Locks & Keys

[camgarsky4]

Starting a new thread to share all things 'locks & keys'.

To kick it off, below are two extracts from Jennings Journals that feel like they are addressing the same issue (Mrs. Borden not having her front door key). First extract is what Abby told Mrs. Bowen and the 2nd what Lizzie tells us Abby told her. I've heard the the version which Abby told Mrs. Bowen and assumed that the "they" was Andrew (as the old school 'man of the house') or Lizzie (as keeper of the front door locks). But what Lizzie claims Abby told her, makes it sound like an outsider. At some table (dining room perhaps), a man was fiddling with her key and then he took it with him. Quite the strange little 'snippet'. Jennings ends the notation sort of hanging with the 'dash' ending the sentence as if there was more the story that he forgot to note.

The underlining of "back door" was Jennings doing.

Anyone want to fathom what is going on in the 2nd version below? Or the first for that matter.

Jennings entry - Pg 33-34
Mrs. Dr. Bowen called & says that on the Tuesday before the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden & spoke of going over to the house & Mrs. B said Lizzie wasn't up yet she didn't think, but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was & went over there with Mrs. Borden - Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way "for they had taken her key" so she & I went in by the back door.

Jennings entry - Pg 179
Key - Mrs B told L she had lost her key - that last she saw of it man was playing it - had it in his hand - took it from table -

[Kat]

This is a good topic, and deserves some thought and time. We will get to it shortly? I'm not up to speed yet on the Jennings Journal. Probably due to this guy

[camgarsky4]

Yep. This is a topic that will take a fair degree of critical thinking.

Here are my initial observations.
1) Key possession is a statement of authority and trust. That 'they' took Abby's key may be an indicator of where she stood on the family hierarchy. For example, most of us would say, "I gave/lent my key to so and so'.
2) Presumably the 'back (slab) door' was locked, so she presumably retained that key even though the back door was Bridget's to lock & unlock each day.
3) The only reasons to take someone's key is if the 'taker' had lost their copy or a new person was being given front door access and that person had priority over Abby.
4) In the 2nd snippet, Abby says that she lost her key. What happened to 'they' taking it? I presume she is referencing the front door key and not back door or another key.
5) Who was the man 'fiddling' with her key?
6) Who was telling Jennings the 2nd snippet? If Lizzie, I don't think I've read any other notations that seem to be directly out of Lizzie's mouth.
7) With the 2nd snippet left hanging with the 'dash' at the end, assuming something interrupted his talk with whomever he was with.
8) Interesting that Jennings chose to underline 'back door'. Why call that out?

I need to reread the editors opening notes and see how they handled the sequence of Jennings/Phillips entries in the journal. Also, whomever shared the 2nd snippet info with Jennings, they might have misunderstood that Abby had her key taken and assumed it was lost.

If Lizzie is truly the source for this insight, motive of the comment could be interesting.

[camgarsky4]

Inquest
Lizzie
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.

There was no rider on that answer: it was not stated that locking of doors was after the robbery.
We talked about the house starting out as a tenement which would need lots of separate keys to interior doors.
We talked about the 'girls' probably wanting privacy as adults.
We also talked about Andrew having occasional business dealings with men in the sitting room, and it would be prudent to keep the private rooms locked against the 'public.'
But I remember Lizzie's answer : It had always been so.

--BTW: was it noticed that earlier, in a post by moi, on a similar topic, that Emma was able to open the connecting door, so that Lizzie may be being literal when she said she had no key, but that didn't mean Emma didn't?

[camgarsky4]

I really think that the house was originally a tenement is key to the internal door locks.

A leading indicator that the locks were NOT installed for personal security is that the 2nd floor dress closet at front of house also had a lock and key (you'll recall that Lizzie provided the police w/ key to take a look inside). I'm thinking that level of security is even beyond Andrew's worries. Doubt he could have cared less what happened to their dresses and wouldn't have spent $ to have it installed. So that lock likely was always there. And if it was always there, then I'm sure all the other door locks were also always there.

I guess the next question is whether Andrew always actually locked his bedroom door and put key on the mantel. I think yes, because a key needed to be on the mantel so that Abby could access the bedroom. My guess is the door had a spring lock and auto-locked when closed. Closing a bedroom door would not be unusual to me, especially if a maid is always walking by your bedroom on the way to hers. So I do NOT think he left the key on the mantel as a 'temptation or message' to Lizzie.

Kat -- that is a myth I'd like us to consider closed.

What does everyone else think?

[PossumPie]

I really think that the house was originally a tenement is key to the internal door locks.

A leading indicator that the locks were NOT installed for personal security is that the 2nd floor dress closet at front of house also had a lock and key (you'll recall that Lizzie provided the police w/ key to take a look inside). I'm thinking that level of security is even beyond Andrew's worries. Doubt he could have cared less what happened to their dresses and wouldn't have spent $ to have it installed. So that lock likely was always there. And if it was always there, then I'm sure all the other door locks were also always there.

I guess the next question is whether Andrew always actually locked his bedroom door and put key on the mantel. I think yes, because a key needed to be on the mantel so that Abby could access the bedroom. My guess is the door had a spring lock and auto-locked when closed. Closing a bedroom door would not be unusual to me, especially if a maid is always walking by your bedroom on the way to hers. So I do NOT think he left the key on the mantel as a 'temptation or message' to Lizzie.

Kat -- that is a myth I'd like us to consider closed.

What does everyone else think?

I can't think of one logical reason to lock a bedroom door then put the key on the mantle accessible to everyone including the maid. It wasn't to keep the temptation from Bridget--she could pick up the key and go right up there locked or not. It wasn't to thumb his nose at Lizzie... she could have done the same, take the key when Andrew wasn't home,-- another "break-in" another nail in the lock. It wasn't to keep an actual stranger from sneaking in and stealing his stuff...a nail in the lock could pick the lock. It may have been a spring-lock, but what a pain to keep unlocking the freaking door every time you went upstairs, just turn the spring latch off.
I'm coming up empty for any reason whatsoever to both lock the door AND leave the key accessible to all in the house. It is really no different than locking your door and leaving the key in the keyhole.

