Lizzie Borden Society Forum

This is a good point, Possum, but I would just ask which of the two, Lizzie or Dr. Bowen, had:
1) motivation to lie about this, and
2) is known by us to have been a liar?

Remember, Bowen was testifying under oath.

Duplicate post

Reasonwhy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:17 pm This is a good point, Possum, but I would just ask which of the two, Lizzie or Dr. Bowen, had:
1) motivation to lie about this, and
2) is known by us to have been a liar?

Remember, Bowen was testifying under oath.

I didn't mean to imply that he was "lying" but only that he "softened" his description of Andrew's refusal to pay for medical treatment. I can hear Andrew going on about how much it was going to cost him to have Abby and himself checked out for poisoning.

Soaking up all the careful, detailed, researched thinking here! I have nothing new to add, but especially appreciate the reminders that we come to accept some things as truth because they are cited many places (Andrew Borden's rudeness to physician)...but, as you all already know, even many "original" sources are relying on one previous source, of questionable accuracy. I'm not someone who watches murder mysteries, or even reads them, but I am writing some fun/ some serious pieces inspired by the Borden case, which I have been reading about for decades.

Yea, not someone who wants to witness a murder, fictional or otherwise, but if I could have a 10 second peek at the hand holding the hatchet, I'd step up and LOOK.-:) (And, yes, I think it's Lizzie's.)

Mostly want everyone--Kat, Possum Pie, Steph, camgarsky4, Reasonwhy, Twinsrwe, Steph, mbhenty, KGDevil...and some people I'll kick myself later for inadvertently leaving out--YOU ARE APPRECIATED.

Who was the person, can't find her name, wrote a book....as time went on wondered if Lizzie could have done it since she was so very Christian. She doesn't seem to post any more. AUGUSTA! If found her name. She seems to have disappeared.

Miss Pea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:20 am Soaking up all the careful, detailed, researched thinking here! I have nothing new to add, but especially appreciate the reminders that we come to accept some things as truth because they are cited many places (Andrew Borden's rudeness to physician)...but, as you all already know, even many "original" sources are relying on one previous source, of questionable accuracy. I'm not someone who watches murder mysteries, or even reads them, but I am writing some fun/ some serious pieces inspired by the Borden case, which I have been reading about for decades.

Yea, not someone who wants to witness a murder, fictional or otherwise, but if I could have a 10 second peek at the hand holding the hatchet, I'd step up and LOOK.-:) (And, yes, I think it's Lizzie's.)

Mostly want everyone--Kat, Possum Pie, Steph, camgarsky4, Reasonwhy, Twinsrwe, Steph, mbhenty, KGDevil...and some people I'll kick myself later for inadvertently leaving out--YOU ARE APPRECIATED.

Who was the person, can't find her name, wrote a book....as time went on wondered if Lizzie could have done it since she was so very Christian. She doesn't seem to post any more. AUGUSTA! If found her name. She seems to have disappeared.

I grew up in a VERY conservative, Christian home. I learned one thing--For every Mother Theresa, Billy Grahm, etc. there is a priest molesting children, preachers using their flock's money for paying prostitutes, etc. There was an old saying, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car." Incredulity that someone could commit a crime simply b/c of their religious affiliation is a logical fallacy just as bad as saying that simply because one is rich they couldn't steal.

PossumPie, I wasn't suggesting anything about "Christian" = innocent.
I was more wondering what happened to "Augusta" who posted so many times, including that late post about her I found on some string.

Such is the triumph dislodged by dire desperation, and boosted by fortuitous incompetence, but sprinkled with gifted timing, and a good measure of luck, leading to the perfect crime. Even ineptitude can be fruitful if the stars are ably aligned. Especially in Victorian times.

PossumPie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 5:20 am

Reasonwhy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:17 pm This is a good point, Possum, but I would just ask which of the two, Lizzie or Dr. Bowen, had:
1) motivation to lie about this, and
2) is known by us to have been a liar?

Remember, Bowen was testifying under oath.

I didn't mean to imply that he was "lying" but only that he "softened" his description of Andrew's refusal to pay for medical treatment. I can hear Andrew going on about how much it was going to cost him to have Abby and himself checked out for poisoning.

