Was Lizzie A Thief?

[Kat]

Have we the correct interpretation of the missing items and the rifling of the desk that occurred in June, 1891, after rereading the notes about the incident in "Jennings Journal?"

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- I'll more closely read Jennings version.....but I think that it was Lizzie AND Emma that got curious, got into Andrews desk, accidently 'broke' it and removed items to create a red herring. So her version of what happened could be self serving. In my minds eye, one was watch out for Bridget and stood by the door to the back stairs....while the other did the deed.

Going with that assumption, it is telling/interesting that it was Lizzie who proactively helped the police by mentioning the open cellar door and the 'lock pick' nail. Another demonstration that Lizzie was the assertive, problem solving, stage directing sister out of these two.

Kat -- so that we can all join in on comparing these two sources (Knowlton and Jennings), do you happen to have Desmond's report (Knowlton 74/75) in a version that can be copy and pasted? I'd rather not type it in a post.

If you can paste that on a post, I'll type out the Jennings version on a subsequent post and then we can all be looking at the same information.

[camgarsky4]

1891 Borden home burglary.
Jennings Journals pg 13 & 14
Entry recorded by Andrew Jennings

"nothing before Grand Jury except Marshal Kept asking K (Knowlton) if he wanted him to tell about Burglary

Burglary at Borden Hse / $75 or 80 in money some horse car tickets - (the only things of fathers) - though his desk was ransacked - gold watch & chain - break pin & earrings plain Roman gold no stones - shawl pin with ball at each end - & some other little things - first I knew of it I was sitting in front room. Heard father knock on door of my room (now Lizzies) he call me - I unlocked door & went in - everything was thrown about He said what do you think of this. I thought at first Mrs B had gone off & left them so - He said he found door to hall open & nail in 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 dining room in morning L (lizzie) & father & self with dining room shut - Officer took up piece of chain and showed to Mrs B. said it did not look like hers."

The only discernable difference I see (so far) is that Desmond tells us that Lizzie handed him the nail and this journal notation has Andrew giving the police the nail. Other than that, I find the two versions startlingly similar considering each was told 14 months after the event and by two different people. That said, I would assume that Desmond referenced his case notes and Emma was recalling on raw memory. So sort of amazing Emma remembered what was taken so vividly (ex. shawl pin with ball at each end)

[Kat]

Post by Kat » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:28 pm
Here is Desmond's report about the robbery from 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 apparent 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.

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, 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" and "Robbery Case" handwritten in lead and ink respectively on reverse side of document.)

[Kat]

Glad to compare items about robbery; good idea.
My interpretation:

The news item cited after the Journal notation is the source of the claim that Mr Borden was at Swansea during the robbery of his desk at Second St.

However, the Desmond transcription from Knowltom Papers says Mr Borden came to the station to report it and Desmond was sent home with him to investigate.

Then, the Journal says Emma recalled Mr Borden was at home in the morning with Lizzie and herself while they shelled peas in the dining room with the door closed. The only person not accounted for is Bridget that day. Abbie is presumably there at some point, because she says the chain found did not look like hers, yet Emma says she first thought Abbie had "gone off and left them [the disorder] so." Sounds like Abbie came home during the investigation(?).

Also, we don't know when Emma's memory was recorded as a witness in the Journal, but the Desmond accounting was probably contemporaneous to the incident, not "14 months after," as was mentioned in your post, in your summation.

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- I respectfully disagree on the likely timing of Desmond's report contained in the Knowlton Papers. I believe that Desmond was asked to provide a report on the incident at Knowlton's request, while I'm sure Desmond referenced his notes written at the time of the robbery, I think the actual report is in Knowlton Papers was composed during the Border murder investigation. I base this on the two items underlined below.

"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."

Those read like additional commentary tagged on to a rewrite of the original investigation file.

I'll send some comparative thoughts later tonight. Need to see if Kyler Murray can propel my fantasy team to the playoffs!

