Barn break-in & Pigeons

[camgarsky4]

I suspect we will start having some discussion on these topics, so starting a new thread to keep it separate from the Bridget discrepancy topic.

It also appears the barn door was kept locked prior to the barn break-in. Page 188 in JJ, Southard Miller recalls Andrews telling him of the barn break-in. Phillips noted Miller's recollection, "2 or 3 mos ago a man or someone broke 2 locks & got into his barn & stole pigeons didn't notice anything else gone."

What I love about these new Miller insights is that it confirms what Alice Russell had supposed....the pigeons apparently were the target of the break-in. I find that quite odd. Someone would want some pigeons so bad, they broke into a locked structure next door to an occupied house. Seems like a risky proposition for a little pigeon meat.

This also seems to confirm (to me) that Andrew killed the pigeons to eliminate that potential reason to break-in again. Another small question maybe answered, if they actually noticed pigeons were gone, then they knew how many there were, which would indicate they were raising them, vs. just wild birds hanging around the barn.

Could the barn break-in actually have had some relationship with the ensuing murders? Could the pigeons (I presume some were missing) have just been a ruse, like the random things taken from the Andrew's desk the prior year? Maybe the pigeon episode did have some degree of connection to August 4th?

I'm starting to get a sense that the in-house burglary, the barn break-in and the murders were related. We've talked extensively about the burglary. How might the barn play into the broader Borden drama?

If Fall River's small time thief's are bold enough to break into a locked barn for pigeon meat, they could certainly have been skulking around the back of house as Lizzie described to police and at the Inquest. So there is a decent chance she wasn't lying about that. But it could also be that she wasn't lying, but knew that mentioning the recollection would cause a potential distraction.

My instincts are telling me that there is something very relevant about that barn and back of house. Just can't imagine what.

[camgarsky4]

Lizzie Pigeon related inquest testimony:
Q. Can you tell of the killing of any animal? Or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir. He killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.
Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.
Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.
Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on. That is what made me think so.
Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.
Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.
Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.
Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin, I think, was very tender. I said, "Why are these heads off?" I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know. I did not look at that particularly.

[Reasonwhy]

Lizzie Pigeon related inquest testimony: ….I said, "Why are these heads off?"

—partial post by Camgarsky

Camgarsky, thanks for posting this testimony.

This one sentence of Lizzie’s, where she quotes herself, says much, in my view. If Andrew had killed pigeons before and brought them into the kitchen for meal preparation, Lizzie wouldn’t be questioning it. Lizzie asking for an explanation strongly implies that she objects.

Consider the question of why the birds were kept at all:

1. If the pigeons were kept as pets for Lizzie, her question can be translated as, “Why has Father murdered my pets?”

2. If the pigeons were kept for food, they would be sold, or consumed at home. It’s hard to believe this purpose would be kept from Lizzie. So why her question? This must have been the first time Andrew had brought them into the house for the family to eat. Lizzie’s question registers her disapproval.

So, in either scenario, I reach the conclusion this is the first pigeon “home harvest.” Why does Andrew do this then (Lizzie says last May or June), only a couple of months before the murders? Killing the birds would eliminate their theft, but even if done for that reason, why is Andrew also deciding to put the dead birds where Lizzie will see them, and deciding the family will eat them? Did Andrew know this would bother Lizzie, and was indifferent? Or did he do it intentionally, to send a signal? Could he have done it as punishment, if he thought Lizzie was the one to break into the barn (to create a record of break-ins before the murder?)

My reading at the least is that Lizzie was very bothered by this, and is deliberately understating this at the inquest. She claims not to know if necks were cut off as well as wrung, asks her question to “somebody,” “thinks” Andrew spoke to her about it. When her statements go hazy, she is attempting to obscure. I see this incident as highly escalating the tensions between Lizzie and Andrew within a short time before the murders.

Anyone agree/disagree?

[Reasonwhy]

Also, Lizzie’s failure to identify whom she questioned is significant. Was the “somebody” not Andrew? Why would she not directly ask him? Was she afraid? Or did she directly ask him, and she doesn’t want the court to know what his answer was? Hmmm. Yep, my spidey sense tells me she’s making little of something that was, at least to her, something big. What do others think?