[camgarsky4]

It might have been as simple as he was a bit OCD about closing his door. Or maybe at some point in the past, he left door open and it got inadvertently closed and they had to get locksmith to open. That irritated him so that he instituted a systemic way to avoid getting locked out again.

I think he likely was a man of habits.

[PossumPie]

It might have been as simple as he was a bit OCD about closing his door. Or maybe at some point in the past, he left door open and it got inadvertently closed and they had to get locksmith to open. That irritated him so that he instituted a systemic way to avoid getting locked out again.

I think he likely was a man of habits.

I like that theory, he got accidentally locked out...that also is supported by the spring lock theory. You pull the door shut and it snaps locked. Oh crap...

[Kat]

I may have given a wrong impression about the definition of a tenement: I believe it was a 2 family home, rather than what we nowadays consider multiple renters.
But I do think they called that a "tenement" back then. MB would know. There might be "boarders" amongst this list, especially the last 2 ladies listed. It would not be unusual.

Anyway, in order to throw precise light on the issue, here is the census information, as to the residents that I had included in The Hatchet as I was researching the Second Street house prior to Andrew's purchase and sole ownership. This way we can reach a conclusion as to the need for keys by the relationships among the people living there. (Also, due to the sheer numbers of folks, there probably were a lot of keys over time- 1845 to 1870.)

Some Residents of the two properties On Second Street

1845 – 1872 Charles Trafton, owner, sold to Andrew J. Borden (Rebello,35)

1850 census
#1231 Charles Trafton 45
Hannah 32
(?)Female 50
#1230 Isaac A. Simmons 40
(?)Female 39
William C. 19
Samuel C. 15
Lucy A. 14
Ruth A. 10
Isaac 7

(Edward and Comfort Buffinton next door at #1238)


1860 census
#1 Charles Trafton 50
Rhoda White 60 Housekeeper
also
William Cook 34 Lumber dealer
Esther 32 Wife
Charles B. 10
Everett M. 4
Ellen Also (?) 19 Domestic
#400 Ladwick Borden 48 Lumber Man. (?)
Elisa F. 47 Wife
Maria 15

(E.P. and Comfort Buffinton next door at #4)


1870 census
#262 Charles Trafton 66* Works in woolen mill
Susan 42 Wife, Keeping house
also
George A. Pettey 31 Retired grocer
Lydia 32 Wife, Keeping house
Ann A. Manchester 76
Ephraim C. Bliner (?) 13 Attending school
#263 Ladwick Borden 58 Retired hiller (?)
Ruhama (?) 56 Wife
also
Lydia A. Crocker 39 No occup.
Masia Hinckly 25 No occup.

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- thanks for tapping the brakes on me a bit. A little embarrassed I didn't think this thru all the way. This was a duplex converted to single family.

I will search for it today, but if anyone with better organized archive/notes could post the changes that Andrew made to the duplex when he converted to single family that would be VERY helpful. Maybe there will be a correlation to the changes he made and which doors got locks or didn't.

That said, assuming the back side door provided access to both 1st and 2nd story 'apartments', then it seems pretty evident that Andrew's bedroom door would have been the official internal back entry for the 2nd story apartment (referencing 2nd floor layout in Rebello). That would make it very logical that a door with a spring lock would be in that particular doorway. Just like the front door.

[PossumPie]

Thanks, Kat. I agree that evidence shows that Andrew converted the house back into a single-family dwelling. Lizzies room and Andrew/Abbys room were dining room/kitchen. That explains all of the interior door locks.

While I find Camgarsky's explanation about accidentally getting locked out of the bedroom due to a spring lock plausible, why didn't he just disengage the spring lock? He purposely chose to keep his room locked. This shows distrust of someone (family, servant, or stranger) yet leaving the key where the family and servant could get it shows trust. Did the girls have guests over that Andrew didn't trust? Did Bridget? Did he really think a simple lock would keep a stranger thief out? the nail found in the lock should have suggested otherwise.

I still think Lizzie was the thief-not to get money but to scare Andrew into moving. I think Andrew suspected her. I now disagree that leaving the key on the mantle was some kind of symbolism meant for her as it makes no sense and I find no evidence that the mantle key practice started after the break-in. The door was locked before (the nail in the lock proves it), broken into, locked now. Andrew had a club hidden under his bed. I prefer a Glock but to each his own. Crime was an issue even back then and one must protect one's self. Lizzie made a point to tell investigators that the cellar door was unlocked (foreshadow of the murders?) After the murders, the unlocked cellar door was again mentioned. Jennings carefully avoided discussing the break-in during the prelim. hearing. This makes no sense as it gives foundation to the assertion that it was an unsafe neighborhood. The only reason it would be avoided is to not draw attention to Lizzie's involvement. Lastly, Lizzie mentioned the break-in (of over a year previous) the night before the murders! Coincidence?

[camgarsky4]

Merging these thoughts together......Andrew's bedroom door likely had a lock on it when he purchased the property since it would have been the back entry door for the original 2nd story apartment. Andrew, for security and privacy reasons, was comfortable and content with keeping his bedroom door closed and locked. Key was kept on mantel to allow the household to access the bedroom when he was out of the house.

Simple as that.

[Kat]

I will search for it today, but if anyone with better organized archive/notes could post the changes that Andrew made to the duplex when he converted to single family that would be VERY helpful. Maybe there will be a correlation to the changes he made and which doors got locks or didn't.

