. It had been broken open. Mr Borden said “$80.00 in money with 25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H,car tickets had been taken. The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman.” Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co. Mrs. Borden said “her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much, and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never will.” Nothing but the property of Mr & Mrs Borden reported as missing.
The family was at a loss to see how any person could get in, and out without somebody seeing them. Lizzie Borden said “the cellar door was open, and someone might have come in that way.” I visited all the adjoining houses, including the Mrs Churchills house on the north, Dr Kelly’s house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon’s house on the east, who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr Borden’s house; but I failed to find any trace.
I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which “Lizzie Borden said she found in the Key hole of the door,” leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of building. So far as I know this robbery has never been solved.
P.S. Mr Borden told me three times withing two weeks after the robbery in these words “I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief.”
(Note: “Capt. Desmonde” and “Robbery Case” handwritten in lead and ink respectively on reverse side of document.)

[PossumPie]

Mrs. Borden said "her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken.

I doubt it was Sarah's pocketbook or hair.

Thanks for pointing that out. If it were Abby's purse the lock of hair was probably sentimental to her. Was it stolen without knowledge of the sentiment or because of it? Could point to a stranger or to Lizzie depending on the answer.

Curiously, none of the items ever turned up at pawn shops. I imagine the police would have notified them quickly to be on the lookout for a red purse, pocket watch, etc. They would have been hard to sell for a while. If Lizzie DID take them, what did she do with them? Were they in the house when the police ransacked it after the murders?

[camgarsky4]

I’m in the “Curryong” camp on this.

Opinion:
Lizzie, and also perhaps Emma, were trying to find anything that would tell them what their father was up to regarding his estate planning. I suspect Emma was involved in the damage/theft, acting as look out for Lizzie. I imagine Emma always taking the more passive role.

This is a clear signal that the family dynamic was full-on toxic at least a year before the killings. Once they had to bust the drawer open, they grabbed a few items to indicate burglary. Either tossed the items or they went into Lizzies hiding place in the house (if Crowe hatchet not murder weapon) and tossed/gave away later.

I believe the jenning journal will provide a slightly different different version of the events from Emma’s perspective.

[Kat]

I knew about this statement by Emma, but did not know it was posted, so I stayed away from it, thinking it was to be saved for publishing.

Anyway, found a discussion which includes my favorite Harry, but he is not responding to the preceding item by MB. Just adding another bit to robbery story...implicating Bridget...but I revert to a theory as to possibly why desk was rifiled.

[Kat]

I think it was brought up that there had been other robberies, maybe under the "key" topic?
Here is a previous page posting provided from Rebello. (I'm taking screen shots so I don't have to type so much...)

[Kat]

Witness Statements
Sept 25, 1892
Mrs. Jane Grey, No. 215 Second street. “Dr. Bowen’s character is al least suspicious. Four years ago, while the Borden family were summering over the river on the farm, Lizzie remained at home. One Sunday evening during this time, she and Dr. Bowen came to church together, and sat in the Borden seat. I myself saw them this evening. At the time, and since, there was much comment on this act. Some remarked how courageous she was to remain in the house alone; but others replied in a knowing way, perhaps she has very acceptable company.
About the robbery, I think Mrs. Fish, or her daughter in law of Hartford knows more or less about it, if they wish to tell.

(Harrington & Doherty)

[camgarsky4]

kat, perhaps the purpose of accessing the desk drawer was simply to gain knowledge or confirm suspicions of impending changes to estate planning and not necessarily to steal anything. They might not even have known what they were exactly looking for. Perhaps this wasn’t the first time they snooped into the desk drawer. But this time forcing the drawer open led to busting it. At that point panic set in and Lizzie went into ‘stage director’ mode by snatching a few items, offering up the ‘nail as a lock pick’ and mentioned the open cellar door, all to indicate an outside burglar.

[camgarsky4]

Sorry for the back to back posts, but I just reread the advance excerpt from the soon to be published Jennings Journal that Possum posted above.

I'm not sure Emma's version (recalled almost 16 months after the fact) contradicts Desmond's report. If Andrew and Abby got back from Swansea the evening of the burglary and that is when he knocked on Emma's door. And Andrew fetched the police and the family was shucking the peas both the following morning, then do the stories clash? It actually flows pretty well to me.

