Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have been toying with this idea for awhile; maybe it was Abby that was the intended victim and Andrew was the one killed to keep his mouth shut.

This scenrio would really point to Lizzie and Emma all the way because neither of them liked Abby all that much and were angered because she got what they thought was rightfully theirs.

Yes, I think

Sorry, computer glitch ...

Anyway, was trying to say it's probably most people's opinions that Lizzie may have only meant to kill Abby and Andrew might have been spared if he had not returned home unexpectedly.

I think the motive for Abby's murder was to prevent Abby and her family from inheriting Andrew's money. The earliest I can find any indicator for that possibility is the birth of Abby Borden Whitehead, Abby's niece and namesake, some nine years before the murders. It may have demonstrated to Lizzie and Emma some presumed tie to the Borden name and Andrew's money. If that got their attention, then the purchase of a half interest in the Whitehead residence by Andrew and put in Abby's name supported the fear that it could and would happen. Unless Andrew put all of his assets in his daughters' names after that, the only way to absolutely prevent Abby and her family from inheriting Andrew's money was to kill Abby.

After Abby was dead and the opportunity to kill Andrew fell in her lap, there was little reason to not kill Andrew. He might have written a will excluding Lizzie or both Lizzie and Emma after Abby's murder. He might have written a will favoring Abby's family out of spite.

Assuming the knowledge or at least the suspicion that Andrew had no will, killing Abby prevented her and her family from inheriting Andrew's wealth, which I think was the primary consideration and focus. Killing Andrew ensured that Emma and Lizzie inherited Andrew's wealth, which was a secondary consideration. The only way to eliminate the possibility that Andrew had no will was with the knowledge that Andrew did, in fact, have a will, which was not the case. I don't think Lizzie respected her father a whole lot if she killed his wife. I don't think Lizzie trusted her father to look out for Lizzie and Emma's interests after his death, so I think there was no hesitation on her part when the opportunity to kill him came about.

I, too, think the motive for killing Abby was to keep her from getting what Lizzie thought was rightfully hers and Emmas. As for killing Andrew, to keep him quiet.

I think both of them were intended to go. Andrew would have known Lizzie
had something to do with Abbie's murdered and I believe Andrew
would be damaging testimony against the defense. Afterall, Andrew
knew Lizzie was stealing things from stores and stole some of Abbie's
possessions. Andrew would not defend Lizzie. Even if it meant seeing her at the end of a rope.

She planned to kill them with the poison, but couldn't get it. So she hacked Abbie and waited for Andrew to come home

[quote="Jeff @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:11 pm"] Afterall, Andrew
knew Lizzie was stealing things from stores and stole some of Abbie's
possessions.

This is one of the reason why Lizzie intrigues me. Even years later after being acquitted and with her inheritance, she still continued to shoplift. I just wonder the motivation for it?

Kleptomania has nothing to do with having or not having money.

from the Mayo Clinic:
"Kleptomania is the irresistible urge to steal items that you don't need and that usually have little value. Although kleptomania is often the butt of jokes, it's a very real and serious mental health disorder that can tear your life apart if not treated.

Kleptomania is a type of impulse control disorder — a disorder in which you can't resist the temptation or drive to perform an act that's harmful to you or someone else. People with kleptomania know that their actions are harmful. Yet the urge to steal is so powerful that they can't resist it. This urge makes them feel uncomfortably anxious, tense or aroused. To soothe these feelings, they steal. During the theft, they feel relief and gratification. Afterward, though, they feel enormous guilt, remorse, self-loathing and fear of arrest. But the urge comes back, and the kleptomania cycle repeats itself.

Many people with kleptomania live lives of secret shame because they're afraid to seek mental health treatment. Although there's no cure for kleptomania, treatment with medication or psychotherapy may be able to help end the cycle of compulsive stealing. "

That's interesting Angel, I wonder how long she had it......

Kleptomania has nothing to do with having or not having money.


My point exactly. I know sometimes it stems from some inner turmoil one has from traumatic events in their life.

