Charles S. Sawyer tidbits

[KGDevil]

Article from the Fall River Daily Evening News for Friday February 7, 1896.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Globe for Monday August 23, 1897

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Even News for Tuesday August 24, 1897.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Evening New for Saturday October 13, 1894.

[KGDevil]

The obituary for Charles S. Sawyer which appeared in Fall River Daily Evening News August 24, 1907.

[KGDevil]

Funeral notices.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Globe February 13, 1909.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Herald October 15, 1897.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Evening News January 16, 1894.

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Herald November 7, 1900

[camgarsky4]

Devil - very interesting....thanks for posting.

Sure wish there was closure on the Mercier drama. Did the guy really just dump his wife and kids? Why wouldn't Sawyer be mad at him? Maybe he came back and the story ended happily!!

[KGDevil]

Fall River Daily Evening News June 30, 1894.

[KGDevil]

Augustus Rich and Charles S. Sawyer were well acquainted.

[KGDevil]

Devil - very interesting....thanks for posting.

Sure wish there was closure on the Mercier drama. Did the guy really just dump his wife and kids? Why wouldn't Sawyer be mad at him? Maybe he came back and the story ended happily!!

I've tried to find the outcome to this case to tie up the loose end. It appears that F X Louis Mercier did leave his family. The last article that I found stated that his wife and children were living on charity. I've been doing research on many of those associated with the case for years now. I think Charles S. Sawyer is one that didn't end up fitting the image that I'd created for him. I've read articles that I haven't posted here but could share.

Some of it was pleasantly surprising. He composed music.He painted portraits and scenery. He had a patent approved for a bottle opener with Augustus Rich. He survived a Civil War prison camp. He went to school to study art. He was very sickly at the end of his life. I found family ties in his genealogy that were somewhat surprising. He's more complex than I'd given him credit for being.

One articles talks about a terrible hailstorm that hit Fall River and describes Sawyer picking up a large hailstone with tongs to weigh on a scale. Afterward they used them to make ice cream for some of the children. In this article they referred to him as "Sawyer the paragon of veracity "

This one talks about him providing an exhibition of marionettes for an Annual children's Christmas party held by William H. Jennings for children who worked in a factory in 1880.

[KGDevil]

According to his obituary Charles S. Sawyer spent 18 months in the Civil War POW camp in Tyler, Texas called Camp Ford.

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/ford/

[KGDevil]

I would like to post tidbits for other people associated with the case but haven't decided which ones might be of the most interest, and would need to put it together because its a ton of information to sift through. But, I've figured out Bridget Sullivan's relationship to the Patrick Harrington she stayed with after the murders. I've definitely traced those Harrington's to close family members in Butte, Montana.

[KGDevil]

The Borden family had lived at 12 Ferry Street in Fall River before moving to 92 Second Street. The Ferry Street house was given to the Borden daughters by Andrew to use as a rental property to appease them for Andrew buying the half house for Abby. In 1891 - 1892, Darius Negus and his son Henry B. Negus were residents of 12 Ferry. Their occupations are listed as being confectioners. Henry Negus was the father - in - law of Charles S. Sawyer, who had married Mary A. Negus in on October 17, 1872. Darius Negus was Mary's brother. Which means at the time of the murders Charles Sawyer's in-laws were living at 12 Ferry.

[camgarsky4]

Can't speak for others, but my favorite part of this case is exploring all the 'alleys and side streets' this case offers. So any tidbits you want to share on anyone would be thoroughly enjoyed!

In particular, do you have anything on Curtis Piece (Pierce)? He was the gentleman that wrote Lizzie a letter month or so after the murders while she was in jail. It appears he was a preacher of some sort out of Westport and was introduced by Augusta Tripp to Lizzie several years before the murders. Jennings told him to get lost.

Anything more on him would be amazing!!

[KGDevil]

Can't speak for others, but my favorite part of this case is exploring all the 'alleys and side streets' this case offers. So any tidbits you want to share on anyone would be thoroughly enjoyed!

In particular, do you have anything on Curtis Piece (Pierce)? He was the gentleman that wrote Lizzie a letter month or so after the murders while she was in jail. It appears he was a preacher of some sort out of Westport and was introduced by Augusta Tripp to Lizzie several years before the murders. Jennings told him to get lost.

Anything more on him would be amazing!!

I can see what I can find.

[KGDevil]

I think the connections I've found with Charles Sawyer and other people associated with the Borden case are definitely interesting. One I forgot to mention is the connection with Dr. Benjamin Handy. When Charles Sawyer and Augustus Rich applied for their patent two witnesses signed their patent submission. One of the witnesses was B. J. Handy. Dr. Benjamin Handy was the only B.J. Handy that appears in the 1876 Fall River City Directory. It would be interesting to know how this agreement came about.

[Reasonwhy]

Amazing how interconnected the folks in this case prove to be. I’m also surprised by the sheer number of businesses on Second St. at that time. Seems to weigh against the intruder theory, as there could have been so many potential witnesses. However, one of the few comments Southard Miller made about that day was to the effect of how unusually slow and quiet the street was on that morning. (He was the Bordens’ kitty-corner neighbor across the street and also Phoebe Bowen’s father, living in the house adjoining her and Dr. Bowen’s.)

KGDevil, thanks for these posts and the hard work that went into their research. I remember reading your posts, back in my lurking days. Glad you’re posting again!

[camgarsky4]

KGDevil -- where was Dr. Handy's office located? Speaking of interconnectivity in this case....how super odd that Handy is around the house that morning and he is the owner of the Marion house that Lizzie chose not to visit so she could stay home and stay role at the church on Sunday.

I still find it interesting that Lizzie chose to visit Marion for the single day of Saturday July 30. So would love to know more about Dr. Handy.

[KGDevil]

KGDevil -- where was Dr. Handy's office located? Speaking of interconnectivity in this case....how super odd that Handy is around the house that morning and he is the owner of the Marion house that Lizzie chose not to visit so she could stay home and stay role at the church on Sunday.

I still find it interesting that Lizzie chose to visit Marion for the single day of Saturday July 30. So would love to know more about Dr. Handy.

Dr. Handy appears to have worked out of his home at 37 Rock street in 1892.

I've had my suspicions that Dr. Handy somehow knew more than he was saying. His statements have always bothered me.

An interesting fact about Dr. Handy is there are a few incidents where he was somehow involved when thieves broke into a home, and with other strange occurrences. These happened both before and after the murders. A thief actually broke into Dr. Handy's home while he was sleeping in June of 1892. Another incident occurred in October of 1912 where Dr. Handy was a witness to someone attempting to break into the home of the same neighbor on more than one occasion.

[KGDevil]

The Fall River Evening Herald for March 7, 1907. Another strange occurrence with Dr. Handy.

[KGDevil]

Dr. Handy sued the executor of Charles F. Gifford's will for services rendered over two years after Charles died.