The Hatchet article "Razing the Leary Press," see magazine for sources:
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... egins.html

Also, excerpt...I can make it a long quote, and able to copy paste from my own Word Doc because I wrote it.

...According to Bill (Pavao), modifications to the house in his lifetime were made for the convenience and taste of the McGinns. Josephine and John’s bedroom was the dining room and she required that an archway be established in the middle of the room, possibly where the old partition had been originally when Andrew bought the place and which he had removed, creating his dining room. She preferred an arch way to take the place of the door between the sitting room and parlour which required the removal of the door and frame. She had the door which connected the dining room with the kitchen walled up for privacy, and the kitchen refrigerator was put there. The stove was located where the refrigerator is now, to the east, and where the big stove is now situated there was the McGinn’s kitchen table and chairs, and a window was added over the sink on the east back wall.

Eventually, John Sr.’s mother was housed on the second floor, the area set up like her own apartment, and Lizzie’s bedroom became her dining room, the family gathering there at Holiday meals. It was probably at this time, as there was a need for a buffet, that Lizzie’s shallow closet was converted to shelving and cupboards for china storage. At some period an aunt came to stay and her bedroom was Abby’s dressing room. Andrew and Abby’s bedroom had been, once again, converted to a kitchen to serve the second floor apartment. Thus the Master Borden’s bedroom had been first built as a kitchen in a two-tenement property in 1845, renovated by him into his master suite in 1872, returned to kitchen status in the late 1940’s for Mrs. McGinn senior and under Ron Evans in the 1990’s returned to master bedroom state to replicate the Borden era while preparing the house for a B&B. This room probably suffered the most drastic changes over time, including a window being “lost” sometime on the east wall when a bathroom was installed. The pipes for this convenience taking precedence over a window and so there no longer is a symmetry of windows in the view of the house from the back yard, as was there when the house was first designed and built, and through the Bordens residency there.

Over time, Martha McGinn, John and Josephine’s granddaughter left home and moved in with them, being given Emma’s room. Her father followed, also leaving home, to move in with his parents. As far as it is recalled, he took over the “Jennings” room in the upper story attic.

After Martha acquired the house, her friend Ron Evans helped to restore the residence to its 1890’s standards and appearance, keeping the bathrooms, of course. He had a contractor replicate and install the door and frame to the parlour from the sitting room, removing that added arch and the arch in the middle of the dining room, consequently returning the dining room to its former use. He had the doorway returned between the dining room and kitchen and added a large cooking stove which was common to the era. Each room was given back its particulars to return them to their former use. ....

[Kat]

I wonder which melodramatic author decided to impress this myth onto a susceptible, curious reading public. It's unfair...
Maybe it was a newspaper "reporter."
It would be interesting to track it down.
I once tracked down the first known printing of the "Forty Whacks" versicle.

[Reasonwhy]

I want to explain my general sense of this topic, but also my reluctance to toss out the possibility that Andrew was sending Lizzie a message with that key on the mantel. I’m afraid this will be a long post!

It seems locks may have existed on many or all of the doors before Andrew bought the house. The common back door entrance would have given access to the cellar and third floor, both of which may have been used by each of the two sets of tenants pre-1872 (Kat, thanks for researching the census to identify those groups for us). Thus, it makes sense that folks from different families would want the locks as an option for privacy/protection from each other.

And even within families, locks on bedrooms, especially, would have made sense.

But having the option to lock, and actually going to the time and trouble to lock—all doors, all of the time—are two very different things.

Locking may have been the custom before the in-home robbery—at least, Lizzie says it was. But, if so, why did that habit get started?

The Bordens were the only family in residence after 1872. There was no need to worry about intrusions from individuals from other families; and locking of exterior doors would protect against invasion from strangers. So, who are the family protecting themselves from with interior door-locking?

Well, we know Andrew did receive business visitors in the house during the hour before dinner. As well, Andrew sold vinegar from the house (do we know if his customers actually entered the home?). Were these people potentially threatening enough that every interior door must be constantly locked against them? If so, why would they be invited in? Logically, it would be much simpler to deal with those people outside a locked house.

I can only conclude those doors in the house were locked by family members against each other. Trusting families, possibly excepting in years when children are too young to understand, know that a closed door requires a knock and permission before entering. Lizzie was twelve, old enough to follow this courtesy, when the family moved into the house. The development of the locking habit strongly implies one or more Bordens could not be relied upon to respect such a boundary.

Locking in such a family substitutes for effective communication (Saying, “Hey, don’t intrude without knocking!” once or twice should solve the issue, in a family practicing decency toward each other).

So, why can’t the Bordens effectively communicate or trust each other to respect their spaces? Speculation has included many reasons: abuse, physical or sexual; robbery, as in 1891; an atmosphere of hatred; unpredictability/impulsivity/instability in behavior. We do not know which of these may apply.

We do know two of the family were butchered, and guilt points most strongly to their daughter. This is a family in which bizarre, subterranean methods of communicating are not only conceivable, but in evidence:
—Lizzie asking “somebody” why the heads of the pigeons were off;
—Lizzie giving Andrew the silent treatment after contending with him (according to her Uncle Harrington);
—Andrew wearing Lizzie’s gold ring, when he did not even wear a wedding band;
—the daughters taking their meals apart from the parents, and living almost completely separately from them in the house;
—Lizzie’s revocation of Abby’s title as “Mother”;
—Lizzie not greeting her parents or Uncle John on Wednesday night, but also them not greeting her;
—Andrew’s doling out of money in lieu of affection, and to quiet dissension;
—Lizzie’s frequent failure to acknowledge the presence in the house of guests or even relatives;
—Lizzie’s lack of conversation with Abby, etc.