One thing I find most useful about our forum is this kind of exchange of ideas, Possum. We both see distortion of the probable reality in the accounts of this exchange between Andrew and Bowen.

I see Lizzie exaggerating Andrew’s hostile money-pinching in order to gin up her case to Alice that Andrew’s ways accounted for murderous “enemies.” You see Bowen softening Andrew’s reluctance to admit Bowen (Andrew does ask if anyone sent for Bowen, in Bowen’s own testimony) and Andrew’s possible resentment of the doctor’s fee and interference.

This kind of discussion sharpens my thinking about the case. For I see both points of view as reasonable, and the truth as most likely lying somewhere in between. Your posts made me think harder about an opposing view. Thanks!

Miss Pea wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:20 am Soaking up all the careful, detailed, researched thinking here! I have nothing new to add, but especially appreciate the reminders that we come to accept some things as truth because they are cited many places (Andrew Borden's rudeness to physician)...but, as you all already know, even many "original" sources are relying on one previous source, of questionable accuracy. I'm not someone who watches murder mysteries, or even reads them, but I am writing some fun/ some serious pieces inspired by the Borden case, which I have been reading about for decades.

Yea, not someone who wants to witness a murder, fictional or otherwise, but if I could have a 10 second peek at the hand holding the hatchet, I'd step up and LOOK.-:) (And, yes, I think it's Lizzie's.)

Mostly want everyone--Kat, Possum Pie, Steph, camgarsky4, Reasonwhy, Twinsrwe, Steph, mbhenty, KGDevil...and some people I'll kick myself later for inadvertently leaving out--YOU ARE APPRECIATED.

Who was the person, can't find her name, wrote a book....as time went on wondered if Lizzie could have done it since she was so very Christian. She doesn't seem to post any more. AUGUSTA! If found her name. She seems to have disappeared.

Miss Pea, how very nice of you! You write so well that I’m glad you are now posting to as well as reading this forum. I sincerely hope you will continue, as diverse observations and reasoning are what keep these discussions fresh. I would post even more if I thought more people would be interested, so know that your participation is encouraging. To all newer posters, please keep it up! And to readers, please actively contribute your thoughts on the case. Our discourse is improved by hearing from you.

HEAR - HEAR

"Resurrecting" this thread to start our re-dive into all things Prussic Acid. Lots of what we would post is already included in this thread. Much to 'redigest'!!

Today I'm studying maps (courtesy of Kat!!) and directories of New Bedford to refresh myself on Lizzie's movements and actions while at the Pool's. More to come.....

Tagging on another related post by InterestedReader by 2017. There are map 'snips' to add towards bottom of this email. I (as usual) couldn't copy and paste. Hoping someone with the skills can go to this thread and add the maps to this post. Envision a "shrug emoji".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Killing People
Post by InterestedReader » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:46 am

I've been finding these druggists' addresses on a 1911 map of New Bedford.
The results are astonishing.

If we have the right Church, then two of the druggists ready to testify against her were doing business in the immediate vicinity of 20 Madison Street. If Lizzie did try to buy poison in New Bedford she was entering premises very nearby to where she boarded with the Pooles. She didn't have far to go.

On this 1911 map the street-numbering is completely different from today's. I am hoping it gives us a better idea of the 1892 numbering. Below are the relevant pieces of the 1911 street-map then the locations as translated and placed onto the modern map.
(Images open larger. Purchase St and Pleasant St carry different names in 1911 - they are Fourth and Fifth Street.)

Charles H. Church the druggist was at 122 Purchase Street.
All Lizzie need do was walk one block west along Madison, turn left, then south a block.
Of the Church druggists, he's the close one, and he's the Church named by Hoffman as ready to swear Lizzie Borden attempted to procure poison in his shop.
He seems to have had a couple of sons working for him - were they all lounging around as witnesses?

The Wright Drug Company - Edward E. Wright - at 49 Purchase, would be the block between School and Spring Streets. Again, it is very close to Lizzie at 20 Madison Street. She'd go north up Acushnet Avenue two blocks, walk west a block, turn right into Purchase.
Google makes these walks of 1 and 2 minutes.