If there was no sense of imminent danger to the family, it makes total sense that Andrew would not go to police until the next morning, especially if he and Abby got back home late in the evening.

[PossumPie]

double post

[PossumPie]

Sorry for the back to back posts, but I just reread the advance excerpt from the soon to be published Jennings Journal that Possum posted above.

I'm not sure Emma's version (recalled almost 16 months after the fact) contradicts Desmond's report. If Andrew and Abby got back from Swansea the evening of the burglary and that is when he knocked on Emma's door. And Andrew fetched the police and the family was shucking the peas both the following morning, then do the stories clash? It actually flows pretty well to me.

If there was no sense of imminent danger to the family, it makes total sense that Andrew would not go to police until the next morning, especially if he and Abby got back home late in the evening.

Enough supporting evidence is around that Mr. and Mrs. Borden were away the day of the robbery that Emma's version must either be misremembered or misinterpreted as Camgarsky4 points out. SO much of actual direct quotes by principles in this mystery of Lizzie Borden are frustratingly vague, short, or confusing. Apparently, no New Englander from the 1890s knew how to give an account of an incident from start to finish without muddling it up or needing much prodding.
It would be like:
"grandpa, tell me about the September 11th attacks"
"I was sitting shelling peas"
"Ok, grandpa, but what happened?"
"my father was there. Smoke, I remember Smoke."
"grandpa, smoke from what?"
"It was sunny that day, the smoke was from something burning."
Geez, just tell us Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. I think the main reason this case is still discussed is that it is a Rorschach ink blot test. Just enough vague pieces of information are available so that everyone who studies it can find their own interpretation and back it up well. it's just vague enough that we can run wild with theories ad nauseum.

In conducting more research into the burglary and later life theft of paintings, I stumbled across a long and VERY well written article in "The Hatchet"
Here is a link since it is much too long to paste here.
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... ident.html

[Reasonwhy]

The statements of #1, Mrs. Gifford, cited above in this thread, that Lizzie had to be constantly watched while in their store, and of #2, Jenning’s grandson, contained in Sherry Chapman’s article in The Hatchet, cited above by Possum, that Lizzie was a kleptomaniac, convince me that Lizzie stole:

1. “Mrs. Gifford, Miss Winslow's successor at the Fall River Historical Society, told me that whenever Miss Borden entered her husband's jewelry store it was understood she was never to be left alone for a minute with any of the merchandise. Even so, she was able to filch items from time to time. They were added without comment to her bill and she paid without remonstrance, performing a neat act of oblivion.'”

2. “In Rebello, we find a segment of an article from 1992, where Mr. Edward Jennings, the grandson of Andrew J. Jennings, commented for the Brockton Sunday Advertiser. Mr. Jennings had this to say about Lizzie’s rumored penchant for taking things that didn’t belong to her: “Lizzie was a chronic shoplifter. Several years ago after the trial, she was caught shoplifting in Providence. My grandfather got her off, then came home and said, ‘I will have nothing to do with that woman.’”

Mrs. Gifford was a direct witness to Lizzie’s behavior in her store.

Edward Jennings was in possession of the hip-bath materials, which may contain written evidence of what he asserts. As Jennings’ grandson, he was also in a good position to have heard these matters discussed within his family.

The house robbery represents a different kind of theft. I think it was mainly a fishing expedition for information about Andrew’s financial plans, but it served other functions, too:
—to harass and frighten Abbey
—to put Andrew into a situation in which he was not in control (“How do you like that, Papa?”)
—to create a prequel criminal act before the murders, making successful entry by an unknown assailant look more plausible

To me, Andrew calling off the investigation shows he suspected Lizzie; why else end it? Moreover, his telling police he did not think they would find the real thief mirrors his remarks about ‘trouble at home’ a week before the murders. They are uncharacteristically open for Andrew. To me, they are revealing. He is in a life-or death power struggle with Lizzie, and doesn’t quite realize it. But he senses danger.

