I'm currently going through the Rebello book and I was surprised by what I found on page 277. I didn't realize that it was very important to Lizzie and Emma that it be made clear in court that Abby was killed before Andrew. It seems that had Andrew died first, even if it was just an hour earlier, then Abby would have been his widow and she and her heirs could have made a claim to Andrew's estate. Since Lizzie and Emma were only Abby's step-daughters they would not have been to high on Abby's list. I gather her stepsister could have jumped in and claimed something. Anyway, it was established that Abby died first and when Andrew died he "left no widow." Little fine point there.
Anyone think the killer may have been aware of this legal stuff and had made sure to kill Abby first? If so, would this rule out someone such as Dr. Bowen who just had a grudge against Andrew or any others who may have been angry at Andrew but not Abby? After all they wouldn't care what order Andrew and Abby died in.
Did the killer know this?
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
it's an important component of some theories, but it's confusing to me because if andrew owned everything (which he did) it would seem to go to his daughters if his wife was also dead. frankly, i've never comprehended how a dead abby would inherit and pass along to her relatives when it wasn't hers in the first place -- regardless of when she died relative to when he died. but i'm not qualified to understand the legality of this.
-
Susan
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: California
Not that this is much help as I don't have the source, but, didn't Lizzie allegedly visit with a lawyer a short while before the murders? I don't recall if that was a newspaper story, something asked about in the source documents or what, but, I do recall someone posting it on the Forum. 
“Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever.”-Margaret Cho comedienne
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It is more complicated than we had ever discussed on the Forum before, and the Boston Daily Globe explained the situation to its readers. Here is an explanation, in part:
TO WHOM THE PROPERTY?
Interesting Legal Questions Arising
Regarding its Disposal.
FALL RIVER, Aug. 12. - That neither Andrew J. Borden nor his wife, each possessed of property in their individual right, left a will, seems to be pretty thoroughly established, as a search of the premises does not reveal any will and all the legal papers and documentary evidence of the murdered people's holdings was found this afternoon in the family safe which had been broken open.
Yet it is authoritatively stated that, although every other paper the man presumably had in his possession has been found in good order, nothing in the shape of a last testament was found.
With the fact of no expression from either as to their desires in the disposition of their property, the distributing of the large estate must necessarily be according to the dictate of the common and statute law regarding inheritance.
In this case the deaths of these people, so nearly together that it may be impossible to determine, according to the lines of legitimate evidence, to the satisfaction of the law, just who died first, odd complications upon the matter of the settling of the estate may ensue.
In the case of Mrs. Borden, this absence of a will, if report is true, will cause a disposition of her estate entirely opposed to her intentions.
This question of the disposition of the property is freely discussed, and has been
Since the Arrest
taken up in the city as the latest topic of interest in connection with the murder.
It is presented upon eccentricities of law not upon the statute books, of which the legally informed public has such an extensive knowledge.
The determination of the exact time each died means a fortune, or the loss of one, for each of Mrs. Borden's heirs.
One of the heirs is so thoroughly convinced of her equity right in Mrs. Borden's dowry that she talks of taking a hand in the settlement of the estate.
According to the ideas of the interested public which are being disseminated about the city tonight, if the husband was killed first, then the wife was entitled to a widow's share of the deceased husband's estate, and consequently upon her subsequent decease her property thus acquired by widow's right would naturally revert to her heirs, and Lizzie and Emma would be relieved a third of the estate on the common law dowry.
It is astonishing how extensively this presentment of the situation has gained credence today, and the prejudice in favor of Mrs. Borden's heirs is illustrated in the assiduity with which their case is being argued upon the street.
There are
Reputed Facts and Arguments
presented in support of the theory of Mr. Borden's death having been first to be worthy the testimony of an expert medical man.
And yet their theory and their law is wrong.
Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.
The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.
A GLOBE reporter this afternoon spent some time with a prominent attorney of Fall River, poring over the probate laws and considering the Borden inheritance complication from its different aspects.
Arguing now upon the hypothesis that Andrew J. Borden died first, the old common law gives as a widow's dowry a portion of her deceased husband's estate.
If the husband dies intestate, the widow shall be entitled to a dowry of the lands of her husband, and shall be entitled to his real estate in fee, that is, with the right of sale at her pleasure, or willing at her death, according to her own desire, to an amount not exceeding $5000; and she shall also be entitled during her life to one-half of the other real estate of which he died seized.
If her husband dies intestate
And Leaves No Kindred,
then the widow shall take all the real estate in fee.
If these two sections of the Massachusetts statutes were only applicable to the Borden estate then Mrs. Borden's two sisters would be in most agreeable circumstances.
But they are not, in spite of the fact that these two heirs-at-law confidently expect a portion of the estate.
Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred.
It is commonly supposed that a dowry amounts to one-third of the deceased husband's estate, but it is not so.
The widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow.