In this context of perverted communication, I think it’s quite possible Andrew only began to place his bedroom key on that mantel after the home robbery. The habit of locking every door could also have followed this event, despite Lizzie saying it had always been thus (lying would have served to deflect suspicion from her as the culprit). Andrew’s motivation could have been to shame Lizzie. That openly available key would have worked as a constant reminder to her that he understood her to have been the thief. It would have served, in openly tempting her to use it, as a continuous means of exhorting her to seek to control herself. He could have meant this as a warning, or even thought he was helping her.

Otherwise, why did Abby and Andrew not just keep their own keys to the bedroom with their keys to all of the other locks? Remember, this is the only key that is kept on that mantel.

[Kat]

While you were working on your well-considered reponse, Reasonwhy, I was trying to find the origin to the references to all the locking. I hope this doesn't interfere.

I found out it's hard to word search "lock" when it is part of the word "o'clock."

Anyway, gathered from Porter's book, Fall River Tragedy (I figured it had to be a pretty early reference), 1893, he has paraphrased Robinson's closing remarks at trial, in the earlier section, and Knowlton's closing argument in these latter pages. We should really go to the source, next, but lots of authors never did that- even Phillips used Porter.
I may do that another time, or maybe someone else will.
But, again, this would be the reference used in subsequent author's research, not the trial, so here is the sense of the thing. My impression first is that Robinson is not saying the family is weird to have all these locks, but rather they are protecting themselves, so no one can come in. What's a bit odd is that Robinson gets carried away, and starts naming rooms we never heard were locked, like the guest room, sitting room, Parlour, and even Emma's room! And it doesn't make sense...

Knowlton's argument is leading us to the conclusion that since no one could get in, then the culprit had to be a resident, and we get the inference this is a unique family situation.

Here are the quotes from Porter: remember, he paraphrases:

Porter
252+
...The learned district attorney, in his opening, said that there was an impassable wall built up through that house. But the moment we got at the wall, down it went, doors flew open and instead of showing a line in the house shut in and hedged in by locks, we find that Mr. Borden’s room was doubly and trebly locked, Bridget’s room was locked and Mrs. Borden’s door was locked, and you find Miss Lizzie’s room locked, as well as Emma’s, the guest chamber is locked, the parlor and sitting room—I don’t know but what everything, and that was all because there had been a burglary in the house and barn, and Mr. Borden, old-fashioned, in that he was, thought they
253
wanted to lock the house pretty securely. He kept a safe in that back room which kept valuables. This was locked day and night and not a little care was given to the fastening of the doors and all parts of the house. But you see the impassable wall was not as against the two girls but was simply a matter of protection to keep people out. If it was an impassable wall and not to keep people out why did they have a lock on the door to the back stairs, and why did they lock up the attics? ...

....
284
We find, Mr. Foreman, perhaps the most remarkable house that you ever heard of. My distinguished friend has admitted so many things that I am saved the necessity of arguing very much about the circumstances surrounding the house. Everything was locked up. Why, did you notice there was even the barbed wire at the bottom of the fence as well as on the top and on the stringers? Everything was shut up. It was the most zealously guarded house I ever heard of. The cellar door was found locked by all the witnesses that examined it. The barn door was locked at night and was kept locked all night and opened in the morning, by the undisputed testimony of Bridget, whom nobody has suggested or ventured to suggest has told anything more than she knows in the case. The closet door, up to the head of the stairs, was found locked by Mr. Fleet, and every time that he wanted to go in there, or anybody else wanted to go in there, or Lizzie herself, she furnished the keys that unlocked it. So that door was locked up. The front door
285
was a door which had been kept by a spring lock until that day. ...

[Kat]

Reasonwhy, I have a question: did you literally mean to say "to lock- all doors, all of the time" and the statement "habit of locking every door?"

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- nice writeup. In the spirit of healthy banter....couple questions & thoughts.

1) Six of your 9 points of evidence read as a manifestation of Lizzie's poor personality disposition (as described by Hiram) and her holding Abby in low regard. Not sure disliking your step-mother is unusual, especially if you're spoiled and entitled, but think you're lifestyle has been minimized due to your parents.
2) Why do you think that Andrew doled out $ in lieu of affection? If Andrew gave her the Europe trip as her 30th bday gift, wouldn't that be more generosity than a 'buy out'? Giving them $200 annual allowance is like giving a dependent today $500 a month today for spending money. For a 'multi-millionaire', this doesn't seem out of line whatsoever.
3) Why would Lizzie lying about "that's the way its always been' have anything to do with whether she would be suspected of killing the Borden's?

I believe the only internal locked doors that testimony reveals are the two elder Borden doors, Lizzie's bedroom and, oddly, the hall closet upstairs. Based on the various descriptions of walking around the house, it doesn't seem the internal doors on the 1st floor were locked. Also, John doesn't mention needing a key to get in and out of the guest room. Nor do the police.

I think that the upstairs landing was the entry point for the front of 2nd floor apartment. So the dress closet was likely outside the apartment. That might be why it had a lock originally and always. Same for the Borden hallway door lock. That door had been the original back access to the apartment.

[PossumPie]

Regardless of the "why" Andrew's bedroom was kept locked, it was definitely kept locked BEFORE the theft as a nail was produced which was allegedly used to "break in". There is no question that it was not locked because of the break-in.
As I mentioned, There is no sense in leaving the key somewhere as a reminder to Lizzie. Anyone who would steal from her father wouldn't benefit from any gentle, subtle reminders, and psychologically, reminders only work short term. If one puts a note above a coffee pot to remind everyone to turn it off when empty, it only works for about a week. Then the note becomes "invisible" as we tend to filter out things we see all of the time. That key would mean nothing after a week or so. I used to keep a note on the front door "Thursday is trash day" to remind me not to leave without taking out the garbage. It only worked one week then I stopped seeing the note. Thank goodness for Alexa- Now she announces "Take out the garbage" every Thursday morning and I never forget.
The locking everything is secondary to O.C.D. or anxiety disorder or something. I tell my students that we all have mental quirks and they only become diagnosable disorders when they significantly interfere with our lives. The inability for anyone to enter a room without digging for a key seems to qualify for "significantly interfering".
Yes, the locks were there all along and had a logical purpose. Yes, locking one's bedroom if one is changing, or having sex is completely normal. No, keeping them always locked is pathological distrust either of the world in general or of each other. The more I ponder this the stranger it becomes.