If she was refused at Church's perhaps she walked north on Purchase determined that July day to buy poison from another chemist, until she reached the Wright Drug Company. Refused there, she might walk further north by one block to 1 Pleasant Street. It doesn't sound a sane enterprise. She learned nothing by the refusals.

Here's the thing. Either LIzzie went to these druggists because they were close at hand, or the druggists lied knowing Lizzie lodged close at hand. But why should they know where she was staying. How would they know.
I wasn't very persuaded Lizzie tried to buy poison but seeing the locations of these New Bedford druggists is changing my mind.


Lizzie:
image.jpg
Charles H. Church:
image.jpg
Edward Wright:
image.jpg
Distances:
image.jpg

Sorry there is difficulty uploading images.
If you send them to me I will post them for you.

picture from previous post
can clic on pic to make bigger

Thanks Kat! This map was created in 2017 by poster InterestedReader on the thread "Killing People".

What makes all these locations even more intriguing is that Whiting's Dry Goods store was located at 191 Union. It was located on north side of Union Street between Pleasant and Purchase streets, very very near where the Church Pharmacy is located.

Yr Welcome.
I've not yet read either topic but here is the way to find Mr Church which leads to Mr Martin who is on the Witness List of Knowlton:

As a “Nod” to those who came before us, we are thankful for their research:

The Commonwealth of Massachutes VS Lizzie A. Borden, The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893, Martins & Binette, Fall River Historical Society, 1994.
- - - - - -
Pg 181
HK181
(Excerpt from The Attorney General’s Department to Knowlton, May 15, 1893):

"…but my practice ….has been to furnish the names of witnesses of any material consequence, notwithstanding the law does not require so much. You will exercise your own judgement, of course."
------------------------

Page 183
HK182
("1893 Dated Documents”)
-(Partial listing from several pages, these are grouped together)
36 Bence
37 Kilroy
38 Hart
39 Wright- N.B.
*40 Church- “
[all listed as to] Buying prussic acid ….

----------------------------
---There are 3 Summons listed the same way: Mr Martin is on the second one, but no CHURCH pg 191.

HK185

Document, printed, with additional text handwritten in ink.



No..............

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

Lizzie A. Borden



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

BRISTOL, SS.

To the Sheriffs of our several Counties, or their Deputies, the

Constables of any Town or City in the County of Bristol,

or any district police officer,

GREETING:

You are hereby commanded to summon

Mark P. Chase, George A. Petty, Thomas Boulds, Charles H. Cook, Harry C. Pearce, Thomas J. L. Brown, William L. Hacking, Oliver P. Darling, Annie F. Peckham, Angenette Wing, George L. Douglass, Michael Mullaley, Mrs. P. V. I. Bowen, William R. Martin, Frank H. Kilroy, Patrick H. Doherty, John Devine, Dennis Desmond, Jr., Frank L. Edson, Patrick Connors, John Riley, Joseph HydeDelia S. Manley (if they may be found in your precinct), to appear before the SUPERIOR COURT next to be holden at New Bedford within and for our county of Bristol, on the fifth day of June A.D. 1893 then and there, in our said Court, to give such evidence as they know relating to any matters which may be inquired of on behalf of the Commonwealth, before said Court, or the Grand Jury.

HEREOF FAIL NOT, and make due return of this Writ with your doings thereon, into the said Court.

WITNESS my hand at New Bedford in the County of Bristol, the sixteenth day of May in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety three H. M. Knowlton, District Attorney

BRISTOL, SS. June 5th 1893

By virtue of this precept I this day summoned the within named by reading to each in his presence and hearing the within summons for their appearance at Court as within directed.



FEES.

