Was Lizzie A Thief?

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky, I don't think she was chastising you in particular, Just mentioning that we should look at Jennings writings as part of the information we already have. We should be free to speculate but we ALL should be more evidence-based in posting testimony to backup what we are saying, and I for one have been lax with that also.
If the forum turns into a research only place where every post must be fully documented, I'll drop out again. I love evidence documentation, but doing it every post takes the fun out of the forum. Having said that, I've posted things before researching it and been wrong. I don't want to confuse people with my own errors.
SO MUCH of the various testimonies and news articles are contradictory or confusing. I tried to show in my above post how Emma's statement is confusing. Was the pea shelling the next day? Emma isn't clear, nobody else mentions it.

[Reasonwhy]

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

Thanks, Kat, for finding and posting that! Yes, I came across that diagram when trying to source my recollection, but did not post it, because I still thought I had also read of blocking furniture verbally described. Will keep looking as I can.

By the way, do we know who made that diagram? It’s most helpful to see the furniture in place.

[PossumPie]

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

Thanks, Kat, for finding and posting that! Yes, I came across that diagram when trying to source my recollection, but did not post it, because I still thought I had also read of blocking furniture verbally described. Will keep looking as I can.

By the way, do we know who made that diagram? It’s most helpful to see the furniture in place.

It was a member Scott Crowder. He spent a lot of time blocking line-of-sight out and timelines of where people were. His theory was Bridget did it.

[Kat]

I apologize for my wording. I wrote and rewrote and rewrote again and it still sounded to me like an accusation that I did not intend. I could not figure out a way to describe what I mean.
I don't want to wrangle, will you please excuse me?

[Reasonwhy]

Thanks, Possum, for sourcing the diagram! So, wonder where Scott Crowder got his information about that furniture blocking the common door?

[Reasonwhy]

“…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….”
—partial post, Kat

If I may: Our struggles are coming about in part because we four who are posting the most are each
—so deeply interested in the case;
—sincerely questing to understand the truth of what happened and why;
—investing much thought, work, and time (especially Kat, with decades of concentrated research and professional writing)
—needing his/her effort to feel respected and valued in this cooperative endeavor that is the forum, in order to make participation worthwhile.

We wince at any critique. It is hard to separate comments on one’s writing from criticism of one’s self—for ALL of us.

Specifically, my understanding of what Kat said was that it would behoove each of us to slow down. She wants, I think, for us to take Jennings’ and Phillips’ words in the new book as written, and only then speculate by comparing those to what other actors wrote. I think the admonishment is to us ALL not to rush to any conclusion, but to carefully consider what other posters make of the new information from the book. It’s a treat to be savored, which will yield finer understanding. (Forgive me, Kat, if I’ve misrepresented you).

We all get grouchy and hurt if we feel misunderstood, so let’s do better to deeply consider and show our respect for each other, okay? I am proud of our hard work and think the current group of posters is each excellent. So let’s improve where we can, take feelings in stride, and not ruin a good thing, okay?

[Kat]

Thank you, Reasonwhy: you put things in perspective. It's a full moon, BTW, for Lizzie and myself!

Thanks, Possum, for sourcing the diagram! So, wonder where Scott Crowder got his information about that furniture blocking the common door?