[Kat]

June 24th, 1891 was a Wednesday, BTW. I was wondering if maybe it was Bridget's 1/2day off? Not sure when that is?
Harry's link:
https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?y ... &country=1

[Kat]

Well, maybe so, tho he could have "tagged on to a rewrite of the original investigation" notes which were contemporaneous, as another option. He's reporting to Hilliard who assigned him, so he has to have a record. Glossary says he was a Captain by Dec. 1892, so he definitely could have added extra comments to his original notes.
But the question is not so much 14 months difference, but rather that *all* the family Borden were in Fall River, at home, the day of the desk robbery.

*I have no source for where Abbie was....other than my earlier conjecture

[camgarsky4]

Seems like everyone assumes Bridget's half day were Thursdays because of the encouragement by Lizzie to go shopping that afternoon. I'm not aware of any other validation of that theory. Don't believe she was ever asked during testimony....unless of course as part of the famous missing inquest transcripts!!

I'm skimming thru the Sourcebook for other articles about the burglary and see how they compare also with Desmond report and Emma's input.

[Kat]

Sorry about multiple posts, but I just noticed in the Journal, pg 84, Boston Evening Record, cited dated Aug 6, 1892 calls Desmond, "Capt. [Dennis] Desmond" already!
In Knowlton Papers, pg 426, the Glossary says he was promoted to Captain in 1893.

I don't think this affects the question on the table at the moment, but I guess I will have to find a fourth source. Watch this space

[Kat]

Rebello, pg 36....partial coverage offered:

"Mysterious Robbery And Its Relation to the Killing of the Bordens," New Bedford Daily Mercury, August 10, 1892: 1.

"Captain [Dennis] Desmond, Jr., 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 was that the only thing disturbed was Mr. Borden's 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 but he said he could not say a word about that."

Note: The same article appeared in the Fall River Daily Herald on August 9, 1892: 4.

Officer Desmond's notes about the investigation were included in a letter sent to Albert Pillsbury by Hosea Knowlton on September 9, 1892. The last written comment read, "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.' " (The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden, The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893: 74,75)

[Kat]

I guess he was interchangeably known as Off Desmond and Capt Desmond, Jeesh!
I hope his paycheck reflected "Captain" status!

[Reasonwhy]

Guys, I’m certain I read Bridget quoted as having said, at least once, that she was not at the Borden house the day of the robbery (I’ve mentioned this before). Don’t know if I’ll be the first, but one of us will find that source.

[Kat]

I just searched Bridget at Prelim and Trial: terms using "robbery", "stolen", "Desmond" but got no hits...any suggestions?
Also "june" and "1891" no result

[Kat]

In the Knowlton Papers letter, posted above, Desmond says at the home he found "Mrs Borden,Emma Borden, Lizzie Borden and Bridget Sullivan"...and remember, he returned with Mr Borden. So that's everybody.

[Reasonwhy]

Thanks for looking there, Kat. I need to check Porter (I realize he’s not as valuable a source as testimony), and witness statements. I will try to do this tomorrow, unless anyone wants a go at it sooner. (And might it be that Bridget was not home earlier, but returned before Desmond?) I will look.

[Kat]

There's a post by moi, that looks at the Evening Standard that has some strange transcription of seemingly "Bridget testimony" -- that didn't become a part of any trial record. All it would show is Bridget saying everyone was home the day of the robbery.
But it's newspaper, however...that paper was sourced for actual testimony!
Plzcliconpic

[PossumPie]

Speculation alert...
We are looking at accounts from many time periods. Emma's account is a year after the robbery. Desmond's is sometime after the robbery ("For I know this robbery has never been solved") What if it was like this:

Mr. and Mrs Borden were at Swansea, they came home sometime in the afternoon or evening bringing with them fresh peas to shell. Not going upstairs right away, they gathered in the dining room to shell peas, perhaps to have with supper that evening. At some point, Mr. Borden or Mrs. Borden goes upstairs and discovers the robbery. Mr. Borden goes to the police station to report the robbery.
This covers all of the (seemingly) contradictory pieces of the various accounts. Bridget may have been out all day and come home later in the afternoon or evening.

