If Andrew Was an Axe-ident

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:23 am

If the killing of Andrew was not carried out and the 'girls' only wanted Abby out of the picture, would they still have inherited Andrew's estate, I wonder?
It's frequently said that Andrew was killed because he would know Lizzie was behind the murder of her stepmother. But would that be so?

It seems like Andrew's death was an accident. Well, he didn't 'accidentally' get 11 blows to the head by an axe ... But it's like it was done maybe to allow the killer's escape.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:32 am

I think Lizzie planned to go out--sparing Andrew. When she couldn't get Bridget out of the house and when Andrew came home earlier than usual--well, plans changed.

It explains her alibi/story on the fly. She DID have a well thought out (in her mind) plan in motion-- it just got changed and she was forced to improvise.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:49 am

IMHO Andrew was the primary target of the attack. One thing that has bothered me for some time is that Lizzie supposedly mentioned the yard-goods sale at Sargent's Store in an effort to get Bridget out of the house.

In Kent's and Flynn's "Sourcebook" (p. 48) there's a reproduction of the advertisement for the sale. It clearly says the sale is being held on MONDAY! If Bridget had been lured off the premises to attend it on Thursday, she would probably have been back home in a flash and most likely angry to boot.

I suppose it's possible that the Sourcebook printed the wrong advertisement.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:57 pm

I think that Lizzie planned the murder. I think she hired someone to do it and the person got out of town before they could find him. I think the plan back fired, because they consentrated on her.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:12 pm

I think Lizzie was a very unhappy person. Andrew seemed in many ways to be an unreasonable man. Yes, Lizzie was demanding and difficult but over-all I don't think her demands were that out of line. A decent toliet and some electricity? Ok, so she wanted to live on The Hill a lot of people where I live want to live in "Green Valley" or "Summerlin." So, Lizzie wasn't too out of line.

Anyway, I think Lizzie felt trapped. In 1892, women had little if any freedom. In Lizzie's mind she couldn't just walk out the door and go to work as some low paid teacher. Lizzie just wasn't strong enough emotionally nor was she brave enough to go out on her own like that. I'm reading "The Age Of Innocence" by Edith Wharton right now and people during this time were very class conscious. I also don't think Lizzie wanted to get married. So, that route was out. In the mean time Andrew was getting pretty old and I think Lizzie feared that if he died of natural causes then Abby would get most of the money. So, in her mind the solution was to kill them both.

Now I do think both Emma and Bridget knew more than they said they did. Especially Emma. The thing is neither woman was going to help the State in getting Lizzie. Emma loved her and Bridget I think had a little sympathy for her.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:19 pm

I think that she wanted alittle more than what her father was willing to pay for. After all, he was a tight wad. He could have afforded some indoor plumbing and electricity. He was just tight.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:22 pm

The sale at Sargents went on all week, I have the original newspapers
so I know it is true.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 am

I think Harry saw a copy of the ad, too. Was it 7 & 3/8 cents a yard, or something odd like that?

Uhm, Stef made a BIG point in her presentation that almost none, or none, of the documentaries got the # of blows correct and it got her chasing why (privately)- like who was the first to be wrong and maybe the others quoted them.
Anyway it's 19 and 10

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:27 am

What if Abby agreed with Andrew and what if she didn't want to move away from her friends and family?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:36 am

Kat @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:51 am wrote:I think Harry saw a copy of the ad, too. Was it 7 & 3/8 cents a yard, or something odd like that?

The papers used to have a list of the advertisers in the paper.

In the FR Evening News for August 1, Monday:

"Frank E. Sargent Co. - Final Summer Sale"
------------------------------------------------------------
FR Evening News, August 2, Tuesday:

"Frank E. Sargent Co. - Bargains"
-------------------------------------------------------------
FR Daily Herald, August 2.

"The Frank E. Sargent Co." (No mention of sale or bargains)
---------------------------------------------------------------
FR Evening News, Wednesday, August 3:

"Frank E. Sargent co. - Summer Goods"

In another column, same paper: "The Frank E. Sargent Company make quotations on leading articles far below market prices. Keep posted."

Again, no mention of a sale.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Then in a paper, August 4, (paper unknown, but I suspect the FR Daily Herald or FR Evening News) the ad Kat refers to above:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these bits of information it appears to be somewhat inconclusive. The paper of the 3rd makes no mention of a sale the next day. The paper of the 4th refers to the sale as on Friday, the 5th.

Nancie, if you can add to this information it would be appreciated.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:30 am

Unfortunately, the ad in the "Sourcebook" doesn't have a date on it. Nor does it say which newspaper it comes from. It reads: "Monday Monday Monday/THE FRANK E. SARGENT COMPANY,/Greatest Offering Yet./Special Sale Monday. All on one Long Counter." It's captioned by Kent: "The Dress-Goods Sale at Sargent's Where Lizzie Planned to Shop." Of course, it really doesn't say anything about dress goods, does it? I was attracted to the word "Monday," because it wouldn't have worked to get Bridget out of the house on August 4, assuming it wasn't being held until August 8. The same thing would be true if the sale was being held on August 5.