In determining the proportionate part of the estate to be settled, Smith's probate law has a table of the amount widows at certain ages should receive.
Just what Mrs. Borden's proportionate amount of the half a million dollars her husband left, if she ever was a widow, cannot be determined tonight, as the only lawyer in town who has a copy of the Smith's probate law is away on a vacation.
In regard to the personal property, the probate judge would determine the widow's portion.
It will be seen that no
Construction of the Probate Laws,
in the absence of a will, will in any way provide for Mrs. Borden's heirs, as a good part of the city is anticipating.
If Mrs. Borden was killed after her husband, then she held a widow's dowry right to the possession of an income from a certain part of her deceased husband's $500,000 only during the few moments between the time of the murders.
Her income from the possession of the property disappeared the moment the axe descended upon her head, for death was in the first blow, and her opportunity to benefit her relatives had passed.
--The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - 1, 4
"NARROW CELL"
--Provided by our Joe and transcribed and made available by our Harry. Thanks you guys!
TO WHOM THE PROPERTY?
Interesting Legal Questions Arising
Regarding its Disposal.
FALL RIVER, Aug. 12. - That neither Andrew J. Borden nor his wife, each possessed of property in their individual right, left a will, seems to be pretty thoroughly established, as a search of the premises does not reveal any will and all the legal papers and documentary evidence of the murdered people's holdings was found this afternoon in the family safe which had been broken open.
Yet it is authoritatively stated that, although every other paper the man presumably had in his possession has been found in good order, nothing in the shape of a last testament was found.
With the fact of no expression from either as to their desires in the disposition of their property, the distributing of the large estate must necessarily be according to the dictate of the common and statute law regarding inheritance.
In this case the deaths of these people, so nearly together that it may be impossible to determine, according to the lines of legitimate evidence, to the satisfaction of the law, just who died first, odd complications upon the matter of the settling of the estate may ensue.
In the case of Mrs. Borden, this absence of a will, if report is true, will cause a disposition of her estate entirely opposed to her intentions.
This question of the disposition of the property is freely discussed, and has been
Since the Arrest
taken up in the city as the latest topic of interest in connection with the murder.
It is presented upon eccentricities of law not upon the statute books, of which the legally informed public has such an extensive knowledge.
The determination of the exact time each died means a fortune, or the loss of one, for each of Mrs. Borden's heirs.
One of the heirs is so thoroughly convinced of her equity right in Mrs. Borden's dowry that she talks of taking a hand in the settlement of the estate.
According to the ideas of the interested public which are being disseminated about the city tonight, if the husband was killed first, then the wife was entitled to a widow's share of the deceased husband's estate, and consequently upon her subsequent decease her property thus acquired by widow's right would naturally revert to her heirs, and Lizzie and Emma would be relieved a third of the estate on the common law dowry.
It is astonishing how extensively this presentment of the situation has gained credence today, and the prejudice in favor of Mrs. Borden's heirs is illustrated in the assiduity with which their case is being argued upon the street.
There are
Reputed Facts and Arguments
presented in support of the theory of Mr. Borden's death having been first to be worthy the testimony of an expert medical man.
And yet their theory and their law is wrong.
Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.
The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.
A GLOBE reporter this afternoon spent some time with a prominent attorney of Fall River, poring over the probate laws and considering the Borden inheritance complication from its different aspects.
Arguing now upon the hypothesis that Andrew J. Borden died first, the old common law gives as a widow's dowry a portion of her deceased husband's estate.
If the husband dies intestate, the widow shall be entitled to a dowry of the lands of her husband, and shall be entitled to his real estate in fee, that is, with the right of sale at her pleasure, or willing at her death, according to her own desire, to an amount not exceeding $5000; and she shall also be entitled during her life to one-half of the other real estate of which he died seized.
If her husband dies intestate
And Leaves No Kindred,
then the widow shall take all the real estate in fee.
If these two sections of the Massachusetts statutes were only applicable to the Borden estate then Mrs. Borden's two sisters would be in most agreeable circumstances.
But they are not, in spite of the fact that these two heirs-at-law confidently expect a portion of the estate.
Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred.
It is commonly supposed that a dowry amounts to one-third of the deceased husband's estate, but it is not so.
The widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow.
In determining the proportionate part of the estate to be settled, Smith's probate law has a table of the amount widows at certain ages should receive.
Just what Mrs. Borden's proportionate amount of the half a million dollars her husband left, if she ever was a widow, cannot be determined tonight, as the only lawyer in town who has a copy of the Smith's probate law is away on a vacation.
In regard to the personal property, the probate judge would determine the widow's portion.
It will be seen that no
Construction of the Probate Laws,
in the absence of a will, will in any way provide for Mrs. Borden's heirs, as a good part of the city is anticipating.
If Mrs. Borden was killed after her husband, then she held a widow's dowry right to the possession of an income from a certain part of her deceased husband's $500,000 only during the few moments between the time of the murders.