[Kat]

I'm glad you found that while researching, PossumPie. Eventually, it would have become part of this thread! Yes, an even-handed review of the Tilden -Thurber story, by our Sherry...and it was the son of Thurber, as I remembered, and not the original, and so was the story about Gifford's store (daughter-in-law), as well as a grandson of Jennings... Second generation, hearsay...minimum.
I would rather be confused about the possibility Lizzie stole, rather than adamantly believe these "stories"- I'm also very intrigued by the new info about the house robbery, and again am glad it is still questionable. I had no idea there were so many versions of the home robbery when this thread started. Thanks!

*Wow, we "passed each other in the night" reasonwhy, so to speak, and have opposing views!
I was composing the same time as you!

[Reasonwhy]

Kat, you are exceedingly fair-minded; I would want you on a jury considering my guilt! Truly you are upholding the standard of “innocent until proven guilty.” Bravo to you
Because it is hard to withhold judgment. You are showing real compassion.

In some ways I may be ‘settling’ for less than the whole story because of my pessimism that that we will ever know very much more. But I will eagerly greet new evidence, should it come to light. I’ve always considered myself an idealist, but you’ve got me beat on this one

[Reasonwhy]

Kat, partial post:
“… not the original, and so was the story about Gifford's store (daughter-in-law). Second generation, hearsay...”

Kat, I thought this was Mrs. Gifford herself. Thanks for correcting me. Still suggestive, but offspring are not the direct speakers, it’s true.

[Kat]

When I went back to read what Harry posted it said Mrs Gifford's husband, and that Mrs. Gifford told Agnes De Mille. Pardon me, I was thinking of Mrs Brigham, daughter-in-law of the original Mrs Brigham, sorry.
Do you look at that store tho, everything is behind glass cabinets.
Also see edit I made to my post you quoted. I had not read your second post when I edited.

[PossumPie]

I would rather be confused about the possibility Lizzie stole, rather than adamantly believe these "stories"- I'm also very intrigued by the new info about the house robbery, and again am glad it is still questionable. I had no idea there were so many versions of the home robbery when this thread started. Thanks!

Well put, Kat.

When I read a news story about her being a thief and think, "Maybe" then I read something else about another theft and think, "possibly" by the third or fourth incident, I'm thinking "probably" even though it is hearsay. While I will admit that all of these stories are hearsay, at some point "if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it may be a duck" I don't need the DNA to prove it. Is there enough hearsay to determine if Lizzie was a kleptomaniac? I just don't know.

A rumor CAN take on a life of its own until everyone believes it.
As a nurse, it used to drive me crazy when everyone saved pull-tabs for dialysis patients. Every break room and cafeteria during the 1990s early 2000s had a cup for pull tabs. I'd see doctors dropping their tabs into a cup and I'd say "doesn't this seem ridiculous that a few cents worth of aluminum can be changed for a $4,000 dialysis session?" Put that way they had to agree. It was taken for fact but...

NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION
"New York, NY (June 1, 1998) - A false rumor that has plagued the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the aluminum industry for decades has recently resurfaced, perhaps fueled by the Internet. Individuals and groups believe they can donate the pull tabs on aluminum cans in exchange for time on a kidney dialysis machine. Such a program has never existed through the NKF, nor have there ever been programs through the foundation allowing people to exchange any type of item (box tops, product points, etc.) for time on dialysis. "

[Kat]

Thanks for the input! I obviously wish to emphasize the generation gap...I don't know why...but here is more along those lines...(yea, the underlining is annoying, right? )
More from de Mille, Dance of Death. Turns out she had copious correspondence with Victoria Lincoln!
DeMille
Pg 6-7
...I resumed correspondence with my New England enthusiasts.

Among my informants was Eva Kelly Betz, the daughter of the Bordens' next-door neighbors. Mrs. Betz sent me contemporary articles, printed accounts by witnesses, and copious recollections of all she had heard as a child, the somber, curious, salty anecdotes of her parents' experiences.

Mrs. Dwight Jennings Waring, the daughter of the defense attorney, opened her house and her horrible archives. Mrs. Sylvia Knowlton Lewis, the daughter of the prosecutor, was clarifying, as was the novelist Esther Forbes, the daughter of a contemporary Massachusetts judge.
Victoria Lincoln talked to me and wrote at length.
And there were many others who, as children, had known Miss Lizzie, whose parents had known her extremely well.