[camgarsky4]

When I was 13 year old, we had a mix black lab named Tiff (a mineral used in paint & found in Missouri). He had a quick temper and was wildly loyal and obedient to me. One weekend we had a visiting family with a young 2-3 year old boy. He was playing in the backyard and I was in the upper yard doing something. I called Tiff a couple times and he didn't respond, I called for him more insistently. As it turns out the young boy was holding onto Tiff's collar as I was calling him and when I raised my tone a bit, Tiff stressed out and badly bit the boy on the head and neck area, just missing key arteries in the neck. The boy had to get multiple stitches, but ended up fine. Obviously it scared the crap out of his and my folks. The visitors were long time friends of my parents and the issue ended there.

However, a few days later as I walked home from football practice, Tiff didn't run to the corner fence to 'welcome' me as he always did. Thinking that was odd, I went into the back yard and couldn't find him. Went in the house and asked my folks 'where is Tiff." My mom was crying and my dad sat me down and explained that Tiff couldn't be trusted and he had him put to sleep to make sure no one was ever hurt again by him. I didn't speak to my dad for a week or so, but after talking extensively with my mom, I came to understand the horrible decision my parents had to make.

My dad couldn't tell me in advance as a 13 year old because I would have thrown a hissy fit and getting out the door with the dog would have been crazy drama. But if I had been a 30 year old, I think he and I would have sat down and discussed the situation and came to the same sad and heart breaking decision.

If Andrew decided to get rid of the pigeons because he viewed them as a lure for little burglars, why didn't he sit down and explain it to his 30 and 40 year old daughters. And if he did and they still didn't get it, then that speaks volumes to their maturity (or lack thereof). But if he didn't, that speaks volumes to their relationship and so much for "special love"....whatever that means.

[PossumPie]

As for the pigeons, in the 1800s it was quite popular to keep a coop of pigeons for squab. They took up less room in small yards than chicken coops. I seriously doubt that Lizzie had them as pets or that anyone in the family was particularly attached to them. They would be raised to slaughter, probably in winter months when fresh meat was harder to get so none of the family would be naming them. This is just speculation, but I also doubt anyone in the family would be grossed out by the headless dead birds. Back then much meat was in it's more..." natural form" when purchased. Today you buy an anonymous package of clean bloodless chicken breasts, back then you brought the whole dead chicken home feathers and all and cleaned it. Many people had them in their yards. My mother tells tales of being a small girl and hiding in her room when my grandmother took the hatchet off of the shelf and went out to the coop for Sunday dinner. But once done, she helped clean and de-feather the birds. Sounds harsh today but we live in a sterile environment as far as our meat goes.
I just don't think the whole pigeon thing bothered Lizzie much. I have see no evidence that she was upset or angry by the loss of the pigeons? I know several past posters theorized that she loved them and killed Andrew because Andrew killed them. We are looking at a utilitarian action of getting fresh meat not dressing pets up in doll clothes and snuggling them. I am an animal lover and can't even bring myself to kill our excess chickens when needed, but I also am a history buff and know that meat back then didn't come anonymously unrecognizable in a pink butcher block covered in plastic wrap.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- I think it is clear that Knowlton was aware of the pigeon episode before asking Lizzie the question and was baiting her to reference it. Why do you think he wanted this issue surfaced? How might he have learned of it and why did the source think important to tell Knowlton? Might the source have known that it upset Lizzie and that was why Knowlton was told?

Are you thinking that the break-in of the barn earlier that summer had nothing to do with the subsequent murders?

Tossing out another piece of testimony that stood out to me on this general theme.....the morning of the 4th (pre-breakfast), Bridget watched Andrew as he tossed his basin and unlocked and went into the barn. Perhaps she always kept an eye out the window as she washed dishes in the sink, but still interesting that she seemed to have kept an eye on Andrews movements in the backyard. Did she have angst over anything to do with the barn?

[Reasonwhy]

We have not yet discussed this part of Lizzie’s pigeon testimony (Inquest, p. 88):

Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

This is what Lizzie—by her own words—says she was thinking about during the time her father was being murdered. “They” must mean Andrew. “Closed up” is another euphemism…for killed/murdered? She is admitting she’s thinking about Andrew killing while he is being murdered. And that is the only thing she says she is doing or thinking, for four or five minutes. It would have taken less time to have wielded all of the hatchet blows to both old people. Wow. Talk about a “Freudian slip”!
This testimony (though she later changed her story to say she she was in the barn) lends credence to the idea that Andrew’s killing of the pigeons indeed bothered her, in my view.
I don’t see this comment as random. How about you all?