[camgarsky4]

Hear is an excerpt from the Providence Evening Telegram, Sep 29 '82. "On the afternoon of June 24, 1891, Andrew J. Borden came into the police station and reported that his house had been robbed."

I've looked at articles in the Sourcebook, Case against Lizzie Borden and the above info....all of them state all four women were home at the time of the burglary.

Elaborating more on Possum's line of thought.....

Possible recreation......"Andrew gets home from Swansea early afternoon (could have just been a morning visit to the farm). Abby has not been in the bedroom for several hours doing whatever one might do in that era outside the room. Andrew discovers the damage & theft and knocks on Emma/Lizzie connecting door. Emma goes in and sees the damage. Andrew walks to police station to get Desmond.

Next morning, while the Borden clan are shucking peas, Desmond returns to the Borden home with a necklace he has discovered to see if it was indeed part of the items stolen the day before. Abby tells him not hers."

Abby and Bridget's presence in the home is the key reason I think that both Emma and Lizzie cooperated with the June 24th search for 'knowledge' that resulted in breaking a desk drawer and grabbing some items to look like a burglary. One of them needed to act as look out.

[PossumPie]

Hear is an excerpt from the Providence Evening Telegram, Sep 29 '82. "On the afternoon of June 24, 1891, Andrew J. Borden came into the police station and reported that his house had been robbed."

I've looked at articles in the Sourcebook, Case against Lizzie Borden and the above info....all of them state all four women were home at the time of the burglary.

Elaborating more on Possum's line of thought.....

Possible recreation......"Andrew gets home from Swansea early afternoon (could have just been a morning visit to the farm). Abby has not been in the bedroom for several hours doing whatever one might do in that era outside the room. Andrew discovers the damage & theft and knocks on Emma/Lizzie connecting door. Emma goes in and sees the damage. Andrew walks to police station to get Desmond.

Next morning, while the Borden clan are shucking peas, Desmond returns to the Borden home with a necklace he has discovered to see if it was indeed part of the items stolen the day before. Abby tells him not hers."

Abby and Bridget's presence in the home is the key reason I think that both Emma and Lizzie cooperated with the June 24th search for 'knowledge' that resulted in breaking a desk drawer and grabbing some items to look like a burglary. One of them needed to act as look out.

I like your speculation better than mine. Either way, multiple adults at home in a house that is locked up like Fort Knox "someone" sneaked in holding a nail, crept up the back steps, broke into a desk, sneaked downstairs leaving the nail, and left the house unseen.

[camgarsky4]

I truly laugh out loud at the vision of a professional home burglar sneaking around with his trusty 'pick nail'!!! Good grief.

(sarcasm alert) Maybe Fall River crooks hadn't heard of a 'skeleton key'. You know the police did a lot of chuckling at HQ that Borden had been robbed by his own kids.

Side note....I really enjoy and endorse Williams Spencer's book "Case Against Lizzie Borden", but one of Spencer's few errors was regarding the nail. He stated as a reason to not believe in the nail is that nails are round and therefore couldn't effectively pick a lock. In 1892, building nails were square (I have many square nails from my 1905 home) and could very much be used to pick a lock.

[PossumPie]

I truly laugh out loud at the vision of a professional home burglar sneaking around with his trusty 'pick nail'!!! Good grief.

(sarcasm alert) Maybe Fall River crooks hadn't heard of a 'skeleton key'. You know the police did a lot of chuckling at HQ that Borden had been robbed by his own kids.

Side note....I really enjoy and endorse Williams Spencer's book "Case Against Lizzie Borden", but one of Spencer's few errors was regarding the nail. He stated as a reason to not believe in the nail is that nails are round and therefore couldn't effectively pick a lock. In 1892, building nails were square (I have many square nails from my 1905 home) and could very much be used to pick a lock.

