Andrew used his earnings from undertaking to buy porperty.
But his greates coup involved the family of Horace Brayton. The Braytons had inherited several real estate and were battling among themselves over the distribution of their bequeathed proterties. Andrew presented them with an immediate cash offer far below th recognized marked value. He knew that the heirs were jealous of each other and were afraid one would get an advantage over the others. Andrew hatedly pressed his low offer calling on each of them warning them that they would have to move quickly because they only had forty eight hours to decide.
He reasoned well. The heirs were so suspicioius of each other that they panicked. Only William Brayton turned down his offer.
Is there any truth to this? Andrew must have been a whale of a business man! :
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
snokkums @ Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:57 am wrote:...
But his greates coup involved the family of Horace Brayton. The Braytons had inherited several real estate and were battling among themselves over the distribution of their bequeathed proterties. Andrew presented them with an immediate cash offer far below th recognized marked value. He knew that the heirs were jealous of each other and were afraid one would get an advantage over the others. Andrew hatedly pressed his low offer calling on each of them warning them that they would have to move quickly because they only had forty eight hours to decide.
He reasoned well. The heirs were so suspicioius of each other that they panicked. Only William Brayton turned down his offer.
Is there any truth to this? Andrew must have been a whale of a business man! :
YES, this is in the better books. Brayton, along with Carpenter, became the prime suspects. (Brayton often said he'd get even w/ Andy.)
Andy was also smart enough to immediately sell it so the deal was beyond recall by any law suit. Brayton was the family holdout, the rest of the family put pressure on him to sell out.
I suggest that this made him unliked by the FR Society.
snokkums @ Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:57 am wrote:Andrew used his earnings from undertaking to buy porperty.
But his greates coup involved the family of Horace Brayton. The Braytons had inherited several real estate and were battling among themselves over the distribution of their bequeathed proterties. Andrew presented them with an immediate cash offer far below th recognized marked value. He knew that the heirs were jealous of each other and were afraid one would get an advantage over the others. Andrew hatedly pressed his low offer calling on each of them warning them that they would have to move quickly because they only had forty eight hours to decide.
He reasoned well. The heirs were so suspicioius of each other that they panicked. Only William Brayton turned down his offer.
Is there any truth to this? Andrew must have been a whale of a business man! :
Interesting info Snok. May I ask which book it is drawn from ?
Robin, I have never seen it in another book nor newspaper for that matter. I'd be glad to know where it is if it does exist.
Be careful, very careful, about what you read in Spiering. It is certainly not one of the better books but worth a read anyway. I would never discourage a reading of any book on the case whether I considered the book good or bad.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
I get the impression that Andrew was a real vulture! It would be interesting to read about his life and business dealings. It seems to me that his focus may have shifted from acquisition to control as time went on. He apparently had enough wealth to not have to worry about the basic necessities for the rest of his life (!). I understand he used to sit in the dark rather than waste oil in an oil lamp. The decision to use oil rather than gas for lighting is understandable if you consider the monopoly the gas company may have had as compared to the free-market lamp oil business. Andrew could wheel and deal on lamp oil, but he was stuck with the prevailing gas price!
Hey snokkums, what part of Milwaukee are you from? I was born and raised on the west side myself.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Yooper @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:48 pm wrote:I get the impression that Andrew was a real vulture! It would be interesting to read about his life and business dealings. It seems to me that his focus may have shifted from acquisition to control as time went on. He apparently had enough wealth to not have to worry about the basic necessities for the rest of his life (!). I understand he used to sit in the dark rather than waste oil in an oil lamp. The decision to use oil rather than gas for lighting is understandable if you consider the monopoly the gas company may have had as compared to the free-market lamp oil business. Andrew could wheel and deal on lamp oil, but he was stuck with the prevailing gas price!
The only time Andy sat in the dark and talked was the night before the murder. Obviously this must have been a secret discussion, one that Uncle John never talked about. Was the window open at the time?
Actually, I think Andrew's first deals were with his father and his partner Almy.
The time we know of that Andrew sat in the dark - with a light in the kitchen awaiting Bridget and a light in the foyer awaiting Lizzie - was Wednesday night.