[PossumPie]

As I said in another thread, I think they were meant to be eaten. This DOESN'T mean that Lizzie enjoyed seeing the dead birds lying on the kitchen table with broken necks. Killing chickens, pigeons, and rabbits was common practice for city folks who didn't have enough room for larger animals but that doesn't mean that everyone enjoyed watching. I live in Pennsylvania, the deer-hunting capital of the U.S. Virtually every man (and many women) in the rural areas enjoy deer hunting and many freezers are packed with venison. It personally is revolting to me that anyone could enjoy killing an animal. I could do it (and have) but it makes me a bit queasy. I eat the meat but don't enjoy the kill. The native Americans killed for food, but they thanked the animals for giving their lives. There was no "fun" or sport in it. I think Knowlton baited Lizzie b/c he was banking on the idea that women back then were queasy seeing dead animals.

[camgarsky4]

I'm probably somewhere in the middle of what I think Reason and Possum's perspective on what the pigeons role might be.

What is a notable to me, based on Lizzie's testimony and the fact that the roost was gone at the time of the murders, is that the May/June '92 episode wasn't a simple matter of snatching a couple birds for dinner, it was the singular act of the wholesale slaughter of them all. With the difficulty of preserving meat in that era, that is a surprisingly abrupt decision and one that an animal lover might strongly object against.

If you wanted to get rid of the lot, why not eat a few each week until they were gone? Nothing goes to waste.

I think the pigeon massacre was another high drama event and stirred family emotions...to the degree someone thought to whisper the story in Knowlton's ear.

To my way of thinking, this was another (of several) accelerants leading up to August 4th. My instinct is that this might have sealed the deal for Lizzie's eroding lack of emotional connection to AJB. That total lack of an emotional relationship made the murder of Andrew much 'easier' for Lizzie.

[PossumPie]

I'm probably somewhere in the middle of what I think Reason and Possum's perspective on what the pigeons role might be.

What is a notable to me, based on Lizzie's testimony and the fact that the roost was gone at the time of the murders, is that the May/June '92 episode wasn't a simple matter of snatching a couple birds for dinner, it was the singular act of the wholesale slaughter of them all. With the difficulty of preserving meat in that era, that is a surprisingly abrupt decision and one that an animal lover might strongly object against.

If you wanted to get rid of the lot, why not eat a few each week until they were gone? Nothing goes to waste.

I think the pigeon massacre was another high drama event and stirred family emotions...to the degree someone thought to whisper the story in Knowlton's ear.

To my way of thinking, this was another (of several) accelerants leading up to August 4th. My instinct is that this might have sealed the deal for Lizzie's eroding lack of emotional connection to AJB. That total lack of an emotional relationship made the murder of Andrew much 'easier' for Lizzie.

You make sense with your response, but I wouldn't use "massacre" and I don't think anything went to waste, one squab feeds one person (barely). It would have taken 5-6 pigeons to feed them and we don't have documentation as to how many pigeons there were.
If Lizzie was traumatized by the incident it would have whispered it's way into the gossip about the family. Look at how ingrained the "Lizzie the Klepto" rumors got. If Lizzie told one friend about her father killing her loving pets, that would have spread like wildfire, and yet any documentation we have is simply "oh by the way, the blood on the hatchet wasn't from the pigeons b/c he twisted their heads off."
I think we can all agree that Andrew was a miserly, penny-pinching man who hated the idea of anyone taking advantage of him. I can see him throwing a fit if he thought someone ripped him off. My thought is that he found out boys were stealing from him, and he said "screw that" nobody is going to steal from me, and he killed them to be done with it. Having a temptation for people to break in the barn was not worth it.

Moody Trial opening statement:
"Well," said the prisoner, "probably that is so. But father has been having so much trouble with those with whom he has dealings that
I am afraid that some of them will do something to him. I expect nothing but what the building will be burned down over our heads. The barn has been broken into twice."
"That," said Miss Russell, "was merely boys after pigeons." "Well, the house has been broken into in broad daylight.