I was going to speculate on that...I've seen Victorian door locks and the "deadbolt" type can be opened with an Allen wrench inserted into the keyhole, and pushing the inverted V slot of the bolt back. I was skeptical that a nail alone could do it, but am open to explanations or pictures.

[camgarsky4]

I have zero skills at adding visuals to my posts. Kat tried to 'teach' me, but I've failed.

I have used a flat edged screwdriver to open some low end locks and that is why I know a square shafted (flat edged) nail likely could do the same. 'Modern' rounded shaft nails would not have a flat surface to catch the lock mechanism.

All that said, no idea how effective a flat/square nail would be opening that door lock. I would presume the police would have noted if it was not possible to use to open simple locks.

Either way, I think Lizzie/Emma used the real door lock key (from the sitting room mantle) to open the door, so the nail was just a red herring provided courteously by Lizzie.

[Reasonwhy]

Possum and Camgarsky, LOL Your two posts, above, are wonderful to me. They are things I would never in a million years think about, let alone know how to explain or illustrate. They are a perfect example of how having many minds ponder a problem is far superior to the thinking of just one. Keep enlightening me, you two lockpicks, you. I foresee a beautiful criminal future for you if you so choose it!

[Reasonwhy]

“…so the nail was just a red herring provided courteously by Lizzie.

Yes, Camgarsky, how right to credit our most courteous Lizzie

[Kat]

I keep reading this and reading this and I'm still not sure why there is an insistence on Andrew not being home during the robbery? Are you in agreement everyone else was except he?

[camgarsky4]

Yes, we agree that all 4 women seemed to have been around the house that day and certainly were when the police arrived at the home. Of course, we can't say if they were all in the house when the burglary occurred, because we don't know precisely when it happened.

[Reasonwhy]

I did find Bridget in the preliminary hearing saying she was there that day, along with Lizzie and Emma. She does not mention Abby nor Andrew. I have also checked witness statements—no comment from her there. I am still going through the whole of the trial to see if that is where I saw her saying she was not there for the robbery itself. Also looking for her work schedule (Thursday afternoons off?) while at it.

[Kat]

Thanks!
But is there a specific reason why it's believed Andrew was not there? There's even admitted "speculation" that Andrew was at the farm..why is that? I'm curious.

[Reasonwhy]

Just saw that about him, at least, being in Swansea, I think in the prelim. Will check in tomorrow with that quote from Bridget from prelim and info. about Andrew (if I’m remembering right that it was there).

Also, I think Bridget’s schedule is discussed when testifying about meal prep. for the different days. Will find it tomorrow, if I’m correct…

[PossumPie]

Just saw that about him, at least, being in Swansea, I think in the prelim. Will check in tomorrow with that quote from Bridget from prelim and info. about Andrew (if I’m remembering right that it was there).

Also, I think Bridget’s schedule is discussed when testifying about meal prep. for the different days. Will find it tomorrow, if I’m correct…

I don't think that there is "under oath" proof that he was in Swansea, just something from a newspaper article. It doesn't have much significance either way, in fact if he was home with the rest of them, it strengthens the theory even more that "someone in the household" committed the crime, 4 adults inside a home and nobody saw a thief enter, go upstairs, break into a room, a desk, and walk out with the loot? I don't want to be accused of arguing from incredulity (just because I don't believe it was possible DOESN'T mean that it isn't) but it sure sounds risky!

[camgarsky4]

Whether Andrew was at Swansea or walking the downtown that morning, it seems necessary for the thief to have accessed the dressing room and rummaged thru Andrews desk when Andrew wasn't in the house.

Even with the 4 women in the house and assuming that two were involved (which is what I think), a lookout was necessary to make sure Abby didn't enter her bedroom while the skulduggery was happening. Once they had access to the dressing room and the door connecting to Lizzie's room was opened, Bridget wasn't a concern. What is interesting is that Andrew apparently discovered the damage, which means that Abby was not home, or did not go to her bedroom much that morning/day. That is rather odd.