[leitskev]

Charles Sawyer is described as "the first man on the scene" that day. Maybe, but certainly he was one of the first.
And what was he wearing?
Wait for it.
A red flannel shirt.
On one of the hottest days of the year.
So he's a Civil War veteran.
Brutalized by a year and half in a prisoner of war camp.
This is probably a man who has seen more than his share of blood, and depending on his battle experience, possibly producing it.
His father in law rented from Lizzie and Emma, if I understand correct(thanks to this thread!).
He happens to be one of the first to show up at the scene of the crime.
Wearing a red shirt.
As a painter, any spots on his face or clothing might be explained away.
As a painter, he knew how to clean up a mass, and to use covering to avoid making messes.
Once deputized by the police, he now has inside access to events within the house.
If he has blood on his hands, he can explain it by saying he helped the doctor in some way.

Just pointing out that it's interesting.
I'd be interested to know if he knew John Morse.

[camgarsky4]

This past week, I've been researching Sawyer's past and future from the date of the murders. To KG Devil's posts above, he seems to have been a Victorian renaissance man of many talents.

There is no indication in any of the newspaper articles that he was a psycho/sociopath, violently inclined (war service excluded), made egregious enemies, that his lifestyle changed post murders, or had any direct relationship with Lizzie. He seems to have been a reliable individual who participated in many civic activities and donated his artistic skills on several occasions.

He did have his painting biz partner (Mercier) who ran off with some money (story above). Yet if he was a vengeful or violence proned individual, seems like he would have felt compelled to go fetch this absconding partner and make him pay for his malfeasance.

[leitskev]

Hi Cam

question: do we know that Mercier was ever seen again? From the newspaper posts here, it seems to me the only source is Sawyer himself.

Other than August 4th, 1992, there is nothing in Lizzie's history that suggests a violent or vengeful personality. There are no indications she's a psychopath. She was a Sunday school teacher who served on the board of several charities.

The Mercier story could be a big nothing. But if we don't know whether he was ever seen again, even you have to admit that's odd. Both news accounts were sourced entirely by Sawyer. In the first, he not only says Mercier absconded checks and disappeared, he says someone other than Mercier signed those checks, right? I have to go read again later. But you have to admit that's very odd and frankly suspicious.

I read Sawyer's testimony at the Borden trial. He was renting a room at a machinist shop not far from the Bordens. He heard a rumor about something at the Bordens, then he saw Alice Russell walking up the street in a hurry and looking upset. He shouted over to her, and she ignored him. A very short time later, when he saw Alice returning, he fell in beside her. She again ignored him. He followed her to the gate, then stopped there when she went in. But he saw Officer Allen coming and followed him into the house, volunteering his services.

This is pretty obnoxious behavior.

Inside the house, he is the one to secure the back door, then he is assigned to guard the side door. He did go and view Andrew's body, and then went upstairs to view Abby. He did observe Lizzie.

He added this in his testimony: he recalled Bridget saying there were little drops on Lizzie's dress.

Bridget testified otherwise, and no such drops were found.

They asked Sawyer how he fixed the time. He explained that there was a salesman who came into the machinist shop after getting off the 10:30 train from Providence. He did not know the man's name. There's no indication that the police checked to see if Sawyer was with anyone at the machinist shop. Maybe they did. Maybe there was. We can't tell.

He fought in multiple battles in the Civil War and ended up in a POW camp for 16 months. This guy likely had his share of experience with war wounds, if not making them, at the very least seeing them.

I'm only suggesting this is interesting angle. I realize that things can be a little sensitive here at the forum, I'm not trying to flame anything, it just seems like a fun possibility to explore.

[camgarsky4]

Unless we come up with a plausible motive, then Sawyer or anyone acting unaided by a Borden family member, would need to be a psycho or sociopath to have committed these murders. Lizzie and Emma clearly had a monetary motive and Lizzie had an exclusive opportunity to commit the crime and did not need to be certifiably nuts to do it. Just sufficiently narcissistic or greedy...which I believe Lizzie was.

If you want to prove Lizzie innocent (or confirm she is guilty), then it seems best to construct an alternative solution for the crime that does not include Lizzie as the sole or co-conspirator. I have tried for almost 2 years to create a defendable case for an intruder and haven't come up with that solution. For a non-aided outsider to have killed both Borden's, I think would have required a degree of luck that would exceed the odds of winning the power ball lottery.

Regarding Lizzie's personality. She demonstrated a tremendous inability to develop and maintain nurturing relationships, had a remarkable stubborn streak (remained in Fall River for no discernible reason other than she felt she belonged), and wanted to control her environment (see stories about neighbor property & pets). Does that mean she is a killer....no, but it certainly matches up with someone who is narcissistic and has control issues.

For understanding the family dynamics, I lean into the Hiram Harrington interview considerably. Why would Hiram Harrington make up his 'not so positive' comments about Lizzie's personality and her interaction within the family? Many posters have demonized Harrington for his interview.
I really don't understand why. I encourage you to read all the newspaper articles involving Hiram for the remainder of his life. All positives. People seemed to have liked and respected him. Maybe he was describing the Borden family dynamics as they were.

Back to Sawyer or someone else being the perpetrator....I spend a silly amount of time learning as much as I can about every random person in this case. I look for sudden increase in wealth post-1892, a history of violence, a disregard for law and order....almost anything that could make someone a potential. I then go back and study their testimony or others testimony about them and determine if a reasonable case can be made against that person.

Sawyer seems clean to me....I found another article (Fall River Daily Evening News Aug 25, '97) which says Mercier's wife received a letter from him and they found he bought a ticket to NY. All that said, because of your push, I'll do a little more searching for our Mr. Mercier.

[leitskev]

Thank you, Cam, for what you found on Mercier and what you might find.

Is it possible for you to post a link or past the article?

There is nothing in Lizzie's history that would demonstrate an ability to perform such extreme violence. Andrew's face was a blood-filled crater. Into that pool she kept slamming the hatchet until it broke away a large chuck of his cheekbone. Comparing this to other brutal crimes, this case really is a unicorn. On the one hand the brutality is extreme, on the other, there is no curve. There are no steps along the way.

There are no indications of the kind of hatred we're talking about either. Was there friction? There is in every house, and these people lived together 28 years. Bridget testified things were always civil. Dr. Bowen testified the same. No one testified of rancor or hatred. The dressmaker claimed Lizzie said something harsh, I forget what, but again, that's pretty normal family friction. Lizzie, we know, could be haughty and self-absorbed. But that's a far, far leap from that to psychopathic behavior. She did possibly steal from her parents' room. That's kind of the only blemish, if she did it. This woman lived a very proper life before and after. You don't find that in ANY other case, not that I've seen.

I spent two days last week researching OTHER ax murders. Nothing close to this. This was one interesting case where the young man went home to murder his mother and grandmother. He took a hotel room nearby, snuck into the house, axed his mother while she say in a rocking chair. Then he went up and axed his sleeping grandma. His motive was money: he was inheriting the estate. The trigger was that he had met a girl through letters(he had been in jail) and she didn't want anything to do with him unless he could provide for her. So he promised a house. His mother's.