Yes, if anyone can provide proof that Sargent's advertised a dress-goods sale for August 4, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:22 pm

Thanks for the great post, Harry.

We all know what Bedford Cords are, and I'm told a Scotch Gingham is just the plaid gingham we all know and love. But Pineapple Tissues? I'm at a loss here.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:16 pm

There is a sheer fabric called pina cloth made from pineapple fibers. Here's a site with an illustration.

http://www.antique-lace.com/date2/2372/2372.htm

(Oops -- Harry was kind enough to let me know there were too many letters in my original url -- try it now to see a pic of an 1862 outfit made from what I'm assuming is the pineapple tissue referred to in the ad ...)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:18 am

That's pretty cool Harry and Diana!
Thanks!

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:22 pm

Diana, Harry--thank you.

I have heard of Pina cloth. Pineapple Tissues is certainly more fanciful.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:05 pm

DWilly @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:12 pm wrote:over-all I don't think her demands were that out of line. A decent toliet and some electricity?

We progressed so quickly in some areas, that even some of the relatively early writers might not understand that good indoor plumbing and electricity were not all that common around here in 1892.

Fairhaven, 15 miles from Fall River, first got electricity in 1889. It was, of course, only used for lights at first. It was also considered dangerous and/or extremely unreliable by many many people. When multimillionaire Henry H. Rogers built the Town Hall for Fairhaven (dedicated 1894) it had both gas and electric fixtures, because electricity was subject to such frequent blackouts and brownouts that it wasn't considered suitable as the sole source of light. The year earlier, our library opened--also donated to the town by Rogers--there they actually removed their electric lamps and installed Rochester gas lamps out of frustration.

In 1892, electricity wasn't what it is today.

Also in Fairhaven, our public water system was first installed in 1893 (again by Henry H. Rogers). So when Emma summered here with Brownells and Delanos in 1892, whatever water was in the house got there after being hand pumped from the well.

I'm also very certain that both electricity and running water were relatively a lot more expensive then than they are today.

Saying Andrew was very unreasonable for not having electric lights or a "decent " toilet in 1892, is rather like saying that my grandfather was very unreasonable (like millions and millions of others) for not having a television in 1950, when they were hugely expensive and gave you a rather small black and white picture and got maybe three channels if you were near a city. (My dad remembers when everyone in the neighborhood used to gather around outside the local appliance store to watch TV through the window when something good was on.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:09 pm

Those are really good points, Christopher and do need to be reiterated now and then.
Your knowledge of your local history helps in this explanation.

I was also under the impression that men of Andrew's ilk and age were probably suspicious of gas light even.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:51 pm

I liken it to computers-- or other things that seem "new fangled" to people today. It took years for computers to be commonplace in most homes and there are still a lot of people without one. Likewise, cell phones. Many people do not want them either!

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:24 am

FairhavenGuy @ Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:05 pm wrote:We progressed so quickly in some areas, that even some of the relatively early writers might not understand that good indoor plumbing and electricity were not all that common around here in 1892.

Thank you for that information. It's given me a little bit of a different perspective on Andrew. He was also 70 years old and I gather a man set in his ways. I still can't help but be sympathetic to Lizzie in some of these matters. I'm going through the Rebello book right now and I read that when Bridget was testifying about what the family ate for breakfast she started to laugh a bit. Even this poor Irish servant girl thought Andrew was a bit off. I read one newspaper account that said that while Bridget was talking about the mutton Lizzie caught her eye and they both smiled while Bridget went through what was for breakfast that day.

When I look at Lizzie's life after the trial it just doesn't seem to me she was that out of line. She bought a nicer house and I can understand why. She could afford it. It didn't break her. It wasn't like Hearst and his castle where he poured a ton of money into it. She liked nice things but again she kept her spending in line.

When I look at Andrew, so far, I see a man who on the one hand was able to lift him self out of poverty by "the boot straps" but on the other hand the traits that made him capable of making money also prevented him from ever enjoying the money. I read that he wore ties until they were thread bare.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:39 am

I've been reading in the papers that Abby may have shared his thrift. Whether by choice or forced to as Andrew's wife- her real reason, I don't know.
But then we have, I think in the witness statements- where she is quoted as stating her allowence had to cover household expenses while the girl's didn't...
Don't know what to believe...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:35 am

On August 2, 1892, in the Fall River Evening News, there is at the bottom of the item clipped:

"The exceptional announcement of low prices on staple goods by the Frank E. Sargent Co. attracts quite a throng of purchasers. Read it over."

Also note, on the actual ad Harry posted, it says:
"We shall clean out tomorrow, Friday."

It seems as if Lizzie was following the sale during the week, starting Monday, as Harry's news items seem to suggest.
Maybe she had Thursday's paper for this ad?
If it was expected to sell out their stock on Friday, telling Bridget on Thursday makes sense.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:27 am

More:

A news item, Fall River Weekly News, dated May 10, 1893, pg. 3,
titled "The Borden Trial. A Queer Coincidence in Connection with Bridget Sullivan's Testimony." etc.