That diagram has been around forever. Maybe at least back to Arborwood, 2002 ish? I never used it because it was not sourced, and I personally didn't want to post without permission, because the creator was probably still active back then. (I dont have an issue with someone else posting it tho )
~~~~~~~~~
I'm trying to envision how the robbery might happen with Andrew and Emma and Lizzie together in the dining room, in the morning, with the door closed. We cannot place Abbie, altho Bridget says they were all there (including herself). I think you're on the right track, Reasonwhy, when you congratulated our 2 "lockpickers" on board here, who were finding creative ways to solve this enigma, whether Andrew was home or not! Either they didn't do it because they have this 'alibi', or it happened at another time (of the same day?)
But, I think I would want the connecting door between the girl's rooms (which sounds like Emma is describing as a 'suite' used by both ladies- probably because Emma's room is so small) and the elder Borden's to be 'open.' Open, in the sense of being unlocked, but seeming to be locked. And that they did have a key. Thinking in terms of what if there was a fire, or something, they should be able to get out- both parts of the family: ingress and egress in case of emergency, should have a key! And Emma said she unlocked the door when her father knocked.
I can only picture one of them, tho, the other committed to keeping the elders downstairs.
By going thru that connecting door, it would be mere steps to that small room with the desk. But, that room was also locked.

Alice was also asked about the door at the search.

Anyway, here is what Lizzie explained under questioning at the Inquest about the connecting door. Sooner or later we'll be moving to Camgarsky's newly ready topic about "Keys and Locks" and maybe I'll be further into my reading of the Journal by then, as well!

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.
Q. It was so Wednesday, and so Thursday?
A. It was so Wednesday, but Thursday they broke the door open.
Q. That was after the crowd came; before the crowd came?
58 (15)
A. It was so.
Q. There was no access, except one had a key, and one would have to have two keys?
A. They would have to have two keys if they went up the back way to get into my room. If they were in my room, they would have to have a key to get into his room, and another to get into the back stairs.

--I just glanced at the TV here, on "mute" on a Paranormal show, and there was a closeup of a hook and eye closure moving itself very slowly!

--Feel free to pick this apart, BTW!

[PossumPie]

LIZZIE INQUEST
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. There was no access, except one had a key, and one would have to have two keys?
A. They would have to have two keys if they went up the back way to get into my room. If they
were in my room, they would have to have a key to get into his room, and another to get into the
back stairs.

IF going from Andrew's room into Lizzies there was a key lock, AND there was a key lock going from Lizzies room into Andrew's. The two keys she talked about were the key to get into his room from the hall, and the key to get into Lizzie's room from his. So three keys in all. Lizzie/Emma could have unlocked and unfastened the door from their side first, gone downstairs, up the back, opened his room with a key, riffled through the desk, unlocked his door into their room, unlatched it, and gone into their room straight from there. The biggest assumption would be that they knew where his key to their room was.

JENNINGS JOURNAL
(EMMA one year after burglary): 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."

In true Borden frustrating fashion, the wording and choices of tenses make it difficult to know what happened. I'm not convinced that at the time of the burglary they were together with the door closed. That seems to be true when the chain was brought to Abby which would have been HOURS later. Emma stated that when the robbery was discovered she was upstairs in the 'front room' so they were not all together then.

TRIAL ALICE RUSSELL (One year after actual burglary)
"Well," she says, "they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there."

[Reasonwhy]

I don’t necessarily trust Emma’s motivations. What she said to Jennings may be prevarication designed to protect Lizzie’s and/or her own role in the robbery. Emma shows she is capable of such truth-shading, I believe, when in the trial she relates she told Lizzie to burn the dress. Her mission to do her “duty” to Lizzie just introduces another note of ambiguity in trying to make sense of the robbery (which I agree is difficult enough). But you are all making valiant efforts here!

[PossumPie]

I don’t necessarily trust Emma’s motivations. What she said to Jennings may be prevarication designed to protect Lizzie’s and/or her own role in the robbery. Emma shows she is capable of such truth-shading, I believe, when in the trial she relates she told Lizzie to burn the dress. Her mission to do her “duty” to Lizzie just introduces another note of ambiguity in trying to make sense of the robbery (which I agree is difficult enough). But you are all making valiant efforts here!

Agreed. But if we throw out Lizzies statement (she may have been lying) and Emma's, all we have is a police report.
Either Lizzie broke in alone (Emma could be covering for her or Emma didn't know it was Lizzie)
Lizzie and Emma both did it (They both would try to cover for each other but would have gotten their stories straight)
A real thief did it (Neither Lizzie nor Emma would have any reason to lie)
If either of the elder Bordens were home at the time, they could NOT have all been together in a closed room during the burglary.. Anyone saying "excuse me while I leave for a bit" would be the number one suspect.
Andrew stating 3 times that they would never catch the suspect and finally asking the police to drop the whole thing seems to point to a family member.

[Reasonwhy]

Andrew does seem convinced of that.

[Kat]

If Andrew didn't do it, and Lizzie and Emma didn't do it, and Andrew found out who did and asked the family not to talk about it, then keeping the culprit in the immediate household, that leaves Bridget or Abbie. The Knowlton Papers letter was inclined early on to blame Bridget (and thieves), but what about Abbie? Just reaching, of course, and looking at each one that lived there, for elimination purposes, maybe Abbie did it? Emma thought so, when she first saw the disorder. But then, also, Abbie disavowed the piece of chain that was found as not having seen it before...
(Realm of wild speculation, of course.)

Anyway, I'm beginning to wonder if Lizzie, like the glimpse we get of Bridget in her own testimonies going forward, is very literal. (Notice Bridget's answers are things like "I couldn't say..."-- which means what? She doesn't know? Or she won't say?)
So, if Lizzie says she has no key to the connecting door, doesn't mean that Emma doesn't. Emma's response that she opened the door at the knock of her father tells us a lot.

[PossumPie]

Both Bridget and Abby would have had the ability to do it, their presence in the house wouldn't be suspicious, they could have scoped out where everyone else was, wait until they were occupied with something, and go upstairs.
Servants did steal from their families, but at a huge risk. If caught, she would have never worked again as references were essential to get a good job. Bridget worked there for several years, we never hear of any complaints on either side, with lack of labor laws firing her over any little thing would have been easy, yet they didn't.
