Mondo Lizzie Borden

RRAuction.com is offering for sale a page from that financial book that has been on and off eBay for years. Here is a direct link to their sale, which closes, by chance, on Lizzie’s birthday, July 19, 2006. I think the seller is finally going to get what they have been wanting all these years as the bidding stands at $3146 today.

And to think, they offered it to me earlier this year for $1000!

“The root of all evil: A year before the grisly double murder that would propel her into infamy, Lizzie Borden and her sister sign a financial document.”

175. Lizzie Borden. On August 4, 1892, the axe-mutilated body of prosperous businessman Andrew J. Borden was discovered in the parlor of his home at 92 Second Street in Fall River, Massachusetts. Mr. Borden’s body had been found by his thirty-two-year-old daughter, Lizzie (1860–1927); soon after others arrived on the scene, the similarly brutalized corpse of Andrew’s wife (and Lizzie’s stepmother), Abby, was discovered in an upstairs bedroom. Thus began a sordid saga that would ultimately become one of the most celebrated unsolved cases in the history of American crime. Within days, the strange circumstances pointed to a prime suspect: Lizzie. When she was tried for the crime in the following summer, the evidence, though some of it circumstantial, appeared to be damning. Both Lizzie and her sister, Emma, harbored an intense dislike of their stepmother that only intensified when their father placed property—at one time, presumably, destined for them—in her name. On the day before the murders, Lizzie had attempted to purchase prussic acid—a deadly poison—from a nearby druggist. Nothing of value had been taken from the house, and Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been killed an hour and a half apart, making it extremely unlikely that an intruder was responsible. And, a few days after the murders and in the midst of the investigation, Lizzie was seen burning a “paint-stained” dress in the Borden backyard. At the conclusion of the two-week trial, which included the dramatic display of the slain Borden’s skulls, Lizzie was acquitted.

Despite her public exoneration, she was largely shunned by Fall River society for the remainder of her life, and the truth behind the events of that August day remains one of the most enduring mysteries in the annals of American folklore. Lizzie’s notoriety would ultimately blossom into full-fledged legend, perhaps best personified in the grisly (if historically inaccurate) children’s rhyme in which she dispatches her mother with forty-one whacks—”and when she saw what she had done, gave her father forty-one.” Very scarce manuscript DS, signed “Lizzie A. Borden” and “Emma L. Borden,” one lined page both sides, 11.25 x 15.5, 1891. A ledger leaf headed “Dividend, April 6, 1891, $2.50 per share,” listing some sixty-five persons, each of whom has acknowledged receipt by signing in the column at far right. Lizzie and Emma, each of whom owned two shares and earned a dividend of $5.00, signed on May 5. Of additional interest are the signatures of seven other Fall River Bordens (and one from Boston), at least some of whom were likely relatives of the Andrew J. Borden family. Though the precise origin of the original ledger is unknown, the well-to-do Andrew is known to have made a number of investments on behalf of his daughters, and the present document is presumably related to one of these. The undying fascination with the Borden case more than a century after the grim events has led to a vigorous demand for Lizzie’s autograph material that far outstrips the exceedingly limited supply. In fine, crisp condition, with mild, even toning. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and R&R COA. ….(MB $1000)

The catalogue is in full color and 61 pages in length. It is a fascinating read, not just for the Lizzie reference, but for the rest of the items as well. Auction catalogues are great collections of historical study, often containing surprises and new facts previously not verified. Take a look and download the full PDF of the auction catalogue here.

From the New York Times, September 24, 1892.

Check this out. On the discreet confessions of Douglas T. Allbright, esq, cpa, in a blog entry dated July 22, 2005, the author penned an interesting piece on Lizzie Borden that is worth reading.

Don’t skip to the end and spoil it, you’ll ruin the effect.

From the New York Times, June 22, 1893. Two days following her acquittal.

“newsscout” found a fab-u-lous link to The Jack the Ripper Walking Tour. If you are planning a trip to London, or if you just want to pretend you are there now, you must take a look!

Includes: a Jack the RIpper Tour Site Map, a Walk Description, Directions, info on Ghost Walks, some Jack the Ripper history, details on the Route they take, and you can watch a section of their walk online. More of their walk videos can be viewed here.

And while we are on Jack the Ripper, I also highly recommend visiting the Casebook: Jack the Ripper site, as it is one of the best out there. They have all the latest information and news, and their forum is filled with famous authors and well-known Ripperologists.

On July 10, 2006, The Countess penned a blog entry about her stay at the Lizzie Borden B&B. I found it quite interesting not only because it is heartfelt, but because it is also a study of how a story evolves and changes in its passing from one person to another. Now I wouldn’t expect this author to cite sources or use reference works to back up her claims as that is not the point of her entry—hers is a personal tale of her impressions after visiting the house.

That house is an experience, and I always say that you can’t truly know the case until you visit that house. However, I find it particularly fascinating how the circumstances of the crimes have changed in this telling. We have to assume that either the tour guide told The Countess parts of the story incorrectly, or the writer embellished the tale told with her own feelings and impressions. Either way, what we have here is a very well written experiential essay that gets a lot of the facts wrong. I know I am nitpicking. I realize that unless you study it by reading all the primary sources that you might not know what’s really what with this case. But I see it all the time. I see the story of the case misrepresented in a factual nature.

The most amazing thing, however, is that this might not make a darn bit of difference in the long run. I mean, John Douglas, in his The Cases that Hunt Us, gets it ALL wrong, but his analysis portion feels spot on. He draws a picture of the possible killer that seems right in my gut, even though he bases all this on completely inaccurate information. It is almost as if the thing was written by two people.

Which brings me back to The Countess. She gets many parts of the story wrong (the maid coming down stairs, the switching of the bedrooms, the timing of the locking of the door between the parent’s room and Lizzie’s room, Lizzie’s size based on that dress at the house, the number of blows, the theft being of Andrew’s items, Lizzie being “stoned” at the moment before the murders, Morse being there last seven years ago, the idea that the bodies were rotting in the dining room for two days, to name a few), but she still has this overriding feeling about her experience there that makes her see the guilt of Lizzie the way she does.

She tries to tie her conclusions of Lizzie’s guilt to the facts, but since they are not totally accurate, I have to dismiss this part of her analysis. But I can’t dismiss her gut reaction after her visit that it had to be an inside job. That house will do that to you.

So if you are reading my blog about your blog, Countess, I just want you to know that I appreciate your instinctual reactions to what you saw and how it made you feel about this case. For that reason, I recommend it my readers.