As with Lizzie, he struck his mother and grandmother multiple times even though the first blow was likely fatal. There was a ton of blood splatter. He went back to the hotel, cleaned up, changed clothes. But the police eventually showed up and found plenty of blood still smeared on his body.

So while he killed family, like Lizzie, and for an inheritance, like Lizzie, there were plenty of signs he was a problem(in and out of jail) and even though he went back to the hotel to clean up, it proved too difficult to hide all the blood.

If Lizzie killed Andrew while the City Hall clock was striking 11:00, and the police were called from the stables at 11:15, it seems Lizzie called Bridget down around 11:08. So she had 8 minutes to clean the blood off her clothing, hair, shoes and body. She had to hide that clothing. And the weapon. The only running water was in the dark cellar or the barn. And I'm not even going into how she did this an hour and a half earlier also.

This is why the case torments. As you said, it's almost impossible for an intruder to get in and out unseen.

But it really is impossible for Lizzie to kill Andrew and clean up in 8 minutes,

She should have told Bridget at 10:55 when she went up to nap that she was going downtown, as they discussed. Kill Andrew at 11:00. Open the front door a crack. Then leave through the side door carrying a change of clothing. Change in the barn, wash up. Then walk downtown, getting rid of her clothing and the weapon somewhere before coming home. Bridget would find Andrew about 11:30. But Lizzie would not be a suspect.

Again, I'm not saying she didn't do it or wasn't involved. Whatever we believe...that she did and cleaned up, or intruder did it...is incredibly unlikely.

We can't say Sawyer didn't have a motive, we can only say we don't know the motive. Andrew collected rents from a lot of people and was known to be very inflexible and unforgiven. Sawyer's father in law apparently rented from them on Ferry St. Sawyer had been in the house before to buy vinegar. He lived in a machinist's house and worked with art supplied, and all he needed was a thin tool to pop a latch lock.

Harrington despised the Bordens, and had not been in the house in many years. Yet he pretended to be a regular there. His testimony seems worth little to me. But as I've said, most testimony is worth little without physical evidence. I read enough of the Harrington testimony and interviews, and it's almost insanely obvious that he was embellishing.

Bridget lived in the house, and by the time of the trial had moved away forever. She had no reason to lie other than a servant's instinct to protect her employer's family. Bridget testified things were always civil and on the whole pleasant in the house. Of course, we can strongly suspect there was plenty of friction. Abby thought they were being poisoned, after all(though she probably suspected an outsider).

I know you disagree, so thank you for being a good sport and finding the Mercier stuff!

[camgarsky4]

Couple of corrections:
There was running water in the kitchen sink located in the SE corner of the kitchen.

Within an 8 minute time frame it is very possible to strike AJB 10-11 times, place the Prince Albert coat under AJB's head, go into the kitchen, wash off hatchet head, face and hands, wrap hatchet is some type of cover, scurry out the side door and to the back SE corner of the property and toss the hatchet. Walk back slowly to compose oneself, go into the house and call up to Bridget. As I've mentioned before, I've timed this exercise several times and it is quite surprising how long ~8 minutes is when you are in action. Give it a go, For whatever reason you may choose to ignore what I just typed, but it is VERY doable in that time frame and still match up with Bridget and Lubinsky's testimonies.

Based on the blood splatter evidence, likely location of the assailant, positioning of AJB's head and body, and the sofa arm, it is highly likely that the killer had very little blood on themselves. This applies to an intruder or Lizzie. I don't doubt you have read the transcripts, but then you make comments like "how did she clean her shoes'. Her shoes were nowhere near AJB's head and were COMPLETELY blocked by the arm of the couch. It would have been essentially impossible for her shoes to get blood on them unless she stupidly walked thru the pooling blood below his head.

What specifically about Harrington's testimony or interview do you find is "insanely obvious embellishing"? Read his interview more carefully....almost the entire text is verifiable via other sources. Remember, he was the first to tell the world that Lizzie's alibi was getting lead for sinkers. That ended up being her alibi, so clearly he did speak to hear and clearly she did open up to him. I think it is also important to remember that Harrington and the Borden's lived in the same house for a period, so whatever rancor existed likely started because of events at that time and may very well have been warranted and his opinions accurate (from his perspective).

Lastly on Sawyer, If our motive qualifier is that someone might have had a motive we just don't know it, then who isn't a suspect? Maybe it was Dr. Handy who oddly was in front of the house around time of murder for no known reason and it was his house in Marion that Lizzie was soon to visit and had just visited the prior Saturday. Maybe they were having an affair and Mr. Borden put a stop to it. We could literally come up with countless scenarios like this.

Is there a scenario that can be reasonably constructed where Lizzie was not involved?

[leitskev]

Hey Cam. I do VERY much appreciate your engagement and especially when you correct any mistakes I make. I am writing a podcast episode, so I don't want to get facts wrong.

I read the transcripts when I was last active here, I think back in 2014. Recently I've read a lot again, but more picking out things to read, reading threads here on the forum(thanks!), reading a book and watching some videos.

Of course her shoes were under the couch. However, they were not when she killed Abby. And even when she killed Andrew it would be hard to avoid stepping in blood. But mostly the issue of shoes and stockings was from Abby.

I am skeptical of the jacket being used to shield Lizzie from blood spatter...though I am open to it. I've seen this theory discussed in videos and here on the forum, so I am very aware of it. I am skeptical for a few reasons. One, this kind of thing would have been obvious to anyone who later looked at the jacket. Yes, they didn't have modern forensics. True, they might not have thought of it so not looked for that kind of evidence. However, it would have been VERY obvious to ANYONE who took even a quick, superficial look at the coat. The jacket is under his head. If it was there when he napped, the only blood on it would be on the exposed part, and even on that, the area under his head would be clean, except for possible rivulets of blood. But as soon as someone picked up that jacket and opened it they would see blood on other parts of the jacket. I find it HIGHLY improbably that this was missed. And if I remember right, the clothing was buried in the yard, then dug up a few days later for closer inspection.

Two, I disagree on blood splatter. Every demonstration I've seen shows there would be substantial blood splatter. As I mentioned, in the case where the guy killed his mother and grandmother, Henry Lee Moore, he went back to the hotel, cleaned up and changed clothes and STILL had smears of blood on him. It's a very dirty business. And look at Andrew's face. The left side is cratered in. Blood would be spurting and pooling there. Streams from the artery would shoot out, and where the hatchet splashed the pool it would splatter in all directions. It would clump in her hair, on her eyelids, in the skin between her fingernails.

I am not going back to re-read Harrison, but he was not a witness to the crime. He had not been in the house in many years, if I recall. He overplayed the degree to which he knew the Bordens for some reason, and he displayed animosity. Remember, he is a relative of Abby's, right? And it was Abby's half sister's situation that compelled Abby to get Andrew to buy the house, something which stirred ire on the girls.