Abby could have also done it (opportunity) but again, where is the motive? If she wanted to know something about his finances, she could have asked. Several sentimental things were stolen, why steal a sentimental object from your own husband?
No, it was Lizzie, Emma, or a stranger. A VERY lucky stranger to break into a house with 4-5 adults inside!

[Kat]

I appreciate that you took the time to actually consider Abbie, in my scenario.
Sometimes when I'm thinking of murder, in general, and leaving out any sentiment or family relationship, my thought is about the victim: "well this person must have really pissed somebody off!" (Sorry about the language, but this is an extreme case.)

Mindful of that, and really reaching,( I agree,) but entertaining the thought that Abbie might have done, or was doing, something at this time to really P.O. someone. Maybe there was pressure from her other family for more financial assistance, or wanting to know Andrew's real worth so they could influence Abbie in her own estate planning, as Andrew was coming up to 70 years old. Maybe she was menopausal and acting erratically or threateningly or paranoid towards her stepdaughters. She could stage this desk robbery and allow the suspicion to fall where it may. (Andrew says don't talk about it? Her key was taken away?)
I mention menopause because she was of an age, and might have been self-medicating, which would handily contribute to this line of speculation.
Just probing other angles...

[PossumPie]

I appreciate that you took the time to actually consider Abbie, in my scenario.
Sometimes when I'm thinking of murder, in general, and leaving out any sentiment or family relationship, my thought is about the victim: "well this person must have really pissed somebody off!" (Sorry about the language, but this is an extreme case.)

Mindful of that, and really reaching,( I agree,) but entertaining the thought that Abbie might have done, or was doing, something at this time to really P.O. someone. Maybe there was pressure from her other family for more financial assistance, or wanting to know Andrew's real worth so they could influence Abbie in her own estate planning, as Andrew was coming up to 70 years old. Maybe she was menopausal and acting erratically or threateningly or paranoid towards her stepdaughters. She could stage this desk robbery and allow the suspicion to fall where it may. (Andrew says don't talk about it? Her key was taken away?)
I mention menopause because she was of an age, and might have been self-medicating, which would handily contribute to this line of speculation.
Just probing other angles...

Following your angle, I'm certain that behind closed doors Abby's family was jealous or frustrated with Andrew's worth (12-14 Million in today's money) yet they were unable to afford rent. Abby is the least known character in the Borden saga...at least to me. Was she frustrated at having to pee in a pot in her bedroom while other's had indoor plumbing, telephones, and Boston Edison was providing electricity to a few homes?
We must remember it was a different world back then. Men made all decisions, women took care of the home. If Abby were upset at the setup, she wouldn't have complained--except perhaps to family and close friends. My other question was did Andrew talk about money. Some folks treat the subject of money like the subject of sex...NEVER talk about your personal finances. If Andrew never discussed his worth even with Abby, a quick peek into his bank statements may curb her curiosity. But why steal his watch? Taking something sentimental goes beyond curious and into hateful.

[camgarsky4]

Reportedly , she did have that list of stocks, etc that was found in her clothes by her family. (source not readily available, not a primary source) Not a long stretch to speculate that Abby's interest led to poking around in that desk.

Seems clear (to me) that a member of the household committed the 'burglary' and my instinct is that it was one or both of the sisters (I think they did this act in tandem). That said, we could build a decent case that Abby was the doer.

It would be useful if we knew a bit more about the degree of the damage to the desk/drawer. I think that info would help make it obvious whether inside job or not.

[Kat]

Before I paused in my reading of the Jennings Journal, I saw page 13, that Mary Ann Borden (1828-1910), who was a rich spinster and Andrew's cousin, stated in the notes that she said AJB said he "hadn't a will, and didn't intend to make one."
Since he was guardian to her estate, I found this odd. But if true, I'd like to ask what folks think it would mean to the committing of this crime, if it was known he did not intend to make a will?
Would the idea he was making one, or the idea he was not making one, have changed the outcome - would it make a difference?
I think Morse is the only one who says he was thinking of making one.
[This would, in a roundabout way, pertain to the rifeling of the desk, if important papers were the focus]

[camgarsky4]

Really good question and one which I'm still forming an opinion.

I do think he was planning to change his estate to the benefit of non-profits and Abby, which would be a subtraction from the sisters share. I'm thinking maybe he was determining the best means to do so. Title transfer and/or create a will would have been options.

I'm pretty convinced that Andrews's 'missing parcel' had something to do all of this, but can't put my finger on what the parcel/papers were. It is of note they arrived on the day of his death and then 'whoosh', they're gone. And Lizzie seems to have been the person who encouraged Andrew to go to post office even though he wasn't feeling well that morning.

Shifting our gaze back over at Charles Cook....if you believe Medley's witness statement, Cook back-pedaled on something key about this whole mystery.

[Kat]

That will be interesting to see what you come up with. Cook is a major player, even thru Lizzie's lifespan and even after her death.

Here's just something I'd been thinking about after reading the snippet about the very rich Mary Ann Borden (who in 1910 was worth our equivalent of over 4 million dollars!): who took over the guardianship of her estate, after Andrew was murdered? Could have been motive for murdering Andrew- could have been a very lucrative position! (Kind of like how Cook made out, hanging onto Lizzie all those years!)

[PossumPie]

Ok, this is just gut-feeling speculation...I don't think Lizzie would kill if she thought part of Father's fortune may go elsewhere. She did to charitable work, she was kind to children, she was cold and calculating. If she suspected that Abby would control ALL of the fortune, yes, she'd kill but losing some perhaps not. Lizzie didn't spend all her money by the time she died, she had more than she needed. Some folks her think money had nothing to do with it and it was to get out from his control. I think it was both, money and independence.

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie stopped calling Abby 'mother' and started calling her 'Mrs. Borden' all because of $1,500 paid for Fourth St. Abby had been called 'mother' for over 20 years.

This same individual had an issue arise between herself and her sister. They didn't speak for last 20+ years of their lives.

What might be her reaction to having a substantial portion of her multi-$million entitlement taken away?

I'm not sure Lizzie had a limit to her capacity and resolution when she felt slighted.