......pg 26+
Mrs. Gifford, the present curator of the Fall River Historical Society, describes her expression as "not a pleasant one. Not a face you would voluntarily address." She was always neat and plainly but smartly dressed. She favored blue. During the grand jury hearings she wore a tip-tilted hat with cherry-colored ribbons, and when traveling a blue veil to conceal her face. During the trial,she rubbed her button boots across one another in nervousness. The shoes were shined each morning. She had had a good deal of dental work done and there was a gleam of gold when she smiled. She opened her mouth wide when she laughed, and her laugh was memorable---unexpected, mirthless, and very loud. At school it had unnerved her classmates. Jokes were one of the things she did not choose to share.

She was known in town for her "peculiar look." Eva Kelly Betz said, "I saw Lizzie a few times when I was young. She had dreadful eyes, colorless and soul-less like those of a snake." Another neighbor unkindly remarked she was certain the lids came up from the bottom. She was given to staring; old women still remember how frightened they were as children, even though at first ignorant of her identity, whenever that face appeared with its peculiar unexplained look staring outside windows of stores or stations. It was her eyes, they said, the emptiness in her eyes. But for her eyes, her face would have been mild, even comely. She wore rimless pince-nez.
---------------
103+
We visited the home of two spinster ladies, the daughters of a prominent doctor. Their mother had gone to school with Lizzie, their father had been closely acquainted with Seabury Bowen and had known the family.

They themselves had seen Miss Lizzie often enough. They welcomed us graciously and told us everything they knew, but they stipulated that they must remain anonymous, and I was brought up sharp once more against the New England shrinking from publicity. Sixty-four years after, the mere mention of the trial caused the descendants of contemporaries to withdraw shuddering as though from a poisonous blast. The horror still blisters.
--------------
105+
.... For although of a later generation, these women had been shaped and disciplined in Lizzie's era---not in ours---and this was their value for my story.

They sat in the pale November afternoon, their pale faces, their pale hair quietly visible in the thin light of the shrouded room, their gentle voices quickening with excitement as they addressed themselves to reviewing the one turbulence that had touched their lives. They gave us sherry and many facts: Lizzie's laugh and appearance, her bad temper with workmen, her mother's headaches and tempers, her mother's jewelry, the cat-twirling, and the kleptomania, about which I had not before heard. She never took things of great value, they said; she took things that were pretty and that she thought she ought to have. She stole from her father once---a very small sum of money and some bus tickets. This was the theft she spoke of to Miss Russell on the eve of the murders as "sums of money and some diamonds." After that Mr. Borden began locking his desk and his room. All the neighbors in Fall River knew of her weakness. It was understood that when things were missing from the local shops, Papa Borden was billed. He paid up. He is supposed to have accepted the situation. If he grumbled, or how much, is not known. Lizzie took no rebukes lightly.*

They told us of a curious anecdote just learned and subsequently published in a study of the case by Edward Rowe Snow. Four years after the murders, in 1896, Lizzie stole two painted porcelain pictures from the art gallery of the Tilden-Thurber Company of Providence, Rhode Island. The circumstances were highly suspicious, but short of a physical search of Miss Borden's person, there could be no proof. The store marked the loss on the books as theft. ...
_______________________________________________________________________
* Mrs. Gifford, Miss Winslow's successor at the Fall River Historical Society, told me that whenever Miss Borden entered her husband's jewelry store it was understood she was never to be left alone for a minute with any of the merchandise. Even so, she was able to filch items from time to time. They were added without comment to her bill and she paid without remonstrance, performing a neat act of oblivion.

107+
... But Mr. Welch thought that the story might be a fabrication, and the extortion prompted only by curiosity. [sic- this refers to the confession story-me]

"Did your father have no opinion about what really happened that morning?" we asked our hostesses.
"He was away at the time of the trial. He was in Europe. "

"I know, but he was acquainted with all of them and a close friend of Seabury Bowen; they must have talked. Dr. Bowen must have indicated something."