It's not unreasonable to see family battle lines here: on one side are the Morses, which include Lizzie and Emma. On the other side is Abby's family. All of these people wanted and expected there share of Andrew's wealth and felt entitled to it. Harrington was clearly on the opposite side of Emma and Lizzie. And most of what he offered was personal opinion that could not be refuted by anyone. Do you know of any exceptions to what I just said? Not worth your time digging, but if you have something handy, please let me know, I DO LOVE your retorts! I think Troy Taylor's book does an excellent job explaining why Harrington's testimony was more or less worthless.

To your question is there a scenario where Lizzie is not involved. It's hard to imagine that being so. I think we can disqualify the burned dress and the poison. I am not saying those things can't be a sign of guilt, I'm saying we can't know much. However, for me there are TWO issues that suggest guilt.

One is the note. There's no indication anyone sent a note or even a verbal message for Abby's help. Lizzie and Emma offered a reward, but nothing came out. So I would put it this way:
- there's a 4% chance that someone innocent did send for Abby's help and for some reason was afraid to come forward. If they sent a messenger, that means at least 2 people would be staying silent, and that seems unlikely, bit not impossible.
- there's a 48% chance Lizzie made the note up
- there's a 48% chance someone associated with the killer did send the message in order to get Abby out of the house. That was the defense theory. Of course, it is hard to imagine why someone sent for Abby, then came into the house to kill her. Hard to imagine. But maybe he couldn't wait. Maybe he thought she was gone. I am not arguing any of that happened, just saying it's possible. 48% is probably being VERY generous on my part. It's probably closer to only a 10% possibility. But in a case where nothing makes sense, it has to be left on the table.

The other reason I suspect Lizzie had to be involved is because it would have been very difficult for someone to get into and out of the house unseen. But doable. If someone knew the house and knew the family, it's not impossible. He sees Bridget washing windows on the other side of the house, slips in through the open side door. Only Lizzie is inside the house, probably in the dining room, but possibly in her bedroom. He quietly moves upstairs and kills Abby, then waits inside the room. There ARE other cases where a serial killer kills then waits. I read some of these. One where the killer hid in the attic. I think Ted Bundy did this in that girls dorm. A serial killer can enjoy this kind of thing.

Again, all of that seems highly unlikely. But it also seems highly unlikely Lizzie killed twice and did not end up with blood evidenced on her person or clothing. And the hatchet was never found. The Crowes hatchet almost certainly disappeared from history for a reason. Quite a coincidence that boys find a hatchet during the biggest crime of the century. A little too much coincidence.

Finally, on Sawyer. What motive did Ted Bundy have? I mean motive is important, but as far as we know, no one investigated Sawyer.

This is good, thanks. Helps us to think it through, which can be applied to other true crime cases.

My thought process goes this way. We begin...begin...with motive, means and opportunity. Lizzie and Emma had the obvious motive. Lizzie had the means and opportunity.

But if we stop asking questions there, we're going to put a lot of innocent people in jail...and there are a lot.

Now, in this case, because the actual evidence for who committed the crime is nonexistent, we should reasonably expand the search to who ELSE had the opportunity. But it can't be a blanket expansion. We can look at Dr. Hardy, for example. Are there any oddities that would prompt us to ask more questions? No, not them I am aware of. Same with Dr. Dolan. These were people called to the scene and having a vital reason for being there.

So we look around. Is there anyone at the scene who had no real reason for being there? If so, they at least bear a closer look, since there is SOME truth to the idea of the killer returning to the scene of the crime. I recently read a govt or FBI handbook on this, and it IS discussed. I did save notes if you are interested in them.

So Charles Sawyer is the first man on the scene. That certainly doesn't imply guilt...something big happened, people were curious. If I lived nearby I might have investigated too. But it does invite us to take a closer look. Are there any other oddities in Sawyer's background?

His behavior with Bridget was obnoxious and even a little threatening, from her POV. That just means his a little obnoxious, but it does make him worth looking at.

He was wearing red flannel.

He had unique access to the crime scene afterward, even though he wasn't a cop, a doctor or connected to the family. Only Sawyer was like that.

Still, we need to find something else in his history that might suggest he's more than meets the eye. And the only thing that we found was Mercier.

Would you admit that if Mercier disappears from history Sawyer becomes intriguing?

And wouldn;t it be interesting to have something new in this case?

[camgarsky4]

I think there are a good number of 'new' and relevant aspects of this case that seemed to have been overlooked or not aired out on this forum or elsewhere.....so yes, I very much enjoy exploring new angles and yes, it would be interesting if you were able to connect Sawyer directly or indirectly to killings. I have not been able to.

Just so you are aware, you continue to post statements/declarations that are based on 'facts' that have errs imbedded in them.

Good luck with the podcast.

p.s. what is the source for the red flannel shirt?

[leitskev]

Cam, I don't think that's a fair statement at all. I'm trying to be patient. We all get tiny facts wrong about this case. We've read the transcripts, but our memories are imperfect, and it's not always convenient to go back and re-read whole transcripts. The only fact you have corrected me on is the running water issue. I was grateful and said so. Regular contributors here can be very sensitive about things they are sure of, I'm aware of it, I remember this from before when I participated. I'd be a little more generous than trying to constantly accuse me of posting things that are in error when it sometimes is the case that I am posting things you just have not focused on or are not aware of.

It was in the transcripts that I RECENTLY read about the red flannel shirt. I believe it was in Morse's testimony. I'm going on memory, but I absolutely read this RECENTLY in TRIAL transcripts. Morse was in the back yard eating pears and he observed Sawyer by the side door, and notes he was wearing a red flannel shirt.

"Just so you are aware, you continue to post statements/declarations that are based on 'facts' that have errs imbedded in them.":

Are you even loosely aware how obnoxious and inaccurate that is? I've been nice, but Jesus.

[leitskev]

After hours of searching, I found the red shirt reference. It's in Troy Taylor's book One August Morning. On page 115 of the kindle version. It's a red plaid shirt, not flannel. Also describes Sawyer as "burly". I have no idea what Taylor's source is for this. I searched testimony and didn't find it, so it might be from a newspaper article. So yes, I was "factually" wrong in describing a "flannel" shirt. But a red plaid shirt is pretty close. It's possible Taylor was wrong, but I'm not just making stuff up here.

I went through this recently when I interviewed an Emmy award winning documentary film maker on a cold case that was the basis of her documentary. Getting facts right for a podcast were important both for her and me. She "corrected" me on two things, one, where a suspect emerged by a certain park, and two, where the evidence was two bloody socks instead of one. After many hours of researching where I got these impressions, it turned out it was from, in the first case, a Boston Globe interview with her in 1999. In the second case it was from her documentary itself! It turned out one police department had one sock, and another had the other. So I was correct in both cases, and was actually basing it on HER work!

It's easy to get some little fact wrong. For example, the kitchen sink. We were both wrong on this, though you were more correct than I. Andrew had removed the plumbing that ran water to the second floor. That was where I got the impression the running water was in the basement. But in fact there was a "sink room" off the kitchen. There was no sink in the kitchen, but there was one close by.