[camgarsky4]

One more note on the testimony identified locked doors. Elder Borden bedroom hall, front dress closet and Lizzie/Emma entry door. The more I think about the conversion from duplex to single family, Lizzie's door is also likely an original apartment entry door.

So the only doors that are clearly identified as needing a key (one exception) are highly likely former primary entryways or common area when the house was a duplex.

Regarding the door between Lizzie & AJB's bedroom. It seems very natural to me that both sides would desire a means to secure the door. Lizzie had a hook latch and we have conflicting testimony on the elder side. Lock & Key and/or a bolt are mentioned. I personally prefer to think it was a sliding bolt on the elder side due to ease of installment, use and cost. I think the connect door is the only door that we are aware of that locked, that would have been installed as part of the conversion to single family.

This was a household 100% made up of fully grown adults....I don't think its odd they closed their doors when leaving the room (ie. personal sanctuary) and if the original/current door knob was spring locking, then closing the door also locks it. It then takes a key to open it.

[PossumPie]

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

[Reasonwhy]

Reasonwhy, I have a question: did you literally mean to say "to lock- all doors, all of the time" and the statement "habit of locking every door?"

I could have been more precise there. We have no references to closet doors within bedrooms being kept locked, though presumably locks on and furniture barriers against doors would have prevented against closet intrusion. Also, doors between rooms that were used as common areas were kept unlocked and frequently open, a necessity due to the lack of hallways.

However, most every area within the house of 1) personal space of people, or 2) personal property, was continuously kept locked:
—each inhabitants’s bedroom (with the possible exception of Emma’s—I’ve seen no reference to whether it was)
—the door to the clothes press
—Bridget’s trunk
—the trunks on the third floor
—Lizzie’s desk
—Andrew’s desk
—Andrew’s safe

I agree with those who see this level of security as excessive and therefore suggestive.

[Reasonwhy]

Reason -- nice writeup. In the spirit of healthy banter....couple questions & thoughts.

1) Six of your 9 points of evidence read as a manifestation of Lizzie's poor personality disposition (as described by Hiram) and her holding Abby in low regard. Not sure disliking your step-mother is unusual, especially if you're spoiled and entitled, but think you're lifestyle has been minimized due to your parents.
2) Why do you think that Andrew doled out $ in lieu of affection? If Andrew gave her the Europe trip as her 30th bday gift, wouldn't that be more generosity than a 'buy out'? Giving them $200 annual allowance is like giving a dependent today $500 a month today for spending money. For a 'multi-millionaire', this doesn't seem out of line whatsoever.
3) Why would Lizzie lying about "that's the way its always been' have anything to do with whether she would be suspected of killing the Borden's?

I believe the only internal locked doors that testimony reveals are the two elder Borden doors, Lizzie's bedroom and, oddly, the hall closet upstairs. Based on the various descriptions of walking around the house, it doesn't seem the internal doors on the 1st floor were locked. Also, John doesn't mention needing a key to get in and out of the guest room. Nor do the police.

I think that the upstairs landing was the entry point for the front of 2nd floor apartment. So the dress closet was likely outside the apartment. That might be why it had a lock originally and always. Same for the Borden hallway door lock. That door had been the original back access to the apartment.

To respond to your points (and I appreciate the engagement with my ideas, Camgarsky):

1) My points of evidence were posted to show the poor level of communication within the family. Lizzie’s silences and rejecting actions, however they may be variously interpreted—or even justified, were characterized as “peculiar,” (by the relation who resided with them and kept house for some weeks, “haughty,” (by her Uncle Harrington), and Lizzie in general as “queer,” (by her own sister, in her 1913 interview).
Lizzie wasn’t the only Borden who had trouble communicating openly and civilly, however. The family dressmaker testified that Lizzie included Emma in her statements that “we” avoided the elders when they could and did not eat with them. Emma testified that Lizzie actually spoke to Abby more than she herself did.
To repeat from my post above, neither Andrew, Abby, nor Morse greeted Lizzie upon her entry on Wednesday night—it was not only Lizzie who ignored them. I will discuss Andrew’s style of communicating below.
Abby, Lizzie testified, was not “interested” in them, which I interpret as meaning Abby did not take their side and advocate for them with Andrew. Lizzie, in the dressmaker’s testimony, also said Abby was “mean.” This suggests Lizzie (Emma, too?) found Abby failed to communicate the feelings toward the sisters that a mother should.

2) Andrew did not bother to kindly explain the dead pigeons’ presence in the house. Your own moving post, Camgarsky, where you write about the death of your pet dog, contrasts your caring family’s approach versus Andrew’s indifference or even cruelty. Not affectionate.
Andrew kept the news of the purchase and transfer into Abby’s name of the Fourth St. house secret from the girls through indifference or fear of their reaction. I believe it may have been this withholding of information, and lack of explanation, that infuriated/struck fear into the sisters as much as or more than the purchase itself. I believe it fed their obsession about what else that affected their security he might do in secret. Not affectionate.
Andrew dragged his heels on moving to a better house, despite his daughters’ strenuous objections to staying at Second Street. Not affectionate.
Lizzie asked Charles Cook the value of the Ferry Street house before accepting Andrew’s money and transferring title back to him. Shows distrust between daughter and father, not affection.
Andrew may have felt he was showing affection when he gave money, seemingly generously. The above examples show Lizzie, and possibly Emma, as well, did not experience these money gifts as love/affection.