Lizzie told at least Miss Russell about the pigeons, and she isn't afraid of passing along information. She would have jumped at the chance to say "I hate to talk ill of the accused, but she came to me crying that Andrew had killed her pigeons" . Yet all she mentioned was it was b/c of the break in. Lastly, in testimony, Lizzie said she "Looked up at THE pigeon house that THEY closed up." Not MY pigeon house or WE closed up. This may mean she is purposly detaching herself from the pigeons, or she had no vested interest in them at all, not even to say MY or OUR.

[Reasonwhy]

Found an example in JJ showing Andrew was aware of his daughters’ sensitivity to animal suffering. This is new evidence that suggests he would have known Lizzie would have been upset by the sight of the strangulated/axed pigeons:

P. 99, The Jennings Journals:
“Entry Recorded by Andrew J. Jennings:
Eddy Dr Wm W. live Swansea— one day was going to bleed a horse & girls came out doors Father said don’t do it now if the girls should see any blood it would scare them to death ——”

(Apparently, horses used to be bled, just as people were. Here’s an interesting drawing and article):
https://i0.wp.com/understandinglaminiti ... 1200&ssl=1
https://understandinglaminitis.com/category/treatment/

[PossumPie]

Found an example in JJ showing Andrew was aware of his daughters’ sensitivity to animal suffering. This is new evidence that suggests he would have known Lizzie would have been upset by the sight of the strangulated/axed pigeons:

P. 99, The Jennings Journals:
“Entry Recorded by Andrew J. Jennings:
Eddy Dr Wm W. live Swansea— one day was going to bleed a horse & girls came out doors Father said don’t do it now if the girls should see any blood it would scare them to death ——”

(Apparently, horses used to be bled, just as people were. Here’s an interesting drawing and article):
https://i0.wp.com/understandinglaminiti ... 1200&ssl=1
https://understandinglaminitis.com/category/treatment/

Good find! That adds a new dimension. Doesn't necessarily mean the pigeons were Lizzies but may have been traumatizing all the same for him to bring them into her view. Does that show callousness on his part? It would gross me out to see someone "bleed a horse"...
JJ may have been looking at that angle to say "Lizzie couldn't stand the sight of blood so she wouldn't have been able to kill...but for whatever reason, he never went down that avenue.

[Reasonwhy]

Thanks, Possum. Well, we don’t have the date—maybe this was when the daughters were younger and more susceptible to fright at such a scene, or maybe Andrew loved and cared more about their feelings then? Anyone know when Andrew acquired the Swansea farms?

[Kat]

I had thot it might be a simple matter of the investment made in painting the house (and barn and fence).That was in May. Pigeons will be dirty and poop everywhere and it's not impossible that Andrew made a deal whereby Lizzie could pick the new paint color of the house (to ensure her involvement) if she agreed to give up the birds (if she was, in fact, attached to them). Some pigeons will come home, even when you give them away, and if someone is vandalizing the yard to even steal pigeons...so the decision could be, for multiple reasons, no more pigeons.

[Kat]

Thanks, Possum. Well, we don’t have the date—maybe this was when the daughters were younger and more susceptible to fright at such a scene, or maybe Andrew loved and cared more about their feelings then? Anyone know when Andrew acquired the Swansea farms?

Maybe land transactions listed in Rebello?

[Reasonwhy]

I had thot it might be a simple matter of the investment made in painting the house (and barn and fence).That was in May. Pigeons will be dirty and poop everywhere and it's not impossible that Andrew made a deal whereby Lizzie could pick the new paint color of the house (to ensure her involvement) if she agreed to give up the birds (if she was, in fact, attached to them). Some pigeons will come home, even when you give them away, and if someone is vandalizing the yard to even steal pigeons...so the decision could be, for multiple reasons, no more pigeons.

Another very reasonable possibility…but I circle back to Lizzie and Andrew seeming so often unreasonable and at odds with each othe: If Lizzie had agreed to such a deal, why would she ask, “Why are these heads off?”