[PossumPie]

Whether Andrew was at Swansea or walking the downtown that morning, it seems necessary for the thief to have accessed the dressing room and rummaged thru Andrews desk when Andrew wasn't in the house.

Even with the 4 women in the house and assuming that two were involved (which is what I think), a lookout was necessary to make sure Abby didn't enter her bedroom while the skulduggery was happening. Once they had access to the dressing room and the door connecting to Lizzie's room was opened, Bridget wasn't a concern. What is interesting is that Andrew apparently discovered the damage, which means that Abby was not home, or did not go to her bedroom much that morning/day. That is rather odd.

I think it highly unlikely that the thief (whoever it was) went through the door between Lizzie's room and the Borden's room. It was locked on both sides and her bed was pushed up to it.

[camgarsky4]

Completely disagree. Not sure why you label it as unlikely.

Beds are easily pushed aside and locks on your side of a door are easily unlocked. The key to the main door to elder borden bedroom was sitting on the mantel.

[PossumPie]

B/C of the Law of Parsimony: a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made with the fewest possible assumptions.

Thief came in through bedroom door, it was thus still unlocked, so the thief left the same way.

[Reasonwhy]

Well, bureau was pushed up against on door on elders’ side, yes?

So, could that be pushed out of the way from Lizzie’s doorway?

[camgarsky4]

I'm not even sure how to respond to your comment possum....maybe you are kidding....at least that is what I'm hoping.

Reason - nothing was blocking the door on the elders side. You might be thinking the door between the guest room and Lizzie's.

[Reasonwhy]

Know there was a desk on Lizzie’s side against guest room door, true. But pretty sure I have also read of a bureau on elders’s side. I keep remembering things I’m sure I’ve seen, but with the holiday prep. competing for my time, can’t track them all down right now. Will get to them as I can; sorry.

[PossumPie]

I'm not even sure how to respond to your comment possum....maybe you are kidding....at least that is what I'm hoping.

Reason - nothing was blocking the door on the elders side. You might be thinking the door between the guest room and Lizzie's.

Lizzie Testimony:
Q. Could you then get to your room from the back hall?
A. No sir.
Q. From the back stairs?
A. No sir.
Q. Why not? What would hinder?
A. Father's bedroom door was kept locked, and his door into my room was locked and hooked too
I think, and I had no keys.
Q. That was the custom of the establishment?
A. It had always been so.

that Andrew's door communicating between his and Lizzie's room was locked with a key from his side and from Lizzie's side, and her bed was caddy-corner against the door on her side. I guess if someone picked both locks and pushed hard they could open the door and squeeze through...but as I mentioned the EASIER thing to do would be to just walk out the way the thief came in--through the already picked lock door.

[camgarsky4]

Appears the interior bedroom door was secured by hooks and bolts. No lock picking necessary for the inside door.

Fleet PH testimony pg 359
Q. You had no more talk with her just then?
A. Not that I can just remember. We searched the bureau drawers, and went into what was called Miss
Emma's room, and searched her bed, and Lizzie's bed, and all the places that was available. Then we went
behind the bed, Lizzie's bed, to another door, and I got my hand on to that door, and asked her where the
key was to this door. She says "that is father's room." She says "you cannot get in at that door. It is
always locked." I says "I should like to get in there some way or another. She says "the only way to get
in is by going around the back stairs and going in that way. I found the door was locked, so I took her
word for it, and went out.
.....Camgarsky has removed the subsequent testimony regarding searching the clothes closet on the 2nd floor landing....
A. As I said before Officer Minnehan and Wilson. We searched again the sitting room and closet in
there, and found nothing. The same way in the sitting room, and searched the kitchen and the closets, a
more thorough search. Then we got the key from Bridget and searched Mrs. Borden's room.
Q. You went up the back stairs, do you mean?
A. We went up the back stairs to do that.
Q. Did you try the door between Lizzie's room and Mrs. Borden's?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Which side did you try it from?
A. From Lizzie's side.
Q. How was it fastened?
A. By a bolt I think from the other side, and I do not know but a hook too.