[Reasonwhy]

Have been thinking about your last two posts above, Camgarsky and Possum. It is hard to reconcile her acts of charity with her complete dismissal of anyone, family or friend, who she seemed to feel had betrayed her needs. I see her need for control as the common element in understanding these apparently incompatible aspects of her character.

My overall impression of her is one of fundamental insecurity combined with a nearly complete sense of entitlement.

Normally we link material or emotional generosity to a sense of empathy, or at least compassion. My impression is that Lizzie gave as a means to achieve social status when a young woman (her service at church); when older, 1) to engender loyalty in her servants, and 2) to establish in her own mind a role as “lady bountiful.” Her motivation at all times was not kindness, but control. (I don’t think she had the emotional health to give—money, or for that matter, love—freely. Hence, the instability of her disposable relationships: Lizzie trusted no one, and when people were confirmed as unworthy by refusing to supply unconditional love, she could not forgive.)

Lizzie identified with drama in the theater and in her reading (often, gothic romance). With her father’s money, she could become a “noblesse oblige” heroine of the poor and oppressed, a kind of Robin Hood, who usurped her father’s tyranny and used his wealth to give to the oppressed: herself, and also others, but only those to whom she could play this “kind mistress” role. She wanted control just as her father had, but she would justify his murder to herself by using her control of the money in this heroic way.

[PossumPie]

Have been thinking about your last two posts above, Camgarsky and Possum. It is hard to reconcile her acts of charity with her complete dismissal of anyone, family or friend, who she seemed to feel had betrayed her needs. I see her need for control as the common element in understanding these apparently incompatible aspects of her character.

My overall impression of her is one of fundamental insecurity combined with a nearly complete sense of entitlement.

Normally we link material or emotional generosity to a sense of empathy, or at least compassion. My impression is that Lizzie gave as a means to achieve social status when a young woman (her service at church); when older, 1) to engender loyalty in her servants, and 2) to establish in her own mind a role as “lady bountiful.” Her motivation at all times was not kindness, but control. (I don’t think she had the emotional health to give—money, or for that matter, love—freely. Hence, the instability of her disposable relationships: Lizzie trusted no one, and when people were confirmed as unworthy by refusing to supply unconditional love, she could not forgive.)

Lizzie identified with drama in the theater and in her reading (often, gothic romance). With her father’s money, she could become a “noblesse oblige” heroine of the poor and oppressed, a kind of Robin Hood, who usurped her father’s tyranny and used his wealth to give to the oppressed: herself, and also others, but only those to whom she could play this “kind mistress” role. She wanted control just as her father had, but she would justify his murder to herself by using her control of the money in this heroic way.

Everyone knows that I believe her guilty. But I try not to stereotype her into "all evil" she had to have had some redeeming qualities. I think her later life postcards to children was sincere. Having said that, the possibility to get ahold of the family fortune before she was too old to enjoy it was overwhelming.
I'm discussing the JonBenet case in another thread and I see Patsy Ramsey as pompous, egotistical woman who wanted to be center of attention. To have a house tour for people to see your Christmas decorations and have 1,000 people through your house is pompous and ostentatious and done to show off. Perhaps Lizzie had that need to show off as evidenced by the string of parties at her new home was the same thing. She sure enjoyed the newfound wealth.

[Reasonwhy]

Oh, I hope I did not stereotype her into being all evil. I appreciate the desire to want to give her some credit. Actually, I think all people—including Lizzie—are capable of both altruistic behavior and selfish behavior. Moreover, the effects can benefit or harm others, whatever the motivation.

I think the harder question to try to answer is what were her deepest drivers? For what purposes did she exert the most effort, risk, and sacrifice to herself? To me, Lizzie was damaged—by environment and possibly by genetics—but she was also shallow. She valued appearances and sentimentality. She also valued her own will and pride. It was in the service of these major motivations that she exerted herself to murder and disown.

Yes, she could also write postcards and give showy gifts (even when gifting almost anonymously, I think she was “showing off” to herself). It is often pleasant to act superficially nice, especially if you have a lot of money and it takes little effort on your part. And people are often grateful for these trifles and may even be fooled into thinking you’re a swell gal. But about whom did she really worry? Whom did she care for at any dear cost to herself? Whom did she not “cut dead” if they inconvenienced her? We’re all a mix, and there are sound reasons to be careful in judging others…but Lizzie’s mix was dark.

[Reasonwhy]

But yes, Camgarsky, I agree with your money theory + Possum, your addition of the independence (control) theory + I would add, her damaged state. That’s why I’m looking forward to posts in Camgarsky’s new thread about narrowing down her mental disorders, if we can.

[PossumPie]

But yes, Camgarsky, I agree with your money theory + Possum, your addition of the independence (control) theory + I would add, her damaged state. That’s why I’m looking forward to posts in Camgarsky’s new thread about narrowing down her mental disorders, if we can.

I've pondered Lizzie's mental health since I first became interested in the case. There just isn't enough information about her life prior t the murders to be definite. How did she handle stress? Did she have genuine friends or just over-the-fence people she talked with? How was she thought of by her friends and family really? We are all viewing her through the filter of presumed guilt of murder (patricide) so things are going to be skewed. I once worked with a guy who was fired for watching porn on his phone at work. A rather shallow, likable guy suddenly became the creepy pervert. People began questioning his behaviors and how he interacted with the patients (it was an inpatient psyc ward). The perception of him before the incident was one thing, afterwards everything took on a creepy note. We know for a fact Lizzie's reputation post facto was ruined even though she was not convicted so it's very difficult to formulate a true picture of Lizzie since it's all biased. I wish we could find a diary of hers or her sister's, or even Abby's that gave genuine feelings and interactions not tainted by sensationalism.
Maybe my next quest will be for information about her from before the murders, or from years after the murders.
I've speculated that if she was guilty, she could have had sociopathic personality disorder. To kill one's parent in a calculating way implies a lack of conscience.

[camgarsky4]

Its true we have just a few scraps of pre-murder insights. Admittedly anecdotal, but interesting that she dropped out of both high school and piano lessons.