3) Lizzie possibly lying about the tenure of all the locking would serve to deflect suspicion about her role in the home robbery. If she could convince police that it had always been so, then the practice would not have begun only after the robbery, in defense against her and future possible stealing/spying/intrusion by her.
I did not mean to suggest the lie would have helped defend against belief in her as the murderer. However, it could have. If she could terrorize and steal, It’s more likely she could trespass in a murderous way. So, she may have been hoping to defend herself against both crimes.

[Kat]

We left out the locking door between Lizzie's room and the guest room, tho we have noted the furniture making egress impassable.
That may have, when the other families lived there, been a separate apartment...like being shared by those 2 ladies Lydia and Maisa. Same may be why the dress closet in the upper hall has a key. Tho small, it could be rented, or a renters personal closet.
I also cannot fathom why that dress closet would be locked by Lizzie and Emma
Maybe we can think up something suspicious?
Oh! Maybe Abbie was a snoop, and they locked it against her! Maybe she would snitch to Andrew how many blue dresses Lizzie had? Or went thru their pockets? We hadn't considered Abbie reacting to the treatment she got from her step-daughters...possibly acting out in her own way from frustration?

[camgarsky4]

To help myself get self-clarity, I've listed below, in statement form, what I currently think on these issues. If a statement needs a little juice, I added additional comments. For the casual forum reader....these are just my opinions and not necessarily correct.

* The Borden household was not happy (aka affectionate) and as time progressed was an increasingly toxic environment.

* The house was occupied by four fully grown, adult, family members who operated in basically two sub-units....the wedded couple & the
sisters. The 5th occupant, the maid, provided common services like cooking & laundry in the kitchen & cellar (see next comment).
I'm 99% convinced Lizzie was the culprit, but at their ages, that these 2 adult subsets operated relatively independently and led relatively
autonomous lives seems normal to me.
Not consistently sitting down at the table for meals does not strike me as overly peculiar if that is how the family habits had evolved over time.
The way they had the house physically and functionally segregated, except for the kitchen & cellar, these two subsets could pretty much stay out
of each other's hair, which is what they apparently preferred to do since they didn’t behave as if they particularly liked each other (back to bullet
#1). Much is made of Bridget testifying that the family wasn't argumentative, but why would they be? I think they just ignored each other for the
most part and, again, the house layout and flow allowed for such a minimalistic interactive style.

* AJB's hallway bedroom door had been kept locked prior to the in-house burglary as evidenced by the identity of the nail being used to pick the
lock. That would suggest that whatever the source cause for locking, it existed pre-burglary.

* AJB kept his bedroom door locked pre-burglary and had always kept the key on the mantel to provide Abby access. Why she didn't carry around her
own key, we can't say, but with a key on the mantel, why would she need to. As Mrs. Bowen tells us, someone took Abby's front door key, so it
seems Abby didn't have 'key possession' decision rights (admittedly weird).

* Based on the floor design, there is a strong likelihood that Lizzie and AJB's hallway bedroom doors had been the original front & back entry to the
original and pre-Borden 2nd floor apartment.

* If I was making a minor business transaction with an extended family member, I would feel zero compulsion to inform my grown children. It is not
their business and does not impact them in any reasonable way.

* Uncle Morse was the informant telling the girls about 4th St. He had a big mouth and had shared personal AJB info with them before regarding the
existence of a will.

[PossumPie]

Great post Camgarsky.
I'd add two comments: Again, I wouldn't make much of the pigeon fiasco. The more I research pigeons near the turn of the century the more I come up with a cheap way to get fresh meat. Not saying that some people may not make a hobby of it, one particular movie about the murders took a lot of "poetic license" showing Lizzie near-suicide over the vicious killing of her pets by a crazed hatchet-wielding Andrew. but knowing the Bordens, it was squab. No tears shed. The "house" Lizzie looked up at isn't a cute little pen for pets, people kept pigeons in a cage that they could sleep and eat in. When fat, they were cooked. Lizzie's testimony shows no sadness about them and the fact that Andrew brought them in the house shows they were to be cleaned and eaten.
Let's think of this household for a moment as a two-family abode. Pretend Andrew and Abby rent out the front to a couple of spinsters. If it were not Lizzie and Emma, but two strangers, the locking of everything wouldn't be strange at all. That tells me that Lizzie and Emma had become as if strangers to the parents. Things make more sense that way.

[Reasonwhy]

* If I was making a minor business transaction with an extended family member, I would feel zero compulsion to inform my grown children. It is not their business and does not impact them in any reasonable way.

—partial post by Camgarsky

Just to comment on this one part of your post for now, I see this as a reasonable point of view if it were coming from a reasonable Andrew. But since we know the daughters were strongly concerned about such matters, from their own and others’ testimonies, it seems Andrew would have known this, too. So knowing, why did he act secretly in spite of this? Was he just generally uncaring/cruel, in fear of their reaction, or out to teach them a lesson? He comes across as obdurate and amazingly bull-headed. If he was trying to control Emma and Lizzie’s reactions, he sure was lousy at it!

[Reasonwhy]

…And perhaps provoking? To me, Andrew’s insensitive actions can read as failed attempts to keep a lid on the boiling jealousy the daughters had of any preference shown to Abby. He may have seen discussion of his decisions as beneath his dignity, or as coddling, which could only serve to undermine his control.
But he stoked his daughters’ resentments again and again with these actions. He did not reduce the tension in the household, but continually increased it. Was he among those said to have no emotional intelligence—did he not see that he was doing so? Or was he simply brutal, judging his daughters were wrong to feel as they did, so he left them to stew?
Another victim of this increasing antagonism would, of course, have been Abby, whom the girls’ likely felt was a safer target for their hate. Abby seems not to have had the status in the family to ameliorate Andrew’s actions. Indeed, she may have felt so fearful of him herself that she stopped trying to soften these blows of his. Or, maybe she was so weak she saw the state of emotions as a zero-sum game, where anything that hurt the girls helped her? More and more I see each of these four as clawing for survival against the others.
Trying to discern the precise nature of the Bordens’ dysfunction as a family is exceedingly difficult, and maybe impossible. Yet there the reasons for the murders must lie, except to those who believe a stranger killed for his own reasons.