In my opinion, Lizzie and Emma were the co-culprits of the 'burglary' and below is a scenario that I view as quite simple....much simpler than picking locks or praying that no one saw you leaving the room/house with a armful of trinkets.
1) Andrew Borden bedroom key was kept on the mantel in the sitting room.
2) Lizzie & Emma's bedrooms (ie sanctuary) were mere feet from the dressing room and the desk
3) Only obstacle to the desk and a quick retreat to privacy was a single door.
4) House was occupied by 2-3 other adults who spent vast majority of there time in the back half of the house.
5) Lizzie walks to the mantle in the sitting room, subtly takes the key....walks upstarts, unlocked the Borden bedroom.
6) Lizzie strolls over pulls the bolt on father's side of door.
7) Emma pushes bed a few inches and unhooks the door on Lizzie's side.
8) Emma goes over to the back stairs located door to the Borden bedroom and keeps her ears open for any sound on the back steps.
9) Lizzie forces open the desk, rifles thru the paperwork and ends up breaking the desk drawer.
10) The sisters grab a few items to imply robbery.
11) Emma takes the 'stolen' items into their bedroom.
12) Lizzie re-bolts inside door, goes out back door, relocks and returns key to the mantel.
13) Lizzie scurries upstairs to get story straight with Emma and to hide the items.

In spite of 13 bullets, that feels highly simple and effective if the goal was to not be seen by your fellow residents of the house carrying a armful of trinkets.

All can believe as they wish, this is how I see the burglary playing out.

[Reasonwhy]

For those who have been to the house, can footsteps from overhead be heard while in the kitchen, directly below the senior Bordens’ bedroom?

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky,
Your plan is plausible. It is widely speculated that Andrew didn't keep the key on the mantle until after the robbery. Some speculate that it was as a warning to Lizzie, or a reminder that he was suspicious of her. I have never found evidence that he began keeping the key on the shelf/mantle until after the robbery though. His bedroom door was definitely locked even before the robbery--hence the need for a nail to pick the lock.
Next, despite the confusing testimony at least one side (perhaps both) of the door between Lizzie's and Andrew's room was locked and the girls would have had to unlock with a key both Andrew's door and the other door. Seems complicated.

The simpler explanation would be:
Lizzie (whose presence in the house is not suspicious at al) saw nobody around, went up and either picked or unlocked Andrew's door, got the things she wanted, retreated down the steps, saw the coast was clear, went out the back door to the barn, stashed the stuff for later disposal. The ONLY thing she couldn't put into a skirt pocket would be the leather purse. Tickets, coins, paper money, a watch are all small.

My only reason for pointing out how difficult it would be to steal with all the people in the house is that Andrew catching sight of Lizzie or Emma would arouse no suspicion, while a swarthy stranger skulking down the stairs from his room would cause suspicion. As long as Lizzie knew her father and step mother were seated in some downstairs room doing something, she could be confident that she could pull off the robbery. Add the possibility that he may have been at Swansea, and they would only have to know where Abby was in the house.

[swinell]

I only know about this because of a similar anecdote often told about Alma Mahler from around the same period of history although in a completely different country. But apparently shoplifting was very common in small towns in the late-19th century, but it wasn't exactly thought of as such. Alma Mahler was accused of stealing a Mozart score from a print shop. When questioned about it, she said "I thought you had my husband's account on file", and in fact they had only switched from the old system of keeping accounts to a "new" (new to them) one where people pay for the item before they leave about a month prior.

So yes, if there was such a standing order for Lizzie, it was also in place for pretty much any woman in F.R. If a lady came in and didn't have the allowance to buy it, she'd take it and the clerk would send a bill to her husband or father, sort of like a bar tab. This was only a few decades after the "kleptomania" craze swept the nation - it was originally viewed as a condition primarily affecting wealthy women. Poor women were still called petty thieves, but the rich ones got a fancy new illness. By the 1890's it would've been a little bit old-fashioned to still abide by that system but in a small town like F.R. I wouldn't be totally surprised.