There are other random pieces of info that are scattered throughout Parallel Lives. The 'return from Europe' reception party, a teachers recollection, the 4th St. episode.....all have an unhappy tinge to them. To my knowledge, age 18-25ish are devoid of any information about Lizzie. With all the diaries and letters of that era, that feels odd. Suggests she wasn't on anyone's radar.

[PossumPie]

Its true we have just a few scraps of pre-murder insights. Admittedly anecdotal, but interesting that she dropped out of both high school and piano lessons.

There are other random pieces of info that are scattered throughout Parallel Lives. The 'return from Europe' reception party, a teachers recollection, the 4th St. episode.....all have an unhappy tinge to them. To my knowledge, age 18-25ish are devoid of any information about Lizzie. With all the diaries and letters of that era, that feels odd. Suggests she wasn't on anyone's radar.

What happened at the reception party?

[camgarsky4]

Parallel Lives 246-250.

A reception was held for the Fall River gals upon their return from the European excursion. Interesting read if you get a chance.

Charles Wells wrote a letter to his aunt describing the affair.

The authors of Parallel Lives wrote the following summary: pg. 250
"The contrast of the two situations, with Anna and Carrie (Borden) granting permission graciously to their escort while Lizzie was relegated to the position of being the recipient of a gentleman's doing the "polite" thing, presents a clear picture of where the latter stood in comparison to the wealthier Borden ladies."

This also reminds us of the excluded testimony of Anna Borden regarding Lizzie's thoughts on her family life. That would have been some juicy info.

[PossumPie]

In the spirit of "softening" the Lizzie we believe killed her parents, I re-post the interview done with Mrs. Brigham:

From The Boston Post, Saturday, Aug. 20, 1892

MRS. BRIGHAM TALKS. Lizzie's Closest Friend Tells of the Borden Home Life cause the hand of the law laid upon her friend would not permit her to return to the world. Next to Lizzie Borden speaking for herself, therefore, Mrs. Brigham can best of all others now living, speak for her. Thus far she has remained silent—has spoken to no one for publication; but today, moved, as she said, by a desire to set her friend right as against the calumnies that have been uttered against her, she granted me an interview, which extended through two hours.

“I will tell you all that I know,” she began, “concerning the incidents of Lizzie’s recent life that bears upon this frightful tragedy. But first I wish you would stamp as a lie the allegation that Lizzie was not happy with her father and mother—her step-mother I mean. She has told me many times that these latter years of her life have been her happiest. The story that she would not sit at the table with her father is a falsehood of the blackest sort. It has long been understood and accepted in the house that she could take her breakfast when she wished, and the family did not wait for her if she was not up. She would come down when she was ready, and either prepare her own breakfast or Bridget would make her some toast. I know of many other women who do the same, and it was never thought remarkable until this happened.".

Fall River , Aug. 19.—Lizzie Borden’s closest friend in Fall River is Mrs. Brigham, who lives on Lincoln avenue—a handsome residence in the North End, the fashionable end of town. Mrs. Brigham has been the companion of Lizzie Borden through every period of her life. They went to the old Canal Street Primary School together; they were playmates as children, companions as young girls and close friends as grown women. Mrs. Brigham arrived at the Borden house as soon after hearing of the tragedy as she could; she was there much of the time during the period that the house was under guard; she was Lizzie’s companion and support during all those trips to the police courts ; was with her at the time she was arrested..."It has been said that Mr. Borden was angry with and did not speak to Lizzie upon her return from Europe. That, too, is simply a falsehood, distorted out of {?} that were as contrary to the statement as could be. On the night Lizzie arrived the family had given her up and Mr. and Mrs. Borden had gone to bed. Lizzie was very tired and only spoke a few words to Emma that night and retired. The next morning Mr. Borden found her steamer chair{?} in the hall and bounded up the stairs three at a time to see and greet her, and Lizzie told me that her hand ached all day he pressed it so hard. Going down town he met a man who said to him: ‘Well, I would guess that some one had come home judging from your bright face this morning.’

Mr. Borden Loved Lizzie. “Mr. Borden was, as they say, not a demonstrative man, but he loved his daughters and showed it at such times when they came back after being away. He did not like them to be away from home. I could give you very many illustrations of this, showing Lizzie's kind consideration for her father and his for her, For instance, both of the girls would have much preferred to live in this part of town to where they did, and often expressed the wish of course, but said that it was better for their father,{and}? convenient to live where they did, as it was near his business interests, and so they did not urge it. On the other hand, the father, knowing {illegible} idler of the wish, told them only a short time ago to look for a house in this neighborhood. Now as to Mrs. Borden. While she was a very good woman, she was not at all affectionate or {illegible} to draw the children to her. She was simply mild and good, and so long as things went smoothly she would have very little to say about the house. So that this should not be taken as proof of any bitterness of feeling between, them, for there was none.Lizzie Borden was a kind and generous girl-very generous—who would do anything in the world for anyone she thought much of. Whenever there were subscriptions to be made up she contributed liberally, and I have seen her assume debts at the church all herself.. These stories of her being skimped for money are equally false with the others. While her income was scarcely in keeping with the wealth of her father, she had more money than she needed. She had the best of clothes,, her room was fitted luxuriously as a parlor and bedroom, and she bought books by the set rather than by the volume.

About the Marion Trip. Now let me tell you about the arrangements for her outing at Marion just previous to the tragedy. I was invited to be of that party, and like her I could not go with those who went first, although the fact that she couldn't has been spoken of as so {Illegible}. She couldn’t go because her father and mother were going to Swansea. Her mother was depending upon a certain woman to go with her as companion, as Mr. Borden spent so much time in town that she would not remain over there alone. They found they couldn’t get the woman and so gave up the idea, and Mrs. Borden told Lizzie to go on with her plans. Previous to this, Lizzie had promised to act as substitute for the secretary of tho Christian Endeavor Society at their meeting on Sunday—It was an important consecration and business meeting. Had it not been for this, she would have gone to Marion on Saturday, but she would not break her word. It was early in the week when her mother told her she might go on with her plans, and she determined to visit her mother's cousin, Mrs. Morse, at Warren, for a couple of days, and wrote her to that effect. She was taken violently ill on Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning, not feeling well enough, she wrote to Mrs. Morse that she could not come. Now, no one can ever convince me that a woman who had thus given up her own plans for a week to keep her word with the Christian Endeavor Society, and who had foregone her pleasure to serve her father and mother, could be plotting murder in her heart.”