I'm fine with anyone correcting any mistakes I might make, as we all do in a case with a ton of testimony like this, but to make a blanket statement like you did I find unacceptable.

[mysterium]

I so appreciate the sharing of everything that they have read and investigated! There is so much misinformation out there and it's difficult to navigate and determine what is true based on fact and what is not.

I do agree that I see no way Lizzie could have killed Andrew. I don't see how Andrew's jacket could have protected her totally and still allowed her to freely swing the hatchet. I would think the most exposed part would have been her head. There would also be blood dripping down the handle onto the sleeve of the jacket soaking the sleeve of her dress. In close up photos on this forum of the bedding in the guest room, it showed bits of tissue, bone, chunks of scalp with hair, etc. Brain matter is fatty, gelatinous, sticky tissue. If that got anywhere on her, and I see no reason why it wouldn't, it would be very difficult to wipe off quickly and discard, especially if it got in her hair. I can't think of a way the jacket could be utilized that would completely protect her from any drippings or splatter. I don't see any way she could get out of the jacket without getting at least some blood on herself or her surroundings. She also has to have the presence of mind and time to somehow hide the murder weapon without getting blood on herself and go out in the yard where she was seen and come into the house perfectly intact, hair not messed up or wet, clothes looking perfectly normal, not messy, wet or soiled and not out of breath or panting from the stress of the situation and running around like crazy. Plus, she wasn't under the gun of time. If she killed Andrew, she alone determined the timeline to when she "discovered" the body. Why wouldn't she give herself a little more time to collect herself and make sure everything was in order?Why wouldn't she use the possible alibi that she had set up with Bridget? Bridget told the police that when she told Lizzie she didn't think she wouldn't be going to the Sale, Lizzie told her that she was going anyway. Lizzie then called back to Bridget, "if you do decide to go out, be sure to latch the door, because I'm going out. If she was able to get herself together that quickly, she could have gone out the kitchen door, left it unlatched (possible entry for an intruder) and then make sure she is seen somewhere along the way. Letting Bridget find Andrew would have lengthened the possible timeline and worked more in Lizzie's favor. Not a perfect alibi, but better for reasonable doubt than I went out to the barn and have no way to prove it.

The mention that Lizzie was incapable of lasting relationships, I feel is an inaccurate depiction of her. In her will, she gave money to a couple of school chums and several family members. I have to say, I haven't kept up with people I knew in school, much less, feel close enough to them to leave them something in my will. She was known to be kind, generous and exceedingly thoughtful. That doesn't fit into my definition of a narcissist. She might have been eccentric, but aren't we all, at least a little bit? That wouldn't put her in the potential axe murderer category, as far as I'm concerned.

[KGDevil]

leitskev there are a few points I'd like to reply to from your posts.

“I read Sawyer's testimony at the Borden trial. He was renting a room at a machinist shop not far from the Bordens.”

Charles was not renting a room at a machinist shop, but visiting Augustus E. Rich who owned a machinist shop at 80 Second street. Charles lived at number 76 Second Street. They had apparently been well acquainted for many years since they applied for a patent for a bottle opener together in 1876 with Dr. Handy signing as a witness.

“But as soon as someone picked up that jacket and opened it they would see blood on other parts of the jacket.”

The jacket was not directly under Andrew’s head. So, if we apply your logic, there should have been no blood on the coat at all?

Dr. Dolan Trial testimony page 854:

Mr. Knowlton. (To the jury.) That is the picture you have already seen gentleman.
Q. What was the head resting on?
A. The head was resting on a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion, in turn, I think, rested on his coat which had been doubled up and put under there, and that I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover—a knitted affair.

Q. The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A. No, sir.

Q. Was the --?
A. Afghan.

Q. Then came the coat?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then the sofa cushion?
A. Yes, sir.

“I am not going back to re-read Harrison, but he was not a witness to the crime. He had not been in the house in many years, if I recall. He overplayed the degree to which he knew the Bordens for some reason, and he displayed animosity. Remember, he is a relative of Abby's, right? And it was Abby's half sister's situation that compelled Abby to get Andrew to buy the house, something which stirred ire on the girls."

Hiram Harrington was married to Andrew Borden’s sister Luranna Borden Harrington. He was not a relative of Abby Borden. He and Luranna had lived at their Ferry street house during the same period as the Borden’s for many years. He'd lived there since before Sarah Borden, Lizzie's birth mother, had died. I recently posted a thread about Hiram as well.

“Two, I disagree on blood splatter. Every demonstration I've seen shows there would be substantial blood splatter. As I mentioned, in the case where the guy killed his mother and grandmother, Henry Lee Moore, he went back to the hotel, cleaned up and changed clothes and STILL had smears of blood on him. It's a very dirty business. And look at Andrew's face. The left side is cratered in. Blood would be spurting and pooling there. Streams from the artery would shoot out, and where the hatchet splashed the pool it would splatter in all directions. It would clump in her hair, on her eyelids, in the skin between her fingernails."

What applies to Lizzie also applies to every other possible killer. How likely is it that a person covered in blood and gore as you described would have gone unnoticed walking down Second Street that day? Any killer would’ve had the same amount of time to clean up. Anyone who wants to argue that Lizzie did not have time to clean up would also have to explain how a blood soaked killer walked away unseen down Second Street.

[camgarsky4]

Red Shirt
I have looked everywhere I can think of and the only reference I can find to a red shirt worn by Sawyer or anyone is in the David Kent book, "40 Whacks". This specific issue was discussed on this forum back around 2004 and no posters could find any original references. For whatever reasons, in most of the 20th century Lizzie books, authors seemed to have taken a liberal approach to vetting their information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitchen Sink
There was not running water on the 2nd floor before or up to the murders.

Kitchen sink located in the kitchen.

Bridget Preliminary Hearing testimony
Q. After he (AJB) came in with his pail, what did he do then?
A. He washed, and got ready for breakfast.
Q. Washed where?
A. In the kitchen.
Q. He washed in the kitchen?
A. Yes Sir.

Bridget Preliminary Hearing testimony
Q. After Mr. Borden had let Mr. Morse out, where did he go then?
A. The sitting room.
Q. You do not know what he did?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did he go up-stairs after that?
A. He came out in the kitchen and cleaned his teeth, and then went up-stairs.
Q. Up the back stairs

Alice Russell trial testimony
Q. Will you state what you saw after you returned?
A. I went into the kitchen, and I saw Miss Lizzie at the other end of the stove; I saw Miss Emma at the sink. Miss Lizzie was at the stove, and she had a skirt in her hand, and her sister turned and said, "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie said, "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint.

Emma Borden trial testimony
Q. Now will you tell the Court and the Jury all that you saw or heard that morning in the kitchen?
A. I was washing dishes, and I heard my sister's voice and I turned round and saw she was standing at the foot of the stove, between the foot of the stove and the dining-room door. This dress was hanging on her arm and she says, "I think I shall burn this old dress up." I said, "Why don't you," or "You had better," or "I would if I were you," or something like that, I can't tell the exact words, but it meant, Do it. And I turned back and continued washing the dishes, and did not see her burn it and did not pay any more attention to her at that time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If Emma can't be referencing the sink room because one wouldn't 'turn around' and see anything but the backstairs or a wall. As Alice enters the kitchen from dining or sitting room, she would have zero visibility to the sink room which was around the corner, down a hall and in an alcove.