[Reasonwhy]

Not consistently sitting down at the table for meals does not strike me as overly peculiar if that is how the family habits had evolved over time.

—partial post by Camgarsky

Trial, Mrs. Gifford, p. 1169:
Q. Now Mrs. Gifford, will you state the talk, what you said and what she said?
A. I was speaking to her of a garment I had made for Mrs. Borden, and instead of saying "Mrs. Borden" I said "Mother" and she says, "don't say that to me, for she is a mean, good for nothing thing." I said, "oh Lizzie, you don't mean that?"
And she said, "yes, I don't have much to do with her; I stay in my room most of the time." And I said, "you come down to your meals, don't you?" And she said, "yes, but we don't eat with them if we can help it." And that is all that was said.

The context of the above conversation concerned Lizzie and Emma’s animosity toward Abby, as well as “them” (meaning Abby, but Andrew, too). Especially given Lizzie’s specific statement, “yes, but we don’t eat with them if we can help it,” I definitely do see this behavior as peculiar and evidence of active hostility, not just as a habit which evolved over time.

I’m not trying to nit-pick here or in my posts above, Camgarsky. I’m pointing out that I see more clear instances of dysfunction among the Bordens than you seem to. The collective evidence of this dysfunction is critical, in my view, to understanding how the family dynamic came to be deadly.

[PossumPie]

Andrew certainly was obdurate, he wouldn't have gotten where he was if he hadn't been somewhat stubborn and controlling. I'm not sure he antagonized the girls--There seemed to be a fatalistic acceptance of the tensions, but he sometimes acted/spoke in ways that seem like he at least made an effort to smooth things. The girls definitely were antagonistic of Abby, but it seems fairly consistent that other people said that Abby kept making an effort to get closer to them. I agree that Andrew's emotional sensitivity probably was stunted. He had a reputation of no-nonsense and cold. If we accept that Lizzie killed them, the next logical question may by "how could a daughter kill her father?" But if she had the same cold, calculating personality that Andrew had, and they didn't emotionally connect, it would have been "logical" for her to kill them and take over the running of the family fortune.
I wonder now if his wearing Lizzie's ring was a melancholy reminder of the "good ol' days" when she and he were closer...

[camgarsky4]

I think that family had a very toxic environment and these people didn't feel much 'like' for each other. I also think the disdain factor was on a steady and increasing drum beat after the Europe trip and Lizzie got a full dose of "how the other half live". I believe we are completely on same page on that theme.

But I do not agree that Andrew did anything intentional to 'stoke' his daughters. If anything, he seems to have made decisions to appease them.

This 68 year old man (at that time), spent $1,500 acquiring half a house for his wife and his grown daughters should have been told? That perspective just doesn't match with my life experiences and thought pattern. It is confusing to me that he should have felt obligated to share his personal decisions with his dependents. Why?

Couple of examples...and not meaning to be snarky. I have handled each of my four children's college education funding differently based on their circumstances and I didn't consider it the concern of the others how those decisions were made. If I buy my wife a expensive piece of jewelry, I'm not going to tell anyone what it cost. But if it depleted my potential inheritance, should I have told my kids? These two examples would apply whether my wife or the kids were 'steps' or not.

There are examples where I think a good dad would have shared decisions. If he was planning to move the family or sell the vacation farm....the sisters normal lifestyle would have been directly impacted. Those types of situations would deserve a 'heads up' and even joint discussion.

Instead of 'stirring things up', Andrew instead seems to take counter measures to calm things down. Andrew GAVE them a house. Then presumably they were unsatisfied with that arrangement and 2 years later pays them $5,000 to get back the house he gave them for FREE. He was clearly trying to assuage the sisters in both cases. He provided them the equivalent of $500 a month for pocket money!!! They appeared to have the autonomy to come and go at their full discretion. The sisters has mill stocks that could have only come from Andrew. Lizzie got her Europe money from somewhere and hard to believe it was all her accumulated savings. (we'll never know, but I suspect something big upset Lizzie and the Europe trip was another appeasement. Remember, Emma gave her the larger bedroom upon Lizzie's return. That happened for some reason).

Andrew gave Lizzie exterior house paint color decision rights. Again, in my opinion there was some storyline behind this, even if it was only another example of AJB keeping Lizzie feeling satisfied. Lizzie wasn't some little 12 year old who daddy was making feel important with the paint color and everyone thought that was cute....it was his 32 year old grown spinster daughter. What the heck color did Abby want?

Side note....what if the pigeon episode was before the house painting. Mightn't the color choice thing have been an appeasement move by Andrew if Lizzie was a bit out of sorts over the removal of the pigeons? Just sayin'.......

Maybe this is your point Reason, but I think Andrew's home life was not a soothing experience and maybe why he remained very active in the business community at the age of 70 and it didn't seem he was slowing down.

[PossumPie]

Instead of 'stirring things up', Andrew instead seems to take counter measures to calm things down. Andrew GAVE them a house. Then presumably they were unsatisfied with that arrangement and 2 years later pays them $5,000 to get back the house he gave them for FREE. He was clearly trying to assuage the sisters in both cases. He provided them the equivalent of $500 a month for pocket money!!! They appeared to have the autonomy to come and go at their full discretion. The sisters has mill stocks that could have only come from Andrew. Lizzie got her Europe money from somewhere and hard to believe it was all her accumulated savings.