"Father always refused to discuss the case with us, or let it be mentioned in his presence. Ever. But he told mother before he died that there was much more to it than anyone knew, that the truth "Was by no means known."

"Did anyone ever suspect Bridget?" I asked.
"No, never. Why should anyone? What was there in it for her?"

" Was she never searched?"
"Not more than anyone else involved. Why should she kill?"

"Did your father never say anything further?"
"Never."

" Do you think he knew the facts?"
"Yes, we think he did. But he would not speak. The case had been tried and it could not be reopened---not at any rate with Lizzie as the accused. Dr. Bowen was discretion itself. He never in any way violated Lizzie's confidence. Nor, of course, could her defense lawyer, Mr. Jennings."

Etc.........
--It seems as if Ms De Mille began researching Lizzie around late 1950's, early 60's? because she states in the first pages it took her 8 years to mount her play, and her book was published in 1968. How old would Mrs Gifford be, I wonder in the mid 1960's, if her husband knew Lizzie from his store, and Lizzie died in 1927? The highlighting and underlining is me, emphasizing the degree of "separation" between these ladies and their actually knowing Lizzie. And these ladies say their father knew her but never talked, so...?

[camgarsky4]

Excerpt from Kat's post above:
105+
For although of a later generation, these women had been shaped and disciplined in Lizzie's era---not in ours---and this was their value for my story.

They sat in the pale November afternoon, their pale faces, their pale hair quietly visible in the thin light of the shrouded room, their gentle voices quickening with excitement as they addressed themselves to reviewing the one turbulence that had touched their lives. They gave us sherry and many facts: Lizzie's laugh and appearance, her bad temper with workmen, her mother's headaches and tempers, her mother's jewelry, the cat-twirling, and the kleptomania, about which I had not before heard. She never took things of great value, they said; she took things that were pretty and that she thought she ought to have. She stole from her father once---a very small sum of money and some bus tickets. This was the theft she spoke of to Miss Russell on the eve of the murders as "sums of money and some diamonds." After that Mr. Borden began locking his desk and his room. All the neighbors in Fall River knew of her weakness. It was understood that when things were missing from the local shops, Papa Borden was billed. He paid up. He is supposed to have accepted the situation. If he grumbled, or how much, is not known. Lizzie took no rebukes lightly."

Kat, as always, thanks for providing the documentation for us to reference. I had not considered purchasing DeMille's book, but now think I will.

That said, just referencing the excerpt above gives us some good insight into 'group think' and how aspects of Lizzie's story possibly converted to myth. Based on the publication date of this book, the conversations the author describes must have happened 60-70 years after the murders. Common sense would then suggest that 100% of these recollections are 2nd hand at best and likely multiple more degrees of separation. Not sure how many ladies joined this journey down memory lane, but can't you imagine 4-5 excited folks, sipping some sherry, trying to 'out remember' their friends and wow the author who is giving them her full attention? DeMille's description of "voices quickening with excitement" and "gave us sherry" pretty much sets the stage for interesting story telling session.

I've highlighted in green a few standout comments that smell like myths to me. But as an example of how truth can evolve into fiction, the author transforms the burglary story into why Andrew began locking his desk and bedroom door. It is documented that he was already doing both prior to the burglary because the desk drawer had been "broken open" and the nail was mentioned as the likely lock pick. You don't need a lock pick if the door doesn't lock.

Reason posted that “In Rebello, we find a segment of an article from 1992, where Mr. Edward Jennings, the grandson of Andrew J. Jennings, commented for the Brockton Sunday Advertiser. Mr. Jennings had this to say about Lizzie’s rumored penchant for taking things that didn’t belong to her: “Lizzie was a chronic shoplifter. Several years ago after the trial, she was caught shoplifting in Providence. My grandfather got her off, then came home and said, ‘I will have nothing to do with that woman.’

One way to increase our confidence that Lizzie had attempted shoplifting is to try to determine if Jennings truly left her employment shortly after the Tilden-Thurber episode. To my way of thinking, that would give a lot of weight to the grandson's claim or perhaps the opposite.

Kat, if you have that date handy that would be super....otherwise I'll dig around and see what I can find.