Service, ……………….. Isaac B Wordell

Travel, miles, …………. Constable of

Horse and carriage, miles,

$

______________________________

--- Went to Glossary A to look up *Church, pg 419, and that is where we find Mr Martin:

CHURCH, CHARLES H. 1830 - 1914: born in New Bedford, Massa- chusetts, son of James L. and Sarah Sherman (Smith) Church. It Seems likely that the name “Church” appearing on the list of potential witnesses with the notations “N. B.” and “buying prussic acid” beside it refers to this New Bedford druggist. Educated in the public schools of his native city, he completed one year of high school before beginning an apprenticeship as a sailmaker under his father’s instruction. Advised by his family to pursue a different trade, he entered the employ of Charles A. Cook and began to learn the drug business. Working at Cook’s establishment for over a year, he then relocated to Boston, Massachusetts, where he gained employment at the apothecary of a Dr. Stevens. He moved again after a year to Brooklyn, New York, where he lived for a time, returning to his native New Bedford in 1852. He purchased an existing drug business from Warren B. Potter, expanding it in 1855. He remained a druggist all of his life and was a founding member of the New Bedford Druggist . Association, an organization for which he served as vice- president for several years. He was married to Miss Sarah L. Wood of Dana, Massachusetts. William R. Martin, one of the witnesses summoned to testify at the Borden trial, was employed at this man’s establishment circa 1892 to 1894.

Who added Noble? They are not on Witness list...and there is "Church" listed twice on map. (Do you know if Mr Church had 2 establishments there?)
-edit here- interested reader found 2 "Church," New Bedford- but no “Noble” in listing. Confusing, but interesting.

So Church is on the "potential Witness List" of Knowlton, but his employee William R. Martin was the actual witness (summoned to the Court), so he would be someone to look up in newspapers, maybe?

The name "Wright" got my attention, because we seem to have an abundance of Wrights in New Bedford.

Same citation as above Knowlton Papers Glossary:
WRIGHT, EDWARD E. 1862 - 1931: son of Asahel and Ellen Wright. He was married to Miss Edith M. Shepherd of New Bedford, Massachusetts. It seems likely that the name ‘Wright” appearing on the list of potential witnesses with the notations “N.B.” and “buying prussic acid” beside it refers to this New Bedford druggist. First listed in that city’s directory in 1883, he was employed by 1. H. Shurtleff, Apothecary. He worked in that capacity until 1889, when he began his own business. Known as Wright Drug Company from 1891 to 1893, his establishment is last listed as operating in 1907. It was at this establishment that Miss Lizzie A. Borden was alleged to have attempted to buy a quantity of prussic acid while on a visit to New Bedford with her sister.

--What have we found out about this, and when did this allegedly occur?

Below are a couple newspaper references to the New Bedford pharmacists, Wright and Martin.

The August 23 article states that law enforcement consulted w/ Wright to learn about the toxic properties of prussic acid. After reading the Nov. 18 article below, it seems more probable that law enforcement was talking to Wright in order to establish a repeat behavior of Lizzie's in attempting to procure highly toxic poison from pharmacies. First in New Bedford and secondly on August 3rd in Fall River.

In the context of whether Lizzie visited a pharmacy while she was in New Bedford, provided below the two articles is an excerpt from Jennings Journals. I've underlined and bolded the key verse. I find it highly informative and difficult to ignore.

Source: Fall River Daily Evening News August 23, 1892
The correspondent of the New Bedford Mercury has the following:
"It is a fact which has never been printed that Edward E. Wright, of the Wright Drug Company, New Bedford, has been summoned to Fall River and has been in consultation with District Attorney Knowlton and Marshal Hilliard. At this hearing he posted them on toxicology, with especial reference to prussic or hydrocyanic acid, which the government will attempt to prove was purchased by Lizzie Borden a few days prior to the murder."
Marshal Hilliard, on his recent visit to New Bedford, was again in consultation with Mr. Wright, and now the latter is summoned here to repeat his testimony.

Source: Fall River Globe November 18, 1892
Extract from a paragraph listing individuals that were expected to testify at the Grand Jury hearings.
“…..and Edward E. Wright and William R. Martin, New Bedford druggists, who think it was Lizzie Borden who tried to buy hydrocyanic acid of them.”