And as to insanity? ” “There has never been a trace of it about her. She was a girl of very even temper. She never became excited. She had ideas, spoke them quietly and clearly. She could not be insane for the instant of committing the murder, and then return to her own normal self instantly—and after each of the two murders, for I think Mrs. Borden was murdered first, as do the others Her conduct since the murder has been just what anyone who knew her would expect. They speak of her dry eyes. Is it not all too awful to cry about? We might weep, as all of us have, for the death of Mr. and Mrs. Borden, but this, this is too terrible; even I cannot weep in face of it. Her pride was {illegible} at the first sign of suspicion being directed against her, and the horror of it {illegible} as she is.” “To the whole world it is a mystery how these murders could have been committed and the perpetrators escape without leaving the slightest evidence behind” I said. “To Lizzie Borden, leaving her father asleep on the lounge, and after a few minutes {illegible} to find him butchered, it is even a more astounding mystery.". Has she expressed no idea as to how or by whom it was committed?” “I know what she thinks, but she has, of course, been closely questioned about that at the inquest, and I would not care to say anything about it before the hearing."

“Does she suspect anyone ?” “No, I can say that she suspects no one.” “Can you tell me how the murders might have been committed?” “I do not wish to add to the many theories which have been discussed, but I know that Lizzie herself has often spoken to her mother about the arrangement of the rooms and halls of the house, and how anyone might come in and go all over the house without anyone knowing it. Members of the family have often done so and spoken of it. The house is a very solid old building and any noise or jar is not easily heard. A man could have entered by the cellar way or the side door, gone up stairs and killed Mrs. Borden and afterwards gone down and hidden in the parlor, which was rarely entered by any of the family. From there he could see anyone in the sitting room and, taking opportunity, have killed Mr. Borden and passed out either by the cellar way or (which would have been easier) turned the spring latch and walked out of the front door and down street, as would a caller at the house.” “Knowing the family and its history as you do, have you no theory as to who committed this murder?” “No, I have not. Mr. Borden was a man who spoke his mind very freely to anyone, and if they attempted to reply he would shut his teeth and walk away. Of course he had enemies, but none that I could suspect of such a deed.”

“Have you any idea of the character of the testimony given by Bridget Sullivan, which they say was chiefly the cause of determining the arrest of Lizzie?” “1 have not. Bridget—they called her Maggie—has been with the Bordens for four years; a faithful servant, of whom they thought very much. They believe that if she said anything {illegible} upon Lizzie that she was confused during the examination. Emma visited me since Lizzie’s arrest. Neither of them have said one word against her. “Emma said: ‘Poor Maggie, no wonder she wants to get away from the house. No matter what comes or this I will never say one word against Maggie. She has been a good girl. She was frightened—that is what is the matter. I am sure Lizzie was, and it would not be strange if she said conflicting things.’ Why, she was dazed and half fainting at the time she discovered her father’s body, and says she could not {illegible} a straight story of what took place. From that time on her mind was in the same condition—dazed—that is the word. She was wrought up to the highest tension, in a constant state of ignorance of what was corning next. Whatever she may have said in that condition, would it be strange if it conflicted at times, and would it lie any more so if Maggie’s did? No, it is all a horrible mystery, but Lizzie Borden will soon be proven guiltless.” Mrs. Brigham will visit Lizzie at the jail tomorrow.

[Kat]

I'm pretty convinced that Andrews's 'missing parcel' had something to do all of this, but can't put my finger on what the parcel/papers were. It is of note they arrived on the day of his death and then 'whoosh', they're gone. And Lizzie seems to have been the person who encouraged Andrew to go to post office even though he wasn't feeling well that morning.

---partial

Do these wrappers hold any significance? Could Andrew be taking these to the P.O. (as well as Lizzie's letter), and trading them for another set of "wrappers" that may look like a "parcel?" It seems Lizzie may have accomplished this before Andrew left. (The only thing she finished that day... )
(See last sentence)

[Kat]

Reportedly , she did have that list of stocks, etc that was found in her clothes by her family. (source not readily available, not a primary source)

---partial

Here is the article again. Sorry it is a picture. I don't know how to copy paste on this iPad.
A good thing may be, if you can copy the picture, you can save it to your files and always have it.
[BTW I am not promoting this news article, just supplying info to which the allusion was made]

[Kat]

Thanks PossumPie for the "softening" of Lizzie in anecdotes. Mrs Livermore also has plenty to say in defence of Lizzie Borden, in the newspapers. She visited her in jail, and had been bosom-bows with Sarah, Lizzie's mother. She and her hubby were friends of the Borden couple and were all married the same year, 1845, Fall River.

[PossumPie]

Most often, rather than dark mysteries, the unknown things are mundane. I tend to think that the "roll of papers" or "small package" was something so mundane that after the murders it was overlooked. Lincoln and others suggested that Andrew, being frugal, would bring home a stack/roll of newspaper wrappers and write his own address on them to save a few pennies. Delivery of a tidy wrapped paper was better than having an unwrapped one tossed on the dusty porch. These may have been brought in the house and tossed aside into oblivion.

[camgarsky4]

Kat, thanks for posting those two sources.

Possum, back on the parcel, as you know I disagree regarding the potential importance of the 'parcel/paperwork'. All 'sayings' have an appropriate application and perhaps in this case, "Devil is in the details" might apply.

Back on the topic of visiting the post office August 4th.

Page 220 in Jennings Journal, John Morse provides some new info.
Setting: Morning August 4th at the Borden house.
"Sat there until about 9, then went to my nephews. Mr. B (orden) wanted me to get mail. Went to P.O. & wrote postal & then went to Emery's."

If he is recollecting correctly, that is interesting to blend in with the insight that AJB was going to mail Lizzie's letter. Presumably there wasn't any mail for the Borden's because John doesn't mention lugging that around with him. That might also imply that AJB asked Morse to check the mail after he invited John back for dinner or that John was already planning to come back.

Not sure what, if anything, any of this means, but interesting to think about the possibilities.

[PossumPie]