Jeff @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:11 am wrote:I think both of them were intended to go. Andrew would have known Lizzie
had something to do with Abbie's murdered and I believe Andrew
would be damaging testimony against the defense. Afterall, Andrew
knew Lizzie was stealing things from stores and stole some of Abbie's
possessions. Andrew would not defend Lizzie. Even if it meant seeing her at the end of a rope.

She planned to kill them with the poison, but couldn't get it. So she hacked Abbie and waited for Andrew to come home

She/They/Them also knew enough that Abby would have to die before Andrew in order for the inheritance to go to Lizzie and Emma. If Abby did not die "first" the inheritance would go the other direction!

Here is a source item you'all may like to read- a few times:

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:24 am Post subject: Wills- And Inheritance-Per The Boston Globe

The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - 1, 4
"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.

All the estate must necessarily then go to the two daughters, Emma J. and Lizzie Borden.

Mrs. Borden had both real estate and personal property in her own right, which she might have bequeathed in the manner she always said she would, to her two sisters and their heirs.

But she undoubtedly neglected to draw up a testament, and the matter is in the same condition it is on the opposite assumption of the relative time of the death of each.

Assuming that Mrs. Borden was killed first, as some contend she was, at 9.30 in the morning, there is just as

Interesting a Legal Construction

governing the disposal of her estate.

The Public Statutes provide that when a man and his wife are seized in their own right to real estate, and when a married woman is seized to her sole and separate right to an estate by an inheritance in lands and they have one issue living which might have inherited such estate, the husband shall, on the death of the wife, hold the lands for his life as a tenant thereof by courtesy.

If they have no such issue, then the husband shall hold one-half of such lands for his life.

If she dies intestate and leaves no issue, he shall take her real estate in fee to an amount not exceeding $5000 and shall also have her other estate through courtesy or other life interest.

“You see,” said the attorney, submitting the law on the question, “this is the only legal clause which in any way would enable the heirs of Mrs. Borden at any time to acquire the rights in any part of her real estate.

“Assuming that Mrs. Borden died first, then Mr. Borden inherited in fee her real estate to the value of $5000 and a life interest in other of her real estate.

“Upon his death, of course, this $5000 worth or real estate would naturally go to his heirs, not to hers.

“So if the wife was killed first, then for the short intervening space of time before he, too, was murdered, he would be holding an interest in other of her real estate over the value of $5000.

“He did not hold this in fee, that is with the right of bequeathing it to any one of his kin.

“Consequently arguing upon this theory, that Mrs. Borden was slain, that is the first opening of the heirs of Mrs. Borden to receive any of her real estate.

“This seems, at a cursory glance, favorable for the heirs-in-law of Mrs. Borden, and with the husband dead it would seem that the life interest in the dead woman's additional estate, over the $5000 worth, would come into the possession of Mrs. Borden's two sisters.

“The law on such a point would authorize such a disposition.

“But let us look at the facts of Mrs. Borden's estate, and apply this total provision.

“Mrs. Borden's

Heirs Can Get Nothing,

as, although she may have a total estate amounting to more than $5000, still she is not recorded as possessed of that amount of real estate.

“Her bank stock and shares in mills here form, I understand, the bulk of her estate, and that as personal property without a will becomes the property of her husband upon her death.

“So, you see, a condition dissipates the possibilities of the heirs accruing property under this clause.

“Now, we will assume that Mrs. Borden died first; her husband was, I just contended, possessed of her real estate to the value of $5000, and a life interest in the estate; we will assume for the purposes of this argument that Mrs. Borden had real estate of the value of more than $5000, then you would say her heirs-in-law will receive this additional real estate now that Mr. Borden is also dead.

“Very true, but now let us go back to the actual condition of things.

“Did Mr. Borden or Mrs. Borden die first?

“This must be legally determined before any real estate in excess of $5000, if she possessed it, could be given to her heirs, and I judge it would be hard to establish in the eye of the law.

“Doctors might say that Mrs. Borden was murdered first, or they might also contend that Mrs. Borden was, at some, however infinitesimal, time, a widow.

“But it would not be acceptable according to law.