[Kat]

Thanks, Swinell.

And just to be fair, also, included here is a letter from The Knowlton Papers, offering Bridget as a possible accomplice to robbery (plural) by the authorities!

HK054
Letter, typewritten.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING,
Boston, Sept. 3, 1892.

Dear Knowlton:-

The circular is good in form and substance, and they ought to act
upon the contents without being asked to; but I should not send it out
unless confident that it could and would be kept absolutely confidential,
partly for the reason that if this case is ever tried, we may have to call the
attention of the court to some newspaper performances calculated to
prejudice the public mind; and in that occasion this circular might be
complained of, though I don't think it could justly.
I don't think the evidence need be written out at present, unless you
wish to take my judgment on the question whether to present the case to
the grand jury at all; and in my view that question cannot be determined
until the time comes, as, in the meantime, all sorts of things may happen.
I had supposed that you would at least present the case to the grand jury,
unless something very important happens; but there will be time and
opportunity to confer orally about this.

I have cautioned Wood several times, and am afraid he rather
resents it. But they all leak to their intimate friends, even Draper, the
most cautious man ever I knew, who, as I learned from Adams, on the way
up Thursday, had talked the matter over fully with him before he was put
upon the stand; having been sent for by Adams to be used by him for the
defence the same night that Dr. Dolan's message was sent.

I hear considerable said of the burglar theory, evidently based on a
former alleged burglary of the Borden house, of which I had not heard
before, namely:- that this same burglar, probably a professional, or per-
haps some other, entered the house to rob the old man or rob the safe,
and was compelled to kill to escape without detection, etc; and some peo-
ple think Bridget was in the former burglary, and in this affair too as a
confederate to the burglar. Of course this is very thin, but it is the only
theory I have heard suggested which is capable of belief for a moment;
and this doubtless is believed by some. There is also some quiet talk
about the Catholic element in the case, of which I had never heard until
yesterday.

Page 62

I am not at all satisfied that any such search has been made for the
weapon as absolutely to exclude the presence of it somewhere on the
premises. But to make an absolutely thorough search for it might involve
the total destruction of the buildings; and this, doubtless, is not worth
while, especially as the weapon when found cannot absolutely settle the
identify of the murderer.
Yours truly,
Attorney General
Hon. H. M. Knowlton,
New Bedford, Mass.
______________________________
Bold by me- KK

[camgarsky4]

One note on who was or wasn't in the house.

Alice Russell told authorities that Lizzie, when telling the burglary story to Alice (nite Aug 3), noted only herself, Emma and Bridget as being in the house. Knowlton Papers pg 228.f

If one believes Lizzie was involved in the incident, this might be the best source for answering the question.

[PossumPie]

One note on who was or wasn't in the house.

Alice Russell told authorities that Lizzie, when telling the burglary story to Alice (nite Aug 3), noted only herself, Emma and Bridget as being in the house. Knowlton Papers pg 228.f

If one believes Lizzie was involved in the incident, this might be the best source for answering the question.

Perhaps rather than being contradictory, everyone who is on record is correct...I still like the idea that the elder Bordens were away at the farm, came home at some point with peas, were all shelling peas, found the break-in, Andrew went to the police, and it was unknown whether the break-in happened before or after they got home.
Bridget would have been an automatic suspect as she was 1. a servant, and 2. a foreigner.

[Kat]

Whether Andrew was at Swansea or walking the downtown that morning, it seems necessary for the thief to have accessed the dressing room and rummaged thru Andrews desk when Andrew wasn't in the house.

Even with the 4 women in the house and assuming that two were involved (which is what I think), a lookout was necessary to make sure Abby didn't enter her bedroom while the skulduggery was happening. Once they had access to the dressing room and the door connecting to Lizzie's room was opened, Bridget wasn't a concern. What is interesting is that Andrew apparently discovered the damage, which means that Abby was not home, or did not go to her bedroom much that morning/day. That is rather odd.