Kat, thanks for posting those two sources.

Possum, back on the parcel, as you know I disagree regarding the potential importance of the 'parcel/paperwork'. All 'sayings' have an appropriate application and perhaps in this case, "Devil is in the details" might apply.

Back on the topic of visiting the post office August 4th.

Page 220 in Jennings Journal, John Morse provides some new info.
Setting: Morning August 4th at the Borden house.
"Sat there until about 9, then went to my nephews. Mr. B (orden) wanted me to get mail. Went to P.O. & wrote postal & then went to Emery's."

If he is recollecting correctly, that is interesting to blend in with the insight that AJB was going to mail Lizzie's letter. Presumably there wasn't any mail for the Borden's because John doesn't mention lugging that around with him. That might also imply that AJB asked Morse to check the mail after he invited John back for dinner or that John was already planning to come back.

Not sure what, if anything, any of this means, but interesting to think about the possibilities.

Not being argumentative, but if it were vastly important, that would have come out in the investigation that followed. Will, financial papers, etc. would have played into a motive, and the person who gave him the item(s) would have come forward. The things he was carrying into the home right before his murder don't necessarily have to be important. The old lock he picked up, wrapped in paper. a pile of newspaper sleeves, just the mail folded in such a way as to appear parcel-like.
Similar to "Rosebud" the deep dark secret word of Citizen Kane, perhaps a mysterious word was just the name of his sled and a handful of mail was just a handful of mail.

[camgarsky4]

Of course the parcel/paperwork could have been unimportant.

I personally find it compelling.

[PossumPie]

The main reason I believe it trivial is that after Andrew's murder, everyone in town knew he was killed. Anyone handing him important packages or papers within moments of his death would take that information to the authorities if not telling everyone they knew. I guarantee that for months after the murders people chattered about "I saw him just minutes before he died" and "I asked him how he liked the heat only an hour before he died" Every encounter with Andrew that occurred that morning would have been chewed over. For someone to give him an important package/papers minutes before his death--even a lawyer with client/lawyer privileges would have contacted the police, even if only to say "I can't tell you what was in it, but I gave Mr. Borden legal documents 10 minutes before his death so perhaps you should look for them." The total silence about what he was carrying to me is similar to t the total silence about who wrote the "sick friend" note. Humans can't keep a secret, someone would have told.

[camgarsky4]

Very good point. I'll collect my thoughts on that perspective and circle back.

[Kat]

I never knew that Lincoln thought she had an explanation for the wrappers! I'll look that up, and also "word search" the Forum. (You mentioned Lincoln "and others...?")

Also: it sounds like Morse was asked by Andrew to pick up the mail at the post office, but since Lizzie had not come down yet, she still required Andrew to go to the P.O.,to mail her letter, possibly to ensure his enduring absence?

[camgarsky4]

Playing this idea out a little further......besides feeling ill, Andrew's initial hesitancy to go to the PO (per Lizzie at inquest) might have been because he knew Morse was already checking for arrived mail. So maybe he just didn't feel like a trip to the PO just to mail a letter for Lizzie and she used her persuasive skills to get him to go anyway. Not an important detail, but I love connecting these little pieces together.

[PossumPie]

Lincoln:
"She must have been delighted with this brilliant stroke.
Chances were all against the papers in the stove not having
burned safely away; how silly, really, to have worried about that
part of it! But those paper wrappers, which she had forgotten
to put back on her desk—the duplicates of that in which her
father had brought home an old lock—ah, that had really needed
explaining away!"

INQUEST
Q. When your father was let in, you did not appear from up stairs?
A. No sir, I was in the kitchen.
Q. That is so?
A. Yes sir, to the best of my knowledge.
Q. After your father went out, you remained there either in the kitchen or dining room all the
time?
A. I went in the sitting room long enough to direct some paper wrappers

FORUM MEMBER HARRY:
"Q. Miss Borden, I want you now to tell me all the talk you had with your mother, when you came down, and all the talk she had with you. Please begin again.
A. She asked me how I felt. I told her. She asked me what I wanted for dinner. I told her not anything, what kind of meat I wanted for dinner. I told her not any. She said she had been up and made the spare bed, and was going to take up some linen pillow cases for the small pillows at the foot, and then the room was done. She says: "I have had a note from somebody that is sick, and I am going out, and I will get the din- [sic] at the same time." I think she said something about the weather, I don't know. She also asked me if I would direct some paper wrappers for her, which I did."

The words Lizzie used are "for her". Of course we don't know what the wrappers were for and we have speculated they were for the newspaper. That seems to be the most logical reason. But could they not also be for some mailing that Abbie had to do if she was involved with the membership of the YMCA?
Lizzie's statement is not quite clear to me. Is she saying that the wrappers were for Abbie or is she saying she would do the wrappers that Abbie normally did? That's assuming Abbie normally did them.

-----------------END HARRY POST-----------

I don't want to sidetrack down a road as to whether or not they were newspaper wrappers. It's not important to my point. Kat, you were involved in a discussion some years ago about the paper wrappers. Andrew was known to bring them home regularly to address them himself. Lizzie admits in the inquest that she helped address them. Historically, I believe Harry said once that indeed the paper company supplied wrappers for an extra price. It's simply a possible mundane thing that could explain the "package" or "book" that people saw him carrying. More importantly, as I stated above, an important document would surely have been mentioned post hoc by someone who knew Andrew was carrying it moments before his death. Because no one said that he had something of great value in a package, it probably was mundane.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- thanks for providing all the paper wrapper references.

Your overall challenge to the parcel having any significance holds strong until we can come up with a plausible explanation of what the parcel might have been to make it important.

That said, I would imagine a wrapped (nor not) newspaper would be a very common sight in those days since it was the primary means of broad communication, so its hard to imagine that the 3-4 folks who describe what Andrew is carrying wouldn't just say it appeared to be a newspaper. The word parcel is used and then Mrs. Kelley provided specific dimensions of 5 x 5 x 1, which would be a really strange size/shape for a newspaper.

EDIT ADDITION: I just googled 1892 newspaper wrappers and some images popped up that are interesting when comparing to the 5x5x1 dimensions. I'll do more google sleuthing on wrappers.