“It would not be the establishment of a fact; it would only be on two men's opinions, and that would have no weight.

“The only way I see to come to a decision in any deduction in this matter, would be
Through a Confession.


“If the murderer came forward and said: 'Mr. Borden died first,' or “Mrs. Borden was killed first,' then there would be evidence of the actual fact.

“If this statement of a witness never could be obtained, you see, the property of Mrs. Borden, in excess of the husband's $5000, would never revert to her heirs.

“If a married woman dies intestate and leaves no kindred, the law reads that the husband would be entitled to hold in fee all of her real estate, and, upon his death, it would descend to his legal heirs.

“With the fact well established that Mrs. Borden did not leave real estate of the value of $5000, it would seem that none of her heirs can ever, reasonably, expect anything.”

Those who have known this estimable lady, and who have been cognizant of her intentions regarding her property, her affection for these two younger sisters of hers, are fully aware that this legal circumstance was farthest from her thoughts and desires.

If she could have foreseen any condition of this kind, she never would have neglected the making of her will.

But she did neglect it, and although some may say that it served the heirs right for ever entertaining any such anticipations, it is particularly hard upon one sister of the murdered woman, Mrs. A. G. Whitehead, who lives at 45 4th st.

Mrs. Whitehead is a half-sister, being the daughter of Mrs. Borden's father by his second wife.

She resides in the house where her father lived for many years, and where the wedding of Abby Gray, as she was, to Andrew J. Borden, and the marriage of the other sister, Mrs. Priscilla Fish of Hartford, was celebrated.

It was owned by her father, and when he died he left the old home to Mrs. Whitehead.

About five years ago Mrs. Gray, the mother, did not care to keep the half interest any longer, and rather than have it bought by persons outside of the family, and have her half-sister thus annoyed, Mrs. Borden induced her husband to purchase it.

He did so, paying something like $1500 for it, and

The Deed was Recorded

in Mrs. Borden's name.

This is, as far as known, the only piece of real estate Mrs. Borden held a separate title to.

In the absence of a will, half of this house, together with a sum of money left her by Mrs. Borden's father, will become the property of the Borden girls, Lizzie and Emma.

This lady [Mrs. Whitehead] is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune.


--Supplied by Joe, transcribed by Harry, re-formatted by Kat.

Even if Andrew was intestate, he did leave kindred; namely Emma and Lizzie (and I don't know if his sister. Luranna, would count as kindred). I always felt Abby's heir were over-speculating what they would inherit if Abby had survived Andrew.

I've also wondered if Abby's wounds occurred in two parts. I believe that there was one blow at the base of the skull that always struck me as different from the rest. I wondered if Abby was just supposed to be knocked unconscious (and was accidently killed) until Andrew returned home. I've always felt he was the primary target. Is it possible that the other blows Abby received were done post-mortum after Andrew was murdered. It always seemed that there was too little spurting blood in the bedroom for Abby's heart to have been beating when all that chopping occurred. Even minor scalp wounds are notorious bleeders.

I thought Abby was hacked up after the fact to disguise the motive for Andrew's murder and make the accidental victim and the intended victim appear to be killed by some crazed person in a frenzy murder spree instead of a calculated meeting to confront Andrew by someone who knew him.

Always remember that Robinson was concerned that Lizzie could be indicted as an accessory after the fact when she had been cleared of the murder charge.

I think that's an interpretation of defense attny Arthur Phillips take on the matter, maybe 40 years later?

That's weird you brought up the potential accessory charge!
I was thinking about that today as well.
I actually discussed it with Harry.

In The Knowlton Papers (for those who don't have it) there is notation made from Pillsbury to Knowlton that he was considering a charge of accessory as a count against Lizzie. We are not privy to their face-to-face meetings- only these notes/letters that survived.

To me that means they thought possibly 2 were in on the killings. Accessory means 2 or more.
So who was there that day? Bridget was there. Actually in the house. Another Judge commenting upon the trial afterwards (Davis) said that Lizzie was essentially in possession of 2 dead bodies -- I think: "so was Bridget."
Maybe Pillsbury was thinking of charging Bridget, scaring her and having her turn state's evidence? A plea deal?
But he seems to change his mind at the end of the letter.