[Kat]

It could be just a question of : if they can be dead and still keep their heads, why did some not have their heads? It doesn't seem that odd of a question to me, given the circumstances.
(It was around the time the house was being painted, Lizzie was also getting new dresses, the dressmaker was there on and off, she got paint on her dress etc. = what else was going on- I'd think she'd be happy at this time)
Anyway, did you ever have a bird land on your fence and poop all down it? If they regularly had pigeons, it's going to be very hard to keep the outside of the house and barn and fence clean with a loft on the property. It's not impossible, either, that she was given a choice: the place may have needed sprucing up, Lizzie may have complained, Andrew may say pigeons or paint, pick one or the other...
I understand that to attempt to go into Lizzie's head, it's a dark place to you...but do you think there can ever be just plain ole regular days the family lived together with no drama?

BTW: if she was so into pigeons, why didn't she pursue that hobby when she could afford to have a loft or coop at Maplecroft?

[Kat]

Anyone know when Andrew acquired the Swansea farms?

--partial

Rebello, pgs 551, 552 and 553, Andrew Borden was buying and selling property in Swansea from March, 1871 thru March, 1872. He also sold 30 acres of Swansea in April, 1873. In October, 1875 he was trading land in Swansea with Almy. Pg 554 Andrew and partners foreclosed on some land in Swansea, and then sold it.

The farm, I believe, was the property he bought and shared with Almy, so that may be the June 5th, 1871 transaction.

[camgarsky4]

Shifting gears away from the relevance speculation of the pigeon episode. In Lizzie's inquest testimony, while establishing her alibi outside/barn, she mentions picking up a few pears and looking up at the former pigeon roost location for a couple minutes.

For whatever reason, I've always assumed she was facing the south side of the barn and looking at the upper exterior opening for the hay. But then I just looked at Rebello's (pg 48) diagram of the barn floor plan. It shows the pigeon roost at the back, east facing window. For Lizzie to have given the 'old' roost a look-see, she would have wandered clear to the back of the barn. The upward angle would have been uncomfortable for the neck. Since her mission was to find screen repair material & fishing equipment inside the barn, that feels like an interestingly extended walk. The first pear tree in the Phillips photos is available before one needs to get to the position where clearly viewing the roost might have been possible. Even then, the viewing angle seems little odd to have then studied the upper section of the barn. Maybe the first tree didn't bear good fruit so she had to go further.

Still sort of an interesting detail. Especially when one considers the amount of time she had to do everything she described. Not sure we've scrubbed on the 10:40-11:10 timeline details since this group has been active....but since I believe Bridget's testimony of what happened between Andrew arriving home to him reading in the sitting room, if her Alibi is true, I think she only had 10-15 minutes before Lubinsky 'saw' her and she called down Bridget.

Ok...back to the speculation. I think her even recalling that she took a 'more than brief glance' at the roost (guilty or not of murder), suggests it meant something more than a periodic meat changeup at the dinner table to Lizzie. Obviously that is 150% speculation & opinion.

[PossumPie]

Shifting gears away from the relevance speculation of the pigeon episode. In Lizzie's inquest testimony, while establishing her alibi outside/barn, she mentions picking up a few pears and looking up at the former pigeon roost location for a couple minutes.

For whatever reason, I've always assumed she was facing the south side of the barn and looking at the upper exterior opening for the hay. But then I just looked at Rebello's (pg 48) diagram of the barn floor plan. It shows the pigeon roost at the back, east facing window. For Lizzie to have given the 'old' roost a look-see, she would have wandered clear to the back of the barn. The upward angle would have been uncomfortable for the neck. Since her mission was to find screen repair material & fishing equipment inside the barn, that feels like an interestingly extended walk. The first pear tree in the Phillips photos is available before one needs to get to the position where clearly viewing the roost might have been possible. Even then, the viewing angle seems little odd to have then studied the upper section of the barn. Maybe the first tree didn't bear good fruit so she had to go further.

Still sort of an interesting detail. Especially when one considers the amount of time she had to do everything she described. Not sure we've scrubbed on the 10:40-11:10 timeline details since this group has been active....but since I believe Bridget's testimony of what happened between Andrew arriving home to him reading in the sitting room, if her Alibi is true, I think she only had 10-15 minutes before Lubinsky 'saw' her and she called down Bridget.

Ok...back to the speculation. I think her even recalling that she took a 'more than brief glance' at the roost (guilty or not of murder), suggests it meant something more than a periodic meat changeup at the dinner table to Lizzie. Obviously that is 150% speculation & opinion.