I read the statement record in the Journal again, top of pg 14, and Emma says they were together in the dining room in the morning--Lizzie and father and self. Mr Borden was not "at Swansea or walking the downtown" (per Camgarsky).We either believe that Emma told this to Jennings or we don't. I would prefer not to pick and choose what Jennings writes and manipulate it, but rather work with it: it's more interesting and challenging. Now, if it were Phillips writing... we know how I feel about him...and apparently there was posting about this in 2020. Just do a word search on this Forum (top right main page) for "shelling." MB broke the story apparently from the FRHS website.

[Kat]

Reasonwhy, there is a floor plan at that same topic (as my post suggestion, above) that has an item of furniture blocking the Elder Borden's door into Lizzie's room. Maybe that is what you saw?
Here is the link. I don't know the source or how accurate it is but it might put you on the track of finding what you recalled?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5741&p=99477&hilit=Shelling#p99477

[PossumPie]

Whether Andrew was at Swansea or walking the downtown that morning, it seems necessary for the thief to have accessed the dressing room and rummaged thru Andrews desk when Andrew wasn't in the house.

Even with the 4 women in the house and assuming that two were involved (which is what I think), a lookout was necessary to make sure Abby didn't enter her bedroom while the skulduggery was happening. Once they had access to the dressing room and the door connecting to Lizzie's room was opened, Bridget wasn't a concern. What is interesting is that Andrew apparently discovered the damage, which means that Abby was not home, or did not go to her bedroom much that morning/day. That is rather odd.

I read the statement record in the Journal again, top of pg 14, and Emma says they were together in the dining room in the morning--Lizzie and father and self. Mr Borden was not "at Swansea or walking the downtown" (per Camgarsky).We either believe that Emma told this to Jennings or we don't. I would prefer not to pick and choose what Jennings writes and manipulate it, but rather work with it: it's more interesting and challenging. Now, if it were Phillips writing... we know how I feel about him...and apparently there was posting about this in 2020. Just do a word search on this Forum (top right main page) for "shelling." MB broke the story apparently from the FRHS website.

Emma's recollection was a year old and is in itself contradictory.
"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."
She says her bedroom (now Lizzie's) and Andrew knocked on the door. The bedroom switch happened right after the Europe trip in 1890 and the robbery was 1891. The room was ALREADY Lizzie's room.
Also Emma remembered they were all shelling peas in the morning and "Officer took up piece of chain [and] showed [it] to Mrs. B[orden, and she] said it did not look like hers.” In the morning implies all of this happened before noon--the robbery, discovery, police notification, police investigation, police finding the chain, and bringing it back to the house. ALL before noon.

Desmond's report was right after the break-in so is probably accurate:
He arrived to find Lizzie, Emma, Bridget, and Abby all present. The question what time was all of this?

[camgarsky4]

Kat, your post above is disappointing. I do NOT manipulate or pick 'n choose information. I'm pretty sure we all have posting styles that we'd like each other to alter. So I apologize if how I worded my posts above torqued you.

It appears that what you call 'manipulating', I call 'working with it', which is what you ask us to do. My intent was to demonstrate that maybe the police report, newspaper reports, and Emma's report could mesh together. Perhaps you hadn't read this entire thread, but my earlier post (pasted below) was a reasonable recreation which demonstrates that both could be accurate in spirit.

Posted earlier:
Possible recreation......"Andrew gets home from Swansea early afternoon (could have just been a morning visit to the farm). Abby has not been in the bedroom for several hours doing whatever one might do in that era outside the room. Andrew discovers the damage & theft and knocks on Emma/Lizzie connecting door. Emma goes in and sees the damage. Andrew walks to police station to get Desmond.

Next morning, while the Borden clan are shucking peas, Desmond returns to the Borden home with a necklace he has discovered to see if it was indeed part of the items stolen the day before. Abby tells him not hers."