[PossumPie]

Thank you Kat for the further tidbits.
I often wonder about new information that is not verifiable. I try to ask myself "did the person actually know Lizzie?" If not, did someone very close to them know her? Stories coming from someone who knew her, or a parent of someone who knew her seem to be more plausible. I tend to discount "after-the-fact" stories about how people knew all along that she was evil, heartless, cold, etc. I grew up playing with a boy next door who did seem a bit too daring and did steal things as a child but was otherwise fun to play with. He as a young man killed his biological father and dumped his body in the woods of West Virginia. Looking back, I can see some strangeness and antisocial behaviors, but I must admit that I never would have guessed at the time what he would end up doing. I could have embellished all kinds of stories about him as a kid making it seem the murder was not a surprise, but honestly, he was just a bit strange. People saying Lizzie had snake-like eyes, icy stares, etc. make it sound like everyone would cross the street to avoid her even before the crimes, but in truth, she was involved in charities and taught Sunday School. I always chuckle when I read "Father refused to discuss or even allow us to bring it up in his presence. There are very few things that people actually do that with, behind closed doors with their family, maybe some horribly embarrassing family problem.

[camgarsky4]

Based on the descriptions of Lizzie's eyes, one might think she was related to Voldemort!!

[Kat]

And don't forget the gold tooth!

Camgarsky, what date do you mean?

And further gossip: the newspapers tried hard to infer that Lizzie and her cousin Orrin Gardner were engaged to be married. They went on and on about that: I think it was just before the Tilden-Thurber story. However, our friend Terence Duniho had made a tape, maybe 15 years ago, of an interview with Helen Pierce who had been the the Historian of The Swansea Historical Society, and Ms Pierce was elderly then, but she knew Orrin Gardner, and pretty much said he was not inclined to ever marry, not being the sort of man who would care for that type of relationship.
That whole engagement story makes me mad, because the newspapers could get a dig at Orrin and Lizzie in a mean-spirited, scurrilous way and get away with it! Two hits for 1 dig...no suit for libel, on 2 people who were considered "outsiders."

[PossumPie]

And don't forget the gold tooth!

Camgarsky, what date do you mean?

And further gossip: the newspapers tried hard to infer that Lizzie and her cousin Orrin Gardner were engaged to be married. They went on and on about that: I think it was just before the Tilden-Thurber story. However, our friend Terence Duniho had made a tape, maybe 15 years ago, of an interview with Helen Pierce who had been the the Historian of The Swansea Historical Society, and Ms Pierce was elderly then, but she knew Orrin Gardner, and pretty much said he was not inclined to ever marry, not being the sort of man who would care for that type of relationship.
That whole engagement story makes me mad, because the newspapers could get a dig at Orrin and Lizzie in a mean-spirited, scurrilous way and get away with it! Two hits for 1 dig...no suit for libel, on 2 people who were considered "outsiders."

Juicy gossip sells papers. In the U.S., our previous president has been out of office for going on a year, but certain news organizations still feature negative stories about him nearly every day--often more stories than ones about the current president. Lizzie had hoped to fade into obscurity but the press didn't want that. It took real fortitude for her to stay in town whether or not she actually was guilty. That act tells me a LOT about her personality. With her money, she could have moved anywhere else but the town that accused her of murder but she didn't.

[Kat]

I've contributed 2 family trees to The Heritage Project which will help with family relationships. I'm glad to be able to add to the store of knowledge, being uniquely placed to be able to have made these connections for us all, in this way, and explain them as well. This will be very useful to writers on the case as well. Please all, take advantage, and "collect" this info for your files.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6395&p=102095#p102095

[Kat]

One of the engagement news items Dec, 1896
The Tilden-Thurber debacle followed in Feb, 1897
Merry Christmas, Lizzie Borden

[Kat]

Those of you with access, please come to PrivyCamgarsky topic

[Kat]

Those who are eligible see Camgarsky thread, if you like...

[Steve887788]

I suppose she is because of the 2 plates she stole from the Tilden Thurber store. She was a grown woman with plenty of money and yet she stole things.

[PossumPie]

I suppose she is because of the 2 plates she stole from the Tilden Thurber store. She was a grown woman with plenty of money and yet she stole things.