Source: Jennings Journals. Page 251
Interview w/ Mrs. Edwin R. Pool by Andrew J. Jennings.
In this interview, Mrs. Pool provides the household activities for the days that Lizzie visited in July, 1892.
Here is how Saturday, July 23rd was described. Spelling is as written in the interview.
" Sat. morning after breakfast she(Lizzie) went down street & when she came home she brot home this dress pattern & bunch of sweet peas. Know it was Sat because she said bot them because our are wilted & they will be pretty for Sunday. Sat afternoon we went to Fairhaven & took little boy with me -- think when we came home I got something at Market -- She (Lizzie) wasn't out of my sight as walked -- told me about getting Frank's pills."

That quote is a strong indicator that Lizzie DID visit a pharmacy in New Bedford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In her inquest testimony, Lizzie recalled the shop where she bought the dress pattern, that Saturday morning in New Bedford, as being on same street as Hutchinson Book Store.

Per the 1892 New Bedford City Directory, Hutchison's Book store was located at 194 Union Street and, directly across the street, was Whiting & Co., Ladies Furnishing Goods 191 Union St. Since the ladies had visited and shopped Whiting's Thursday upon her arrival in New Bedford, it feels logical that is where Lizzie purchased the dress pattern.

In the same Jennings Journal interview sourced above, Mrs. Pool made this recollection of the Thursday night shopping...."Saw dress in Whiting's & at Bliss & Nye little cup & saucer for my daughter."

Plausible that "Saw dress in Whiting's" meant "Lizzie saw dress in Whiting's" since the entire interview was about what Lizzie did during her visit to Mrs. Pool's.

Source: Inquest Transcripts. Page 88
Lizzie Borden testimony
Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.

Thank you that’s good work. What about this outing with”her sister” to New Bedford to try to buy the poison? Anyplace you are looking that refers to this outing? In this most recent time before the murders, I think Emma claims she did not meet up with Lizzie. If so, are they referencing an earlier time? They could have gone to New Bedford together any day of the week, of any month of the year.

Bottom line tho, even if Lizzie fits the profile of a poisoner (yes I looked it up, because she seems more that type than a hatchet wielder), no one has been dying of poison that we know of.
Poison, tho, is coldly calculated and wicked, whereas hacking at family member’s faces is like hot passionate hatred. I still don’t think she’s both.

Kat - you point out an interesting conundrum. Would/could someone consider using poison, but end up going full violent with a hatchet?

I think yes. Here is some of my rationale for a couple of scenarios. Most of the 'indicators' involve a degree of deductive speculation (not sure that is a real thing ), but from my way of thinking, the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit into a clear image.

1) Was there a timeliness/urgency factor in play as it relates to the Borden's dying on August 4th?

If there was time sensitivity to the killings and weapon option #1 is blocked, I would imagine most folks will step out of their profile to do what is
necessary to accomplish the task they have decided upon, influenced by the time constraints.

A letter Lizzie wrote to Elizabeth Johnston in the days prior to the killings allegedly included reference to a hatchet Lizzie had secured. While
the contents of the letter was never officially published, there are multiple 'indicators' that the hatchet rumor had merit. Supporting this
belief is the overriding fact that Elizabeth Johnston estranged herself from Lizzie before the trial (Parallel Lives pg. 482 & pg. 536). Something
compelling drove these two apart.

If there was a reason action needed to be taken swiftly (aka August 4th), I can easily imagine Lizzie lying on her lounge the early afternoon of
August 3rd trying to figure out how to proceed. She had just failed for a second time to purchase deadly poison, but what to do? As her mind
frenetically thought through every option, the hatchet she had just mentioned in the Elizabeth Johnston letter came to mind.
The rest is history.

2) If Lizzie was involved, could she have had a co-conspirator?
This opens up a bushel full of scenarios, too many to list on this post......but would definitely help explain why two vastly different weapons
were considered/used.

One of the theories in the newspapers and in letters to Knowlton is that the elder folks could have been killed by chloroform and then hacked = less blood spatter and initial cause of death would be hidden. Could also take 2 people. One to poison , then one to hack.
So after all these supposed efforts to secure poison by Lizzie, druggists would remember so close in time and immediately implicate Lizzie. At this point the elders could no longer be killed by poison, if that was an intention.
No, she was not alone, if she killed, or even if she didn’t- because she would have to know who did do it.