Just found a related thread "The Sink" from pre-2010. They cover a lot of this ground and then some.

[leitskev]

What I have read is that there was running water up to the second floor, but it was removed by Andrew when he bought the house. I think the article I read it was actually published here. If this is important to you, I will find the article link, I do have it saved. The article took a close look at whether or not Andrew has been fairly portrayed. He WAS frugal, but a skinflint he was not. He paid Emma to go to Wheaton for a year a half, he paid for Lizzie's 19 week European tour; he bought a half of a house in Abby's name for her half sister, he gave the girls the Ferry St home then later paid them 5k in cash for it when they didn't want to collect rents.

The kitchen has been described as having a "sink room". I don't think it's a very important distinction.

The coat was under the pillow, yes. It WAS exposed enough that it should have plenty of blood splatter on it. And isn't that the very point of the theory that Lizzie wore the coat while killing Andrew and then put it under his head(under the pillow)? What exactly is your belief on this? That police didn't look at the coat for blood evidence? Or that they looked and just assumed the blood on it was from being under his head(yes, under the pillow)?

My contention is this: if Lizzie wore the coat during the killing, or held it in front of her to shield herself, there would be plainly visible blood evidence that could not have gotten onto the coat if it was folded under a pillow under his head. The question is whether police would have noticed this evidence. I say yes.

The blood would have been dried by the time they moved the coat. It took some time before a photographer arrived and set up and the camera. So first they move the body to the dining room table. Meanwhile they are examining the couch, the wall and the pillow for blood splatter. They don't have modern forensic techniques, but they aren't idiots, they do inspect for blood splatter. If I remember correctly, they testified about splatter on the wall. They did have some sense of maintaining a crime scene. And one of the cop picks up the coat, allowing it to unfold in his hand. They no doubt checked the pockets. Did they testify as to what was in the pockets? You might know. If so, that's a clear indication they examined the coat to at least some degree. If Lizzie had shieled herself with that coat, I believe they would have found that evidence when they unfolded it.

It's even a little hard to picture. Lizzie butchers her father with 10 or 11 angry blows. Even as an inexperienced killer, she certainly knows he's dead after a couple of blows, his face was cratered by that hatchet. But such is the emotional frenzy that she keeps going.

Then she takes his coat off her body, a coat dripping with blood, and neatly folds it and places it under the pillow? I just can't picture that. I think the killer, whether her or anyone, if they used that coat as a shield, afterwards they would just toss it on the body. If they wanted to stuff it under his head, they would just jam it down there. I understand that the theory is that she is so calculating that she wears this during the brutal attack, then coolly folds and places it under his head, thinking that it will fool investigators, but she just doesn't seem that clever. She doesn't even open the front door to create the intruder theory.

[KGDevil]

The kitchen has been described as having a "sink room". I don't think it's a very important distinction.

The coat was under the pillow, yes. It WAS exposed enough that it should have plenty of blood splatter on it. And isn't that the very point of the theory that Lizzie wore the coat while killing Andrew and then put it under his head(under the pillow)? What exactly is your belief on this? That police didn't look at the coat for blood evidence? Or that they looked and just assumed the blood on it was from being under his head(yes, under the pillow)?

My contention is this: if Lizzie wore the coat during the killing, or held it in front of her to shield herself, there would be plainly visible blood evidence that could not have gotten onto the coat if it was folded under a pillow under his head. The question is whether police would have noticed this evidence. I say yes.

The blood would have been dried by the time they moved the coat. It took some time before a photographer arrived and set up and the camera. So first they move the body to the dining room table. Meanwhile they are examining the couch, the wall and the pillow for blood splatter. They don't have modern forensic techniques, but they aren't idiots, they do inspect for blood splatter. If I remember correctly, they testified about splatter on the wall. They did have some sense of maintaining a crime scene. And one of the cop picks up the coat, allowing it to unfold in his hand. They no doubt checked the pockets. Did they testify as to what was in the pockets? You might know. If so, that's a clear indication they examined the coat to at least some degree. If Lizzie had shieled herself with that coat, I believe they would have found that evidence when they unfolded it.

Have you even looked at the crime scene photos to see how the coat was arranged? You don't necessarily need to read testimony there are photographs. Andrew's head was not directly on top of the coat, and the coat was not directly under the pillow. There is not much shielding the coat. His head is resting on the pillow with the little white tidy. Then the coat is tucked in between the pillow and the folded afghan. It is in testimony that they moved it slightly to check the pockets but that it is more or less in the same position they found it.

[leitskev]

Of course I have seen the photos. What EXACTLY is your point? My point is simple: if Lizzie wore the coat then placed it there, when the police picked it up, they would find blood on the parts of the coat that ARE NOT exposed right there in the photo. This is true whether the coat was partly under the pillow, partly under his head, partly or exposed or largely exposed. We can't know for sure how much it was exposed because the body was moved by investigators to some degree, and may have moved under the blows. But it really doesn't matter. The important aspects:
1) if Lizzie wore this or used it as a shield, there are parts of that coat that would have substantial blood on them despite the fact they those parts were unexposed the way they were on the couch.
2) the police would very likely have found that evidence

I'll take it further: you don't think the prosecution thought of this possibility? You don't think they wouldn't have floated the theory? They had to account for no blood being found on Lizzie. They can see the photos. They were at the crime scene.

The coat theory was not proposed by the police or the prosecution because it's a dead end. The only reason we're even stuck trying to force that round peg theory into the square hole is because we can't account for how Lizzie cleaned up. This is why Elizabth Montgomery got naked on camera in 1975: because it just doesn't make sense how she had no blood evidence. It hasn't made sense for 120 years. It didn't make sense in the 1970's and it doesn't make sense now, so we're forced to come up with crazy theories.

[leitskev]

Regarding running water on second floor:

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... orden.html

article written by Denise Noe(I can't speak to her qualifications, but the article feels authoritative)

"There was no hot water in the house other than what a teakettle or pot could produce. The better wood and coal burning kitchen ranges had water-warming reservoirs built in; the range in the Borden kitchen did not. When Andrew bought the house, it had running water. He declared the running water on the second floor an unnecessary luxury and had the plumbing changed to cut it off and limit the running water to a sink room off the kitchen and one in the basement."

[KGDevil]

I'll take it further: you don't think the prosecution thought of this possibility? You don't think they wouldn't have floated the theory? They had to account for no blood being found on Lizzie. They can see the photos. They were at the crime scene.

The coat theory was not proposed by the police or the prosecution because it's a dead end. The only reason we're even stuck trying to force that round peg theory into the square hole is because we can't account for how Lizzie cleaned up. This is why Elizabth Montgomery got naked on camera in 1975: because it just doesn't make sense how she had no blood evidence. It hasn't made sense for 120 years. It didn't make sense in the 1970's and it doesn't make sense now, so we're forced to come up with crazy theories.