Interesting point that Andrew may not have acquired gas in order to not be beholden to a monthly bill where he had no control over the price.
It would be interesting to know if Andrew was economical in his dealings or just simply "cheap". He seems to have been a real squeezoid which is often indicative of the need to control, in my experience.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
It was late summer and probably light outside until late- 8 o'clock maybe? Before Daylight Savings Time?
Since Abby went upstairs before 9, maybe she had a light and then 2 set out for the other females still out of the house- maybe that was all the lamps at hand while Morse and Andrew stayed up? They retired around 10, so they'd be in the dark for not very long- maybe 2 hours?
We don't know if Lizzie took the foyer lamp up with her. Maybe it stayed in the foyer and Andrew showed Morse upstairs with it after she came in?
I'm only getting at the possibly it was more inconvenient than convenient for Morse or Andrew to set up another lamp in the sitting room, especially if they had the glow from the foyer. A woman would do that- for her guest at the least- but Abby had gone to bed, maybe before full dark.
snokkums @ Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:57 am wrote:Andrew used his earnings from undertaking to buy porperty.
But his greates coup involved the family of Horace Brayton. The Braytons had inherited several real estate and were battling among themselves over the distribution of their bequeathed proterties. Andrew presented them with an immediate cash offer far below th recognized marked value. He knew that the heirs were jealous of each other and were afraid one would get an advantage over the others. Andrew hatedly pressed his low offer calling on each of them warning them that they would have to move quickly because they only had forty eight hours to decide.
He reasoned well. The heirs were so suspicioius of each other that they panicked. Only William Brayton turned down his offer.
Is there any truth to this? Andrew must have been a whale of a business man! :
Interesting info Snok. May I ask which book it is drawn from ?
Tracy...
I read it in Arnold Brown's book, and in the 1966 "Trial of Lizzie Borden" w/ the explanatory comments by Gerald Gross (as I remember it). There are probably others. This would NOT be in the Trial Testimony!!!
Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:12 am wrote:It was late summer and probably light outside until late- 8 o'clock maybe? Before Daylight Savings Time?
Since Abby went upstairs before 9, maybe she had a light and then 2 set out for the other females still out of the house- maybe that was all the lamps at hand while Morse and Andrew stayed up? They retired around 10, so they'd be in the dark for not very long- maybe 2 hours?
We don't know if Lizzie took the foyer lamp up with her. Maybe it stayed in the foyer and Andrew showed Morse upstairs with it after she came in?
I'm only getting at the possibly it was more inconvenient than convenient for Morse or Andrew to set up another lamp in the sitting room, especially if they had the glow from the foyer. A woman would do that- for her guest at the least- but Abby had gone to bed, maybe before full dark.
I've lived in my house for over half my life. I can walk around in the dark and not bump into things. (Dim light from the street lamp outside helps.)
I do know that anyone living in the country (except moonlit nights) has a problem, but that's why flashlights were invented.
Kat @ Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:12 am wrote:Actually, I think Andrew's first deals were with his father and his partner Almy.
The time we know of that Andrew sat in the dark - with a light in the kitchen awaiting Bridget and a light in the foyer awaiting Lizzie - was Wednesday night.
Interesting point that Andrew may not have acquired gas in order to not be beholden to a monthly bill where he had no control over the price.
There is also a safety factor from 'town gas' or coal gas. It contains carbon monoxide and can quickly kill in an unvented room. Not to mention the explosions that often occur today w/ the safer natural gas.
In relation to the natural light available as Andrew and Morse talked in the sitting room on Wednesday night -- I've been trying to figure out how dark it was at 8 p.m. when Bence came by the following night to identify Lizzie.
According to a website showing Massachusetts weather and climate, sunset in Massachusetts on August 1, 2005 was at 8:04 p.m. But this refers to Daylight Savings Time -- putting it one hour ahead of 1892 clocks.
Does that mean sunsets on August 3rd and 4th, 1892 would be somewhere in the area of 7:05 - 7:10 p.m.?
Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:12 am wrote:It was late summer and probably light outside until late- 8 o'clock maybe? Before Daylight Savings Time? <snip>
I'm only getting at the possibly it was more inconvenient than convenient for Morse or Andrew to set up another lamp in the sitting room, especially if