But then, when we have to deal with a conspiracy, how is it that no one talked? But #2 option just seems more likely to me.

This really is a mess and we’ve been trying to untangle it:
But we have stories of Lizzie asking for poison everywhere in 2 (why not 3?) cities, and a couple of people vomit and have diarrhea; we’ve got her talking to estate attorneys in 2 cities about inheritance rights; we have her writing letters about hatchets to her friends; we have her telling everyone her father has an enemy and she herself telling folks she saw prowlers and figures in the dark hanging around the house or yard- we have local robberies in the area, we have stories about how Lizzie is queer and can’t stand her stepmother! Oh, and we shouldn’t forget she was shoplifting!
My gosh, everything is against her and she was Aquitted.
It’s messy.

Knowlton Papers illustration, pg 25

I think Lizzie was a lucky person and had the 'winds of fortune' blowing for her vs. against her.

She lived in an era where physical evidence was basically only what was clearly visible in front of you. No DNA, fingerprints, luminol, lie detector test, etc. In the hours and days after the murders, Fall River police practices in her city proved to be unsophisticated and clumsy to the degree that easily answerable questions are left unanswered.

I feel confident that in 'today's' world, the police would have gotten a court order instructing Ms. Johnston to retain (ie. not destroy) the letter and there would have been a hearing to decide if the police could compel Elizabeth to turnover the document. But alas, instead we are just left with the FACT that Jennings (Lizzie's attorney) told her she didn't need to share any of the contents and she did not. If the letter contained nothing provocative, Jennings would have known best to release the contents to suppress the rumors. We are left wondering "why not" share the contents of the letter. And that leads us to another puzzle....why a couple months later, did Elizabeth withdrew her support for Lizzie. All of that is fact. None of it supposition. The supposition part is connecting the dots and attempting to come up with plausible explanations for how the dots we do know fit together and what they tell us.

The trial judge made a very debatable decision to not allow testimony on Lizzie's alleged prussic acid shopping adventures. Since the judge chose to block the related testimony, once again we are forced to connect the dots and come up with plausible interpretations. But the facts as noted above in this thread are facts. The only supposition is proposing that they connect in such a way as to say that Lizzie did indeed attempt to purchase prussic acid on two occasions vs. zero.

Three, and possibly five, grown adults were prepared to testify under threat of perjury and the possibility of condemning a fellow human to hang that Lizzie made this purchase attempt. It startles me how readily many posters are to toss their statements aside without any basis at all. There is NOTHING that has been established as a fact that Lizzie did not make those purchase attempts. There is plenty of suggestive and direct evidence that she did.

Here’s the theory in the newspaper snippet camgarsky sent me that vets the possibility the Bordens were dead before the hacking occurred.

I figure I should show more about the claims that Lizzie had visited lawyer or lawyers about estate business prior to the killings:
First is re-posting of moi 2005, then Spencer’s research.
. . . . . . . .
“Post Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:45 pm—Kat

There are sources in the newspapers which claim Lizzie sought legal advice, and then again there are sources which say she didn't. I think there are equal amounts, one-for-one.
She did visit Charles Cook before selling back the Ferry Street property to Andrew. That's in the Witness Statements- so there is precedent. [Edit here: pg 30 Cook:….”Lizzie has been here three or four times…”]

There is a letter from an Attny. Owens in the Knowlton Papers where he says he heard that it was said Lizzie consulted him, but he said he didn't think she had- that A BORDEN came to his office- he wasn't there, and Owens wanted to come confer with attny's in Fall River over this because it was privledged anyway.
I think Lizzie was supposed to have asked lawyers in R.I., N.Y., and New Bedford?”[Edit here: will have to keep looking for this- unless someone has the source? It was 18 years ago]
- - - - - - - - -

Spencer: pg 381
"With Lizzie in Taunton prison and no new activity in the case foreseen until the grand jury convened in November, the newspaper stories were reduced to rumors:

It has been learned that Mr. Jennings was in Boston yesterday, in consultation with Mr. Adams on the Borden case, and they were asked if they had anything to say with refer- ence to the article recently published in the Fall River Daily Globe and copied in some of the Boston papers concerning the alleged discovery of evidence of Miss Borden being in Providence and having an interview with an attorney there about the disposition of the estate in the event of her father and mother, or either of them dying.