Closing argument of District Attorney Hosea Knowlton page 1850:

Did it ever occur to you --- I am only suggesting these things. It is not our business to prove what she did to conceal the bloodspots; that is for the defense, not our part of the case. We prove the murders. The concealment is part of the assassin's business. Did it ever occur to you, however, how remarkable it is that the coat which the old man took off, which I presume he took off, at any rate whether that coat or another, instead of being hung upon a nail, as a prudent old man would have hung it, was folded up underneath his cushion? That might have been used. I can't tell. There are plenty of ways in which a woman can conceal that sort of thing.

It was possible --- and I do not urge it in the face of this testimony. You may believe it for I understand it is a matter that doctors do not understand more than anybody else--- it is possible that very few blood spots that would be subject to observation would get upon the dress. Although Mr. Manning, the reporter, went into the sitting room to see if there was anything he could find, and if there is anything that a reporter does not see, it is pretty hard to see it, all he saw was a little spot, one the door, and one spot of blood that had spurted upon the wall by the sofa. The table right by the side never received a drop of blood, the books never received a drop of blood, Yet, I do not know, the doctors tell me it would be hard work for her not to get spattered, and I dot not undertake to say it might not be. The chance might have been taken, but it was not probable. Some attempt might well have been taken to cover that dress. A woman's cunning can devise that. There is no difficulty in that. She had had one experience. She had found blood spurted from hatchet wounds.

[camgarsky4]

Thank you for sharing that link.

Not sure how to give you feedback because last time you deemed it being disrespectful and obnoxious. But this last post is another example of reading something that does not include a primary source footnote, not validating via primary documents, but still posting it as if fact. For new insights like this, all we are asking for is a primary source reference.

Back to the article above.....I just reread Ms. Noe's article (her qualifications are that she is an interested Bordenite....like us). She footnotes the paragraph in question as coming from Arnold Brown's book. If you follow this case to the degree you suggest, you know how fraught with unproven information that book has proven to be. The footnote alone would raise a red flag for me.

Staying on this theme and circling back to the "red shirt" on another post.....perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in a primary document, but I can't find it in Morse's testimonies, nor can I find a source on this forum. The only reference I've found is that the red shirt is mentioned in the Kent book, Forty Whacks. On its own merit, that means nothing. Until the primary document or contemporary news source is identified, then it is just a random and nonapplicable tidbit. You chose to use this snippet and energize a theory about Sawyer with it. Obviously you are free to theorize to your hearts content, but you seemed to be a bit frustrated with me for dismissing Sawyer and not looking beyond Lizzie.

By the way, Sawyer being an interesting possibility is not a new idea that you or I came up with. Folks have considered it since this forum was born.

That said, myself, KG Devil and other posters have studied Sawyer extensively.....both pre and post murders. We can find zero reason to suspect Sawyer was the killer. But we have taken that position after taking the time to do the research.

Lastly, I believe KG Devil's point on the coat is the same I've attempted to make a couple times. Just look at the photos. Do you see signs of a arterial blood geyser? No, because there weren't any. Andrew was likely killed with the first blow, heart stopped and blood stopped pumping. The doors and frames in the photo (where the assailant must have stood) had very very few spots of blood. Key words....few and spots. But don't believe me, it is all covered in the testimony and autopsy reports.....and visually apparent in the photos above.

Kat was a stickler about sourcing posts and I have learned to appreciate that viewpoint. Moving forward, I will do a better job myself.

[CagneyBT]

At a forum member's request, I did some research on the elusive F.X.L. Mercier.

Francois Xavier Mercier, baptized Nov. 22, 1868 at St-Joseph-De-La-Pointe-Lévy Church in Lauzon, Quebec, Canada; parents: Louis Mercier & Philomene Barras.

Aug. 6, 1889: Francois Xavier Louis Mercier married Leda Farladeau in Lauzon, St. Joseph, Levis, Quebec, Canada

October 14, 1890: The Quebec Official Gazette reports a notice of insolvency involving F.X.L. Mercier, painter, St. Joseph de Levis.

1891: Canada Census:
Francois Louis Mercier, age 22, painter, wife Leda, age 28, son Louis, age 8 mos, were living in the household of Leda’s widowed mother, Leona, in Lauzon, Quebec.

1891-1893: Mercier and family immigrated to Fall River.

Dec. 3, 1893, Fall River Globe: "Father Casgraln's Present: Rev. Fr. F. O. Casgrain, curate at St. Matthew's church, has received a magnificent present for the new church from Louis F. X. Mercier. This gift is an oil painting, 4x6, representing the death of St. Joseph. This picture was painted by Mr. Mercier himself. The work reflects great credit on Mr. Mercier and shows remarkable talent and aptitude for his work, and his generosity is very much appreciated by the recipients of his gift."

1894: Mercier is listed as “decorator” at 9 Peckham in the Fall River City Directory.

Sept. 11, 1894, son Henry Mercier b. in Fall River

May 25, 1895, Fall River Daily Evening News: Notice that the partnership of F.X.L. Mercier and Adelard Roy (Roy & Mercier) was dissolved by consent.

Jan. 24, 1896, Fall River Daily Evening News: "Fire in a Paint Shop-The alarm of fire from box 282 shortly before 10 o'clock last night was occasioned by a fire in F. X. Mercier's paint and house-paper store at the Globe corner. An oil lamp exploded, and the flames communicated to some of the rolls of paper, making a little blaze and filling the place with smoke. The firemen made quite a record in getting to the fire and soon had it under control."

Feb. 14, 1896, Fall River Daily Evening News reported that F.X.L. Mercier was responsible for the painting of the new Franco American Union building at the corner of East South Main & Palmer, of which he was a member.

Oct. 23, 1896, Fall River Globe: "NEW PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT F. X. L. Mercier has opened a first class painting, decorating, and paper hanging establishment at 1451 South Main street and his announcement in The Globe is worthy the attention of all contractors, builders, and others desiring first class work in this line."

Dec. 26,1896: son Frank E. Mercier b. in Fall River.

Aug. 26, 1897, Fall River Globe: "Family Left in State of Destitution by His Conduct - Charles Sawyer was at the Central station today making some inquiries about the case of his partner, Louis Mercier, who decamped from Globe village last week. Mr. Sawyer has heard from Mercier at three points in New York state but does not know where he is located at the present time. He is making an attempt to locate the horse and wagon driven by Mercier. It has been traced to Warren, R. I.
The worst feature of the case is not the loss of money sustained by the firm, but the condition in which Mercier left his wife and children. They are penniless, and the wife Is brokenhearted. As a matter of fact, Mercier has not been guilty of any offense for which he is liable to criminal prosecution. The rig and the money taken were owned jointly by himself and Mr. Sawyer. He had a right to take them, and Mr. Sawyer's remedy is in a civil suit. When it is brought, there will be enough of the firm's assets found In this city to reimburse Mr. Sawyer, so that he will lose little or no money by the transaction.
With the deserted wife, it was different. She is the daughter of well-to-do parents who live in Canada, and her father, it is said, gave her a liberal portion of his property at the time of her marriage. This property was converted Into cash and loaned to her husband, who soon lost it in some way or other. Mrs. Mercier at present Is subsisting upon the charity of friends."