..."A peculiar circumstance in Bridget Sullivan's testimony at the preliminary trial in this city has recently been noted by a newspaper reporter. It has been very much in fashion to accept discrepancies in Lizzie Borden's statements as indisputable evidence of her guilt. Whatever inaccuracies others may have made have gone simply as inaccuracies.

At the preliminary trial Bridget Sullivan testified that Lizzie told her, in the last conversation with her in the dining room on the forenoon of the day of the tragedy, that 'there was a sale of dress goods at Sargent's for eight cents a yard, and I told her I would get one.' Miss Borden has always insisted that she made no such conversation. According to the advertisements of the NEWS, no such sale had been advertised: but on the 4th of August, in the paper that contained the first story of the awful crime, an advertisement did appear announcing in heavy black letters a special sale of dress goods at Sargent's at 7 3/4 cents per yard. Lawyers say that this had nothing to do with Bridget Sullivan's testimony on August 26th; that Lizzie Borden may have predicted an 'eight cent sale at Sargent's' without knowing that such a one was to be advertised by Sargent on the very day that her prediction was made. Nevertheless, it is very singular that the facts are as they are. Bridget may not have read the advertisement and her story may be true and not an unintentional misstatement. The queer coincidences in this unusual case appear to be numberless and neverending."

--Apparently they were checking this sale at Sargent's back in May, 1893! It sounds like they think Bridget is suspicious.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:45 am

Good info, Kat. I don't recall reading that the "dress goods" story was in dispute so early. As I recall, Bridget quoted Lizzie as having said simply that there was a "cheap sale of dress goods" and NOT as having said this information had appeared in the paper. I don't know how often Lizzie went downstreet to visit the local stores, but she possibly could have seen a sign in Sargent's window. For that matter, she could have gotten the information from Alice Russell on Wednesday night. (Alice was into fabric, as I recall.)

It is a bit disappointing that David Kent cited an incorrect advertisement in his book, but it certainly isn't the only time a Borden author has made a mistake. Even the best of the books seem to contain their share. Yesterday I was looking for some info on "Curtis I. Piece" as Hoffman spells his name in "Yesterday in Old Fall River." Rebello spells it the same way on page 14 of his book, but in his "Compilation of Names" (p. 520), the name has become "Pierce Curtis."

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:17 pm

The date of the Sargent's sale has been in dispute as far back as I can remember. Nancie, if you have the ad for Thursday, August 4th, that would be a real find for the Borden world at large.

Andrew was a Quaker. It was ingrained in him very early about simplicity and thrift and being satisfied with simple things. Some Quaker cemeteries didn't even believe in putting any names on the tombstones, they were that simple.

Picking up that used lock the morning he died I think tells us that he never changed.

It's an interesting point - did Abby share his passion for thriftiness? We know she was not afraid to stand up to Andrew. When Dr. Bowen came over on August 3, and Andrew got mad, Abby gave him a bit of a dressing down about him being so rude. (Knowlton Papers/LBQ article "Dear Abby?" I did.)

And she did take her own allowance to buy little frills for the house - and she would do it. So she thought it was worth some money to make the house look nicer, whereas Andrew - it sounds like - was satisfied with the house as it was.

Thomas Edison came to Fall River to install the city's electric lighting, I believe. The year I don't know offhand.

Have you ever seen one of the first lightbulbs Edison made? I think it backs up Fairhaven Guy's excellent post on early electricity in his town. Thanks for all the neat info, Chris!

I thought that people in general back then were somewhat afraid of gaslight, and I think it was not without reason. Fires were more frequent I think.

Kat & Harry - your posts from the newspapers are great ! Thank you!

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:39 pm

What are the state laws of inheritance?

These are complicated and vary from state to state and from time to time they are amended. In Massachusetts you cannot completely disinherit a surviving spouse. This is the case in most states. Under Massachusetts law if you write a will that leaves nothing to your spouse the law gives the spouse a right to claim his/her forced share by filing in court. Under current law the spouse would be entitled to the income for life, on one third of the decedent's estate if there are surviving children, or one half of the decedent's estate if there are no surviving children.

from http://www.hgoldstein.com/prenupFAQ.htm

I'm not sure if the law was the same in 1892, but it would seem that if Abby survived Andrew, at least 1/3 of his estate would go to her family.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:11 am

Ooops. I just posted the 1892 version of the laws at:

viewtopic.php?p=19258&highlight=#19258

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:14 am

The date of the Sargent's sale has been in dispute as far back as I can remember. Nancie, if you have the ad for Thursday, August 4th, that would be a real find for the Borden world at large.

--Augusta

Didn't Harry post the actual ad?
I thought he did. He introduced it as:
"Then in a paper, August 4, (paper unknown, but I suspect the FR Daily Herald or FR Evening News)..."