They both said they were prepared to state that the report was absolutely untrue; that Miss Borden did not then, or ever in her life, consult with any attorney in Providence, R.I., or anywhere else, concerning the disposition of the property of her father. (PN, September 22, 1892)"

—————

pgs 391-2
"There finally seemed to be an explanation as to the source of the story of Lizzie Borden seeing a Providence attorney about property rights upon her parents’ deaths:

PAGE & OWEN, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 19 COLLEGE ST. ROOMS 17,18 & 25, P. O. BOX 1030 CHARLES H. PAGE. FRANKLIN P. OWEN.
Providence, R. I. Nov. 14,1892

Hon. H. M. Knowlton Atty.
Dear Sir

Yours this day received - At the request of Mr. Hilliard I desire to state that I told Mr. McHenry that from the appearance of the cut in the newspaper I thought I had seen Miss Borden on the street in this city about a week before the murder. I also said sometime subsequently that I felt quite positive some member of the Borden family had called to see me about the property but I did not know who it was - I never told McHenry that Miss Lizzie Borden had been to my office and I never came to Fall River to the court and I am of the opinion that if any communications were made to me by her they are privileged. I could not tell if she did unless I should first see her.

Yours Resply
Franklin P. Owen. (Knowlton Papers, 94)
— The Case Against Lizzie Borden William Spencer, North Forest Press, NC, 2019

Searching my computer:

I found the original story in the Pittsburg dispatch as written in the Kentucky paper, but there was an extra paragraph at the end- same date: Sept 21, 1892

(can clic on pic to read)

Here’s another out of town lawyer from my computer cache

Thanks for posting those articles. Totally agree that it is very unclear if Lizzie sought out legal counsel in the weeks prior to the murders. I'm not convinced that the sequence of the Borden's deaths was intentionally 'managed'.

If Lizzie did the killing, I think she just presumed if they died, she and Emma would inherit.

It is a little interesting that lawyer Owen in his letter to Knowlton bothered to note that if he did talk to Lizzie it would be confidential. Not sure why he would throw that tidbit into the letter if he didn't talk to her. But still not conclusive one way or the other.

Well, I had repeated the allegations, and prepared for someone to ask me my sources, and since nobody did I figured to provide them anyway. I’m actually still looking around my computer.
There might be more in my backup hard drive but since I moved, I’m not sure where I stowed the thing

These articles tend to intimate that by Lizzie seeking outside legal assistance to do with a potential inheritance (and *insider* inquiry- like meeting Cook), that coming events might be in a planning stage for longer than one might think (like up to a month). I don’t know how that would affect the theory that *things were coming to a head very quickly and therefore quick action became inevitable.*
(Not a quote, but paraphrased member’s opinion)

Something about that letter to her friends/Terence Duniho Collection
Plz clic on pic

Did you already have that article, camgarsky?
Somehow, I thought you knew what might have been in the letter...

Yes, I've read this article, but don't have a "copy" of it, so thanks, I've already cut and pasted to my folders.

My 'favorite' info regarding a letter from lizzie to Ms. Johnston is included in a letter sent from D.A. Knowlton to A. G. Pillsbury, Knowlton Papers Pg. 76.
3rd paragraph.
".....It is doubtless true that Lizzie Borden wrote to her Marion friends the day before the murder that she should be over Monday; and would chop all their wood for them for she had been looking at the axes in the cellar and she had found one as sharp as a razor......"

For whatever reason, Knowlton was confident the 'rumors' were accurate.

Drawing of the three G.R. Smith witnesses. Sharing because this was new for me.

Very good job! Thanks! Not seen that before!

There's a photograph of Frederick B. Hart on page 189 of The Knowlton Papers. It was taken in 1889.

Mr. Hart is very dapper looking!

Same photo is on page 154 in Jennings Journals for anyone who has that book but not Knowlton.

I am reveling in all these visuals, Kat and Camgarsky; such riches! Thank you both.