F.X.L. Mercier, painter, listed in the 1900 Boyd’s D.C. Directory

1900 census: Pittsburgh, PA, residing at 1521 Federal St.; Francis X.L. Mercier, age 29, artist, wife Nellie J. Mercier, age 19, bookkeeper, b. Canada, marriage year 1897, immigration year 1897. If this is the same Mercier who was Sawyer’s partner, he was a bigamist as well as an embezzeler. Perhaps Nellie was the reason he abandoned his family and fled Fall River.

Mercier’s abandoned wife, Leda, had returned to Canada with their five children, where they resided with Leda’s widowed mother. The 1901 census states Leda is married, but her husband is not enumerated in the household.

1901 Canada census: Lauzon (village), Levis, Quebec
Leona Falardeau, 75, Chef (Head)
Leda Mercier, 38, Fille (Daughter)
Louis Mercier, 10, Fils (Son)
Blanche Mercier, 9, Fille (Daughter)
Mathilda Mercier, 8, Fille (Daughter)
Henri Mercier, 6, Fils (Son)
Albert Mercier, 4, Fils (Son

June 23, 1901, The Pittsburgh Press reported that F.X. Mercier was elected President of the Decorator’s Union #84. “President Mercier stated that the membership had increased 60% in the last three months and the new members included the highest grade of workmen. The master decorators, he said, are now in a position to handle all classes of artistic work, such as has been done heretofore by men from other cities, and he hoped that the wealthy men of Pittsburgh would give residents here an opportunity to display their skill.”

October 26, 1901, the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, reported that F.X.L. Mercier, a trustee of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers, Pittsburgh District Council, added his name to a report requesting an investigation of Secretary-Treasurer, Fred L. Koch, for embezzlement of approximately $684.

Sept. 27, 1903, The Pittsburgh Press reported that F.X. Mercier returned home after a week of hunting & fishing at Great Cacapon, West Virginia.

March 2, 1906, Altoona Times, PA: " F. X. Mercier. an expert artist of Johnstown, is in the city preparing the interior of the Amuse U for the nickelodeon which will open next Thursday. He also has the contract for the artistic work on the Johnstown Amuse-U, which is conducted by Messrs Silverman."

April 19, 1906: The Pittsburgh Press: "Painters: at once, three reliable fresco painters and one paperhanger, good wages, Address: F.X.L. Mercier, Keystone Hotel, Johnstown, PA."

Jan. 8,1913, New York City: Francis Xavier Louis Mercier, age 42, birthplace: Quebec, Canada, single, father: Louis Mercier; mother: Philomena Barras married Anna Dora Henneke, age 44, birthplace: Portsmouth, Ohio, single. Anna Henneke operated a paint and paper store, Henneke & Thomas, in Ohio.

It’s unknown what happened to wife, Nellie J. Mercier, who was enumerated with F.X. in the 1900 Pittsburgh census.

1920 U.S. Census: Francis X. Mercier, age 51, interior designer, living on Fern St. in Suquamish, Kitsap, Washington with wife Anna, artist, age 51. Anna was a renowned religious artist and muralist, specializing in frescoes. Her work included painting the dome of the State Capitol in Sacramento and in numerous churches throughout the U.S. She died in November 1958 in California, age 90. There is no mention of F.X. Mercier in her obituary.

March 29, 1921: Leda Falardeau Mercier died in May 1921 in Quebec City.

Death Record:
Léda Falardeau
Death Age:58
Birth Date: abt 1863
Death Date: 29 Mai 1921
Burial Date: 31 Mai 1921
Burial Place:Quebec City, Québec, Canada
Burial Church: Divers; Québec
Place of Worship or Institution: Cimetière Saint-Charles
Spouse: François Xavier Mercier

F.X.L. Mercier returned to Montreal, year unknown, where he was employed at a paint shop in Levis, Quebec. He died in 1925. Other than his brother-in-law, there are no mention of survivors in his obituary.

Name: Louis François Xavier Mercier[Louis François Xavier Mercier]
Death Age:56
Birth Date: abt 1869
Death Date: abt 1925
Burial Date: 21 Sept 1925
Burial Place: Lauzon, Québec, Canada
Burial Church: St-Joseph-De-La-Pointe-Lévy; Lauzon
Place of Worship or Institution: St-Joseph-De-La-Pointe-Lévy
Spouse: Léda Falardeau

Sept 21, 1925, The Montreal Star: Levis Que(bec), "F. X. Louis Mercier, of Montreal, died at the residence of his brother-in-law, Joseph Turgeon, 167 Commercial St., Levis, Thursday. Deceased was 56 years of age and died after a long illness." (Note: Joseph Turgeon married F.X.’s sister, M. Ida Mercier, on June 10, 1895 in Lauzon, Quebec).

Sept. 29, 1925, The Gazette, Montreal: "NOTICE TO NOTARIES: Mr. F. X. Mercier, Decorator-Painter, employed at Curwood Paint Shop, Montreal, died on the eighteenth of September, 1925. If there is any notary who has passed his Will or some other Act, please refer without deIay to his brother-in-law, Joseph Turgeon. 165 Commercial Street, Levis, Que., for the settlement of Succession."

[camgarsky4]

Cagney -- really nice and informative research. The information certainly makes a very compelling case that all the FXL Mercier's noted above are one and the same.

So it certainly seems to tell us that Charles Sawyer did not hurt Mr. Mercier in any way for absconding with company property. Mystery solved.

I agree w/ Cagney's guess.....the 2nd Mrs. Mercier was likely the direct cause of the escape from family and Fall River. And yet it seems possible the Mrs. #1 never divorced him and they both ended up back in Quebec for their final years.

[CagneyBT]

Thank you, Camgarsky

Considering that no real harm was done to Sawyer's business and Mercier's act wasn't technically a crime, Sawyer appears to have let "bygones be bygones." From what I've read about him, Sawyer didn't seem prone to violence, even if wronged, as in this case.

I think Mercier had aspirations to be a real artist and decided to reinvent himself by abandoning his old life and starting anew. The real tragedy is the devastating effects on his wife and children. They were the true victims.

[mysterium]

Thanks KGDevil and CagneyBT for all of your hard work on this. Was anyone able to find any newspaper articles in Henderson, NC or Richmond, VA about Mercier? This is regarding article above from the Fall River Daily Herald, October 15, 1897.

[CagneyBT]

Hi Mysterium!

I posted all the information I found on Mercier. Nothing in the North Carolina newspapers about him...there was only the one reference to him in Virginia, hunting and fishing in Great Cacapon in 1903.

[mysterium]

Thanks, CagneyBT! I appreciate it!