Before I burned out and went into nursing, I did counseling psychology for 25 years. BELIVE me, wealthy people are kleptomaniacs.
Lindsay Lohan. ...
Winona Ryder. ...
Shelley Morrison. ...
Farrah Fawcett. ...
Claude Allen. ...
Olga Korbut. ...
Britney Spears
all were caught trying to steal things. It's a power thing, it's a rush, it's an illness.
Did she steal? No proof. BUT to say that she "couldn't have" because she was rich? Poppycock!

[Steve887788]

But Lizzie stole when her father was still alive. I think she did it to get the attention from her father. Maybe he was not the easiest man to talk to - on matters that did not involve his own business. So she took things hoping her father would have a talk with her. Maybe he did - nobody knows - all they know is that he paid the bills and said nothing...

[PossumPie]

But Lizzie stole when her father was still alive. I think she did it to get the attention from her father. Maybe he was not the easiest man to talk to - on matters that did not involve his own business. So she took things hoping her father would have a talk with her. Maybe he did - nobody knows - all they know is that he paid the bills and said nothing...

You are correct, some people steal to get attention of a parent. That is attention-seeking theft, it's like kids being bad to get attention.
From what we can gather, Andrew was not an easy man to talk to.
Kleptomania is a different type of stealing. It usually begins in adolescence and is rarely seen in children. Kleptomania is more common in women than men. Women in their late 30s are more likely to develop this tendency. It's different from retail theft or shoplifting in that the person doesn't need what they steal, nor are they unable to pay if they really wanted it.

We have no proof that Lizzie stole, but we have a lot of circumstantial evidence that she did.
She didn't seem to steal out of want or necessity.
She (probably) stole from her father and step-mother on at least one occasion--the famous horse-cart tickets.
If the stealing continued after her father's death, it wasn't attention seeking, it was probably kleptomania
Given that the town already thought her a murderer, any further crime she committed would make the papers and add to her infamy so my guess is that she couldn't control herself.

[Kat]

I'm still not convinced that she stole or was a kleptomaniac. I think after being stigmatized as a murderer, she became fair game for any gossipy slanders, retroactively.
BTW has anyone visited the FRHS newish gallery of mug shots? The women who were arrested were usually for larceny, i.e.: shoplifting.
https://lizzieborden.org/exhibits/onlin ... e-exhibit/
And yes, I've read about the phenomenon in Hatchet submissions and fact checking. It's an interesting history of the evolution of women emerging from Victorian times into a new age of commerce.

[camgarsky4]

The first (identified) case of potential theft was the 1891 Borden home burglary. I believe Lizzie (and Emma) rummaged thru their fathers desk looking for any insights into what he was up to regarding his estate. To cover breaking the drawer, they grabbed a number of items and blamed it on an intruder.

Maybe I'm overplaying semantics, but I don't count this as 'stealing' from her family since stealing wasn't the purpose or goal of the episode.

Besides the home burglary, the only other specifically identified potential theft was the Tilden-Thurber occurrence. I'm 50/50 on Lizzie's guilt.

So based on those two instances, I agree with the opinion that we don't have enough information to call her a thief or kleptomaniac.

My only reason for leaning towards Lizzie having those tendencies is that I think Lizzie was a VERY mixed up person, so nothing out of sorts she might have done would surprise me.

[PossumPie]

I'm still not convinced that she stole or was a kleptomaniac. I think after being stigmatized as a murderer, she became fair game for any gossipy slanders, retroactively.
BTW has anyone visited the FRHS newish gallery of mug shots? The women who were arrested were usually for larceny, i.e.: shoplifting.
https://lizzieborden.org/exhibits/onlin ... e-exhibit/
And yes, I've read about the phenomenon in Hatchet submissions and fact checking. It's an interesting history of the evolution of women emerging from Victorian times into a new age of commerce.

Perhaps...but I still think of the watch/purse/horse cart tickets as Lizzie and I'm fairly certain about the paintings theft b/c her own lawyers grandson tells of him coming to her defense over it. You are right, once stigmatized she was certainly blamed for things she didn't do.