I imagine it being a journal of some type, but can't come up with how that would fit in with anything to do with the case.

[PossumPie]

Possum -- thanks for providing all the paper wrapper references.

Your overall challenge to the parcel having any significance holds strong until we can come up with a plausible explanation of what the parcel might have been to make it important.

That said, I would imagine a wrapped (nor not) newspaper would be a very common sight in those days since it was the primary means of broad communication, so its hard to imagine that the 3-4 folks who describe what Andrew is carrying wouldn't just say it appeared to be a newspaper. The word parcel is used and then Mrs. Kelley provided specific dimensions of 5 x 5 x 1, which would be a really strange size/shape for a newspaper.

EDIT ADDITION: I just googled 1892 newspaper wrappers and some images popped up that are interesting when comparing to the 5x5x1 dimensions. I'll do more google sleuthing on wrappers.

I imagine it being a journal of some type, but can't come up with how that would fit in with anything to do with the case.

Thanks, Camgarsky,

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

Some folks saw a package, some a stack of papers. 5" X 5" X 1" is a strange shape. It could fit an old-fashioned door locking mechanism without any knobs but then the question is where did he put it? Was it in plain sight after the murders and just ignored as unimportant?

As I mentioned several places above, my main skepticism about whatever he was carrying being of any importance is the lack of someone coming forward after the murder. I guess theoretically he could have had a secret package hidden somewhere and was bringing it home without anyone's knowledge, but with all of the hubbub after the murders of a mysterious package, why didn't anyone come forth to shed some light? Anyway, the package couldn't have been the motive or precipitation for murder--Abby was killed before he came home. The plan was already in motion.

[camgarsky4]

Good pic. A lock like this would match up with the dimensions described by Kelly. Couple of curveballs with that.....Bridget mentioned he was reading something immediately upon getting into the dining room and Mather mentions the lock getting picked up, but not Andrew finding paper to wrap it in.

That said, a 'wrapped' newspaper or broken lock might match with the dimensions.

[PossumPie]

Cargarsky, do you think that the murders were premeditated or spontaneous? It seems that the concept that Andrew had some important papers that Lizzie killed him and destroyed points to impulsive rather than premeditation. What could have been that important that she killed to keep it secret? Why didn't a stockbroker, lawyer, or other professional come forward after the crime and say "Hey, I just gave him XYZ the morning of the killing"?

[camgarsky4]

You'll hate this answer....both. She planned to kill them via poison, tried on Tuesday, failed and then something about Thursday drove her to alter the plan and use the hatchet.

She had to be on some type of deadline or why not keep pursuing poison as an option over slaughtering two people? This month, next month, so what?

The timing of John's visit matches up exactly with when I think she went into 'alternative tactics' mode. Was Morse a direct stimulant? Not sure.
But perhaps Andrew & John discussed something that created urgency and immediacy to Lizzie's timeline.

Could that something have been the upcoming delivery of a parcel? Its certainly possible, especially since there is clear evidence he brought something home, and yet, much less clear what it was or what happened to it.

Does that help a bit with the context of my probing?

[PossumPie]

You'll hate this answer....both. She planned to kill them via poison, tried on Tuesday, failed and then something about Thursday drove her to alter the plan and use the hatchet.

She had to be on some type of deadline or why not keep pursuing poison as an option over slaughtering two people? This month, next month, so what?

The timing of John's visit matches up exactly with when I think she went into 'alternative tactics' mode. Was Morse a direct stimulant? Not sure.
But perhaps Andrew & John discussed something that created urgency and immediacy to Lizzie's timeline.

Could that something have been the upcoming delivery of a parcel? Its certainly possible, especially since there is clear evidence he brought something home, and yet, much less clear what it was or what happened to it.

Does that help a bit with the context of my probing?

I don't hate your answer. There may have been a deadline in her mind, just remember my main skepticism is due to nobody coming forward to explain the "package" which to me means it was probably mundane. I believe any precipitation to her murders was possibly due to some idea that Andrew was going to make a formal will. That would have possibly cut into her inheritance.

[PossumPie]

PRELIMINARY HEARING
DR. DOLAN:
Q. I see you have produced some fine cut chewing tobacco; you understood that Mr. Borden was not in the habit of using tobacco, chewing tobacco?
A. I do not know; I could not tell you.
Q. You do not know, except that there is a package of partly used fine chewing tobacco?
A. Yes Sir.

Something has been bothering me about the package for a while now. I began skimming the prelim. testimony and found the item about tobacco. I had forgotten that a package of "fine-cut" tobacco was found on Mr. Borden's body though he didn't chew/smoke. Then I remembered that in the 19th century: Tobacco was used for constipation among other things.

ANDREW'S AUTOPSY:
ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed. Lower part of large bowel filled with solid formed feces. Feces also in lower part of small bowel.

Generally, "solid formed feces" is found mostly in the rectum and descending colon. The main job of the large intestine (colon) is to remove most of the water from the liquid stool but not too much water which would cause constipation. If Andrew were constipated, the solid stool would indeed back up throughout his large intestine as the autopsy indicates.

So, a package of chewing tobacco was about 5" X 5" X 1" and could be what Andrew brought home. He had been having constipation (he was taking Garfield Tea) which is was a laxative. Was tobacco the contents of the mysterious package? Why was it a "partial package" if he was bringing it home? Was it the manufacturer's package or did someone dump some in a white envelope for Mr. Borden? Even if the package wasn't the tobacco, why did he have a package of chew?

[camgarsky4]

We have come up with several possibilities of what the parcel Andrew brought home contained. The filter I am using is the 5x5x1 description Mrs. Kelly provided. Also, to-date, there is no evidence of him acquiring anything item during his morning walk.

1) The broken lock Andrew picked from Clegg's new store. Question: When & why did it get wrapped?
2) A quarter folded 'wrapped' newspaper. Question: Did they quarter fold newspapers back then?
3) Journal or ledger. Bridget saw Andrew a book or papers. Question: Where did he get the journal and what did it contain?
4) Packet of tobacco found on Andrew's dead body. Question: When did it get opened and why was he carrying it vs. in pocket as found?

They all have a legit argument for and against. To take this any further, we'd have to answer Possum's fine question....what was the document and why didn't the subject surface during investigation. I'm also going to try and get an answer to the quarter folded newspaper question.