Her income from the possession of the property disappeared the moment the axe descended upon her head, for death was in the first blow, and her opportunity to benefit her relatives had passed.
--The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - 1, 4
"NARROW CELL"
--Provided by our Joe and transcribed and made available by our Harry. Thanks you guys!
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
You're welcome. It's really interesting!
Then the question still is, did Lizzie and Emma and "?" know this?
There are news items that say Lizzie spoke to an out-of-town lawyer. Also she spoke to Cook about what the Ferry Street property was worth before selling it back to her father (Witness Statements).
Then there are (I think- I'll have to look more closely) articles which say Lizzie did not consult lawyers and it was mainly rumor.
Then the question still is, did Lizzie and Emma and "?" know this?
There are news items that say Lizzie spoke to an out-of-town lawyer. Also she spoke to Cook about what the Ferry Street property was worth before selling it back to her father (Witness Statements).
Then there are (I think- I'll have to look more closely) articles which say Lizzie did not consult lawyers and it was mainly rumor.
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2543
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
I think they killed abby first because if they would have killed andrew first, she would have been the widow and gotten more of the money. IF they didn't kill both of them they wouldn't get anything because then they wouldn't have gotten anything at all. I think they tried to make it look like someone else did it so they could collect. If Andrew was the only on killed then abby would have gotten everything. I just think Emma Lizzie and Bridget were in it together.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I think I follow what you say. That if The girls were known to be guilty they couldn't inherit because of the crime- they couldn't "profit?"
Maybe- I don't know about the laws of profiting back then.
It's an interesting point.
However, for the statement "If Andrew was the only on killed then abby would have gotten everything."--Please read the newspaper's explanation which says Abby dying, she lost everything and so did her heirs, even if she died a widow, without a will.
Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.
The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.
--If people are trying to figure out whether Andrew was killed just before he made a will, it sounds like they should also be worried about Abby dying just before She made a will, as well.
Maybe- I don't know about the laws of profiting back then.
It's an interesting point.
However, for the statement "If Andrew was the only on killed then abby would have gotten everything."--Please read the newspaper's explanation which says Abby dying, she lost everything and so did her heirs, even if she died a widow, without a will.
Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.
The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.
--If people are trying to figure out whether Andrew was killed just before he made a will, it sounds like they should also be worried about Abby dying just before She made a will, as well.
-
nbcatlover
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:10 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: nbcatlover
- Location: New Bedford, MA
Abby's heirs can't inherit a life interest in any case. Lizzie and Emma would have to pre-decease Abby for Priscilla and Bertie to get the money.Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred
So Abby killed Andrew, then Lizzie killed her to save her own life (joke).
-
DWilly
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:15 pm
- Real Name:
Some where along the line I did read that there was a rumor going around that Lizzie saw a lawyer in New York. Right now I can't find the name of the lawyer but I'll look again. Anyway, my question is would any lawyer back then have oome forward and said that Lizzie talked to them? I thought there was a privacy issue involved. Isn't that why Jennings notes are still sealed up? So, is this "rumor" another junk one?
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
This is the part to which I was referring. Abby having a will would provide her heirs with her personal property- possibly including her part of the Whitehead house?nbcatlover @ Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:02 pm wrote:Abby's heirs can't inherit a life interest in any case. Lizzie and Emma would have to pre-decease Abby for Priscilla and Bertie to get the money.Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred
So Abby killed Andrew, then Lizzie killed her to save her own life (joke).
Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.
The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Whenever I start thinking about sources as to whether Lizzie saw a lawyer, I always start with this letter from The Knowlton Papers:DWilly @ Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:00 pm wrote:Some where along the line I did read that there was a rumor going around that Lizzie saw a lawyer in New York. Right now I can't find the name of the lawyer but I'll look again. Anyway, my question is would any lawyer back then have oome forward and said that Lizzie talked to them? I thought there was a privacy issue involved. Isn't that why Jennings notes are still sealed up? So, is this "rumor" another junk one?
Page 94
"#HK092
Letter, handwritten in ink.
PAGE & OWEN,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
19 COLLEGE ST. ROOMS 17, 18 & 25
P.O. BOX 1030
CHARLES H. PAGE. FRANKLIN P. OWEN.
Providence, R.I. Nov. 14, 1892
Hon. H.M. Knowlton
Atty.
Dear Sir
Yours this day received - At the request of Mr. Hilliard I desire to state
that I told Mr. McHenry that from the appearance of the cut in the news-
paper I thought I had seen Miss Borden on the street in this city about a
week before the murder. I also said sometime subsequently that I felt
quite positive some member of the Borden family had called to see me
about the property but I did not know who it was - I never told McHenry
that Miss Lizzie Borden had been to my office and I never came to Fall
River to the court and I am of the opinion that if any communications
were made to me by her they are privileged. I could not tell if she did
unless I should first see her.
Yours Resply
Franklin P. Owen"