If Lizzie were lying about being out at the barn to form an alibi, she would have purposely put herself in a place that would make it hard to see the house...either inside the barn (looking for tin/lead/sinkers) or behind the barn looking at an empty coop. I don't think there was any wistful reminiscing about pigeons, just an excuse to say she was far from the house. The east side of the barn is the furthest point from the house on their property.

[camgarsky4]

Possum, I think perhaps you miss my point. It is my point of view that Lizzie tapped into actual events/issues to give her alibi and the Abby morning chat some structure and 'believability'. Her iterations were a collection of tangible things that her mind 'grabbed onto' quickest when under intense pressure to get give an answer that had to be a lie (or a confession). Many other examples of this are readily scattered throughout her "recollection" of her alibi and conversation with Abby.

I guess where I would disagree with you (which is quite ok), is that the pigeon roost even popping into her mind to be part of her alibi excuse indicates that it was an issue of some scale in her mind to be randomly chosen while being grilled to create an answer.

If it is important that we definitively say the pigeon issue had nothing to do with the murders, that is fine for anyone to believe. I choose to think that almost all of the drama that surfaced in the months proceeding these murders were part of the fabric that resulted in a daughter slaughtering her folks. I do not think the pigeons were the reason or spark that resulted in deaths, but I do think it was likely a small piece of the puzzle of what was clearly a simmering household that spring & summer.

[PossumPie]

Possum, I think perhaps you miss my point. It is my point of view that Lizzie tapped into actual events/issues to give her alibi and the Abby morning chat some structure and 'believability'.

I see what you are saying...but wouldn't mentioning the pigeons at all send a message to the prosecution that maybe they could use that against her? Do you think she said "oh, crap! I shouldn't have mentioned the pigeons." I'm unsure why she even mentioned it except that she wasn't thinking about the implications.

[camgarsky4]

I think her mind was in hyper story invention mode as the questions kept coming and anything she could think of that could extend the alibi was game....she was recalling and plugging in anything that popped in her mind and I think the pigeon roost was something that had been a fairly recent and important association with barn for Lizzie.

I know this is getting pretty wispy, but I think that is how liars handle on the spot grilling and relentless pressure. Everyone knew that the final inquest alibi story from end to end was silly, but they couldn't prove it in a compelling way. So her ability to ad hoc lie paid off.

[Reasonwhy]

Anyone know when Andrew acquired the Swansea farms?

--partial

Rebello, pgs 551, 552 and 553, Andrew Borden was buying and selling property in Swansea from March, 1871 thru March, 1872. He also sold 30 acres of Swansea in April, 1873. In October, 1875 he was trading land in Swansea with Almy. Pg 554 Andrew and partners foreclosed on some land in Swansea, and then sold it.

The farm, I believe, was the property he bought and shared with Almy, so that may be the June 5th, 1871 transaction.

Thanks very much for this, Kat. Should have put effort into finding it myself.

Working with those dates, the horse-bleeding incident could have happened anytime in the twenty years before the murders, so Lizzie could have been anywhere from 11 to 32; Emma, 20 to 41. Since Andrew referred to “the girls,” in plural, he was at least referring to one during her adult years—Emma. So, his reaction was not just to protect daughters when extremely young. When did those protective feelings harden into his actions with the pigeons, I wonder. I understand some of us posting feel the pigeon incident was insignificant.

[Reasonwhy]

It could be just a question of : if they can be dead and still keep their heads, why did some not have their heads? It doesn't seem that odd of a question to me, given the circumstances.
(It was around the time the house was being painted, Lizzie was also getting new dresses, the dressmaker was there on and off, she got paint on her dress etc. = what else was going on- I'd think she'd be happy at this time)
Anyway, did you ever have a bird land on your fence and poop all down it? If they regularly had pigeons, it's going to be very hard to keep the outside of the house and barn and fence clean with a loft on the property. It's not impossible, either, that she was given a choice: the place may have needed sprucing up, Lizzie may have complained, Andrew may say pigeons or paint, pick one or the other...
I understand that to attempt to go into Lizzie's head, it's a dark place to you...but do you think there can ever be just plain ole regular days the family lived together with no drama?

BTW: if she was so into pigeons, why didn't she pursue that hobby when she could afford to have a loft or coop at Maplecroft?