Great set of points. This was pre-women's sufferage. Women had few rights, spinstresses in wealthy families however were taught business practice and often were given parts of family wealth/business to run. We see this in the DuPont family and other contemporary wealthy families. Was Andrew trying to teach the girls good business sense to continue on with the family fortune when he was gone? He had no sons or sons-in-law. Giving them the house to rent out seems like a business lesson...that failed.

[camgarsky4]

Getting us back to the original post on this thread. Any creative ideas on who and why "they" took Abby's keys? And then how does the man fiddling with the key fit in?

I suppose Lizzie or Andrew might have lost their key and absconded Abby's. As we noted before, perhaps she lacked any authority on the key front.

Jennings entry - Pg 33-34
Mrs. Dr. Bowen called & says that on the Tuesday before the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden & spoke of going over to the house & Mrs. B said Lizzie wasn't up yet she didn't think, but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was & went over there with Mrs. Borden - Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way "for they had taken her key" so she & I went in by the back door.

Jennings entry - Pg 179
Key - Mrs B told L she had lost her key - that last she saw of it man was playing it - had it in his hand - took it from table -

[PossumPie]

Getting us back to the original post on this thread. Any creative ideas on who and why "they" took Abby's keys? And then how does the man fiddling with the key fit in?

I suppose Lizzie or Andrew might have lost their key and absconded Abby's. As we noted before, perhaps she lacked any authority on the key front.

Jennings entry - Pg 33-34
Mrs. Dr. Bowen called & says that on the Tuesday before the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden & spoke of going over to the house & Mrs. B said Lizzie wasn't up yet she didn't think, but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was & went over there with Mrs. Borden - Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way "for they had taken her key" so she & I went in by the back door.

Jennings entry - Pg 179
Key - Mrs B told L she had lost her key - that last she saw of it man was playing it - had it in his hand - took it from table -

Firstly, that last JJ note seems obviously fictitious. Lizzie was desperately trying to tie the murders on a stranger, what better way than to say that some stranger in their house took Abby's key and stole it. Would Abby really have watched a stranger play with her house key and let him walk off with it? How convenient that Abby was dead and can't back that story up! Since this tidbit didn't even make it into the trial, JJ probably didn't buy it either.

If Abby had indeed said "they" took my key, I tend to think she meant the girls. If she had meant Andrew wouldn't she have said "He" ? Did one of the girls lose their key and the two of them went to Abby and said they needed hers? In a house full of locks and keys, It's a wonder that more keys didn't get lost.

[camgarsky4]

I agree that 'they' indicates more than one and the sisters are the logical combo vs. Andrew and someone else. Also the front door appears to be the sisters (at least Lizzie's) primary access point to the house and the back door Abby's. Abby retained the backdoor key per Bridget's testimony and the JJ note above. If it was the sisters and she used the term 'they', then taking the key must have occurred before Emma took off for Fairhaven. Perhaps Emma took it because she was leaving town. That is pretty weak, but it would provide a somewhat plausible explanation for needing to 'borrow' Abby's key.

You could be spot on with your first point, but it couldn't make it into the trial without Lizzie being called to testify and that wasn't going to happen for zillions of reasons. So that really isn't a factor in weighing in the truthfulness of that Lizzie recollection.

[Reasonwhy]

Getting us back to the original post on this thread. Any creative ideas on who and why "they" took Abby's keys? And then how does the man fiddling with the key fit in?

I suppose Lizzie or Andrew might have lost their key and absconded Abby's. As we noted before, perhaps she lacked any authority on the key front.

Jennings entry - Pg 33-34
Mrs. Dr. Bowen called & says that on the Tuesday before the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden & spoke of going over to the house & Mrs. B said Lizzie wasn't up yet she didn't think, but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was & went over there with Mrs. Borden - Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way "for they had taken her key" so she & I went in by the back door.

Jennings entry - Pg 179
Key - Mrs B told L she had lost her key - that last she saw of it man was playing it - had it in his hand - took it from table -

Firstly, that last JJ note seems obviously fictitious. Lizzie was desperately trying to tie the murders on a stranger, what better way than to say that some stranger in their house took Abby's key and stole it. Would Abby really have watched a stranger play with her house key and let him walk off with it? How convenient that Abby was dead and can't back that story up!

…If Abby had indeed said "they" took my key, I tend to think she meant the girls. If she had meant Andrew wouldn't she have said "He" ? Did one of the girls lose their key and the two of them went to Abby and said they needed hers? In a house full of locks and keys, It's a wonder that more keys didn't get lost.

What you have written makes sense to me. Very hard otherwise to know how to interpret that second comment in JJ. Sounds like Lizzie, trying to gin up suspicion against some anonymous “man” for stealing a key and having access to the house for the crimes. When Lizzie uses her ambiguous pronouns and other terms of reference—“they,” “somebody,” “man”—I see her as creating either 1) a bogeyman, or 2) ambiguity. She’s a manipulator of reality.

[PossumPie]

What you have written makes sense to me. Very hard otherwise to know how to interpret that second comment in JJ. Sounds like Lizzie, trying to gin up suspicion against some anonymous “man” for stealing a key and having access to the house for the crimes. When Lizzie uses her ambiguous pronouns and other terms of reference—“they,” “somebody,” “man”—I see her as creating either 1) a bogeyman, or 2) ambiguity. She’s a manipulator of reality.

Yes, Reasonwhy, I also agree with camgarsky that the mysterious stranger taking the key could never have been told to the jury without Lizzie testifying. Perhaps JJ wrote it down knowing that without corroboration it couldn't be used. I think that Lizzie believed from the first plannings of murder, that talk of a mysterious man or stranger, along with talk of people trying to poison the family would direct focus away from her. I really believe that to be told that she was a suspect was a surprise to her.