[partial]:

"Boston, Nov. 21, 1892.
Dear Mr. Attorney:-
As under the Robinson doctrine, I see no possible doubt that the whole transaction can be put in evidence in a trial for the killing of either, I incline, on reflection, toward two indictments, if there are to be any.

Has it ever occurred to you to put in a count or counts as accessory before & after? There is, to be sure, no affirmative evidence, at present, that any other person was concerned, but a great many people believe that she was in it, but that hers was not the hand that did it. I could easily believe this if there were any evidence of it. Perhaps one indict for killing both & others for killing each will be best of all.. . .

[italics in original copy]

Knowlton's reply: (partial)

November 22, 1892

"Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Attorney General.
Dear Sir:- I see no need of account for accessory.
If she did not do the killing, but only instigated some one else to, it can hardly be said that she was not so far present as to make her principal, for she was certainly in the house, and in hearing of both murders.

It had occurred to me, however, since I saw you, that the jury should be instructed as to the principles of law relating to principal and accessory; and, if you see no objection, I propose to state to them the law upon that subject. . . ."

--Actually the name that came to my mind first as accessory would be Emma. But Morse was put under bond to appear at trial, and so was Bridget- so I am back to Bridget. They held onto Bridget by bond- but not Emma.

Regarding Lizzie as a possible accessory the prosecution did raise that possibility. Justice Dewey in his charge to the jury mentions it on pages 1914-1915. As Dewey says no evidence was submitted but the prosecution thought enough of it to have the possibility added to the judge's charge.

"Now, gentlemen, I have been asked by the counsel for the Commonwealth to give you instruction upon another view of this case, a view, so far as I remember, not suggested in the opening, or in the evidence, or hardly in the closing argument for the Commonwealth. And yet the evidence is of such a nature that it seems to us that, as a matter of law, the Government is entitled to have some instruction given you on this point; as a matter of fact, it would be entirely for you to consider whether the claim of the Government upon the matter to which I am going to refer is consistent with the claim which it has argued to you; whether the Government has not put this case to you, practically, upon the idea that the defendant did these acts with her own hands.

But it is a principle of law that a person may be indicted in just the form in which this defendant is indicted, that is, indicted as if she were charged with doing the act herself, and yet she may be convicted upon evidence which satisfies a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the act was done personally by another party, and that her relation to it was that of being present, aiding, abetting, sustaining, encouraging. If she stood in such a relation as that to the act, the act was done by some other person and she aided him, encouraged him, abetted him, was present somewhere, by virtue of an understanding with him, where she could render him assistance, and for the purpose of rendering assistance, then she would be a principal in the act just as much as the other party who might be acting.
But you notice the essential element. There must have been an understanding between her and her and this third party, if there was one, an agreement together for the commission of these crimes. She must have given her assent to it. She must have encouraged it. She must have been in a position where she could render assistance to the perpetrator, with his knowledge, by virtue of an understanding with him, and for the purpose of giving assistance either in the way of watching against some person's coining or furnishing him facilities for escape or in some other manner. The central idea of this proposition is that she must have been present by virtue of an agreement with the actor where she could render assistance of some kind, and for the purpose of rendering assistance. And if there was another party in this crime, and if she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have sustained the relation to him in committing that crime which I have expressed to you, then she might be held under this indictment, because under such circumstances in the eye of the law, they both being in the sense of the law present, the act of one is the act of both."

It's a mystery to me why the prosecution would want to raise the subject since they offered no proof. The finding of not guilty on the actual indictments would cast a shadow over a possible future trial of Lizzie as an accessory since this jury, at least to some extent, had included it in their deliberations.

Thanks for all that!
It almost sounds like the prosecution was taking one more stab at getting Lizzie on a conviction, at the last minute- thinking they had not proved her as acting alone.
Does it sound like that? I'm not sure.
If they threw in accesory at the end, it seems like they were stacking the deck after their case had been presented. It almost does't seem fair.