I comprehend that several posters are making the effort to de-mythologize Lizzie, and I agree some authors/filmmakers have ridden the pigeon episode into sensationalism, so I can understand why the subject is controversial. I share the desire to pare the legend when knowledge of the primary sources makes that possible.
In this instance, though, Lizzie’s own testimony, about her reactions to the sight of the dead birds, as well as her thoughts about “they” who “closed up” the pigeon house, is the primary source. It is the most direct information about these events which we are ever likely to have. So, the next step is interpreting the meaning of her words. At that point, I expected we might disagree. For me, Lizzie’s language has always been hard to parse, and I appreciate considering opinions other than my own. So let’s keep parsing!

Kat, as to why she didn’t keep pigeons on French Street, a simple answer could be that she had no barn. I would answer instead that she may have been traumatized by Andrew’s killing of the birds, and may have associated that act with Andrew’s murder (given her self-reported thoughts as she looked up in the yard/was actually murdering him with a hatchet). Keeping pigeons thereafter could have proved too painful a reminder.

Now, as to your question:
“I understand that to attempt to go into Lizzie's head, it's a dark place to you...but do you think there can ever be just plain ole regular days the family lived together with no drama?” (partial post by Kat)

I can see where it might appear I’m losing my sense of humor, or at least perspective, on our favorite hatchet-murderess! I do get quite somber when grappling with trying to comprehend the forces that drove her to kill. But let me try to answer straightforwardly, though your question might have been rhetorical:

No. No-drama days for the Borden family are tough for me to imagine due to all of the baggage they each carried. Consider the many family deaths, the failed emotional interactions, the trying personalities, the unmet needs and unfair demands, and the possible ill mental health of one or more family members, added to daily. What a tremendous weight they all lived under!

In fact, when I read of them shelling vegetables together, I was so pleasantly surprised to hear of this wholesome activity. Until I remembered that was the day of the home robbery.

We just don’t learn about many happy days, at least pre-French St.(and we read of much gloom there, too). We don’t hear of Christmases or birthdays celebrated, or even shared activities enjoyed (Lizzie fishing with her father is one exception). The most frequent comments about Lizzie in her youth are reports of her moodiness, tiredness, and low state (see Parallel Lives.)

When I think of families I have known who suffer under even some small part of the Bordens’ burdens, I have not noticed much normalcy, either: all days seem tainted by the unhealthy conditions and troubling emotions within.

Well, talking about these Borden problems does not make for very fun reading, not nearly as much as puzzling out the “how” of the murders. But I do not think I exaggerate the drama which their days seem to have involved. I am heartened when I read that at times Lizzie was known to laugh (although even her laugh was reported to have been loud, unpleasant, and inappropriate). Each Borden, as a human being, I believe was entitled to some joy, and I hope they each had some.

[camgarsky4]

Possum, I think perhaps you miss my point. It is my point of view that Lizzie tapped into actual events/issues to give her alibi and the Abby morning chat some structure and 'believability'.

I see what you are saying...but wouldn't mentioning the pigeons at all send a message to the prosecution that maybe they could use that against her? Do you think she said "oh, crap! I shouldn't have mentioned the pigeons." I'm unsure why she even mentioned it except that she wasn't thinking about the implications.

Knowlton initiated the pigeon conversation when he asked about if AJB had killed anything to get blood on the hatchets. That testimony is after he had pummeled and ridiculed Lizzie's explanation of how she consumed 20-30 minutes in the loft. As we know she then began iteratively adding activities to the loft visit. Eating pears, staring out the window eating pears, standing under the pear tree picking pears, and then staring up at the roost. She made that reference on line ~1550 out of her full testimony of ~1700 lines. She was running out of time extending ideas.

[PossumPie]

For the sake of lack of information, I'll concede that perhaps the pigeons were pets, or perhaps they were Sunday dinner. Either way, we all agree that they were not the cause of the murder, but a symptom of a dysfunctional household. Four adults, living together separately. All personal possessions are locked up. Eating separately, coming and going without the courtesy of saying I'm home" Andrew making some effort to keep things civil by giving the girls a house, then money. But you can't buy love and I believe that Lizzie returned from Europe even more aware of what she was missing.

[Reasonwhy]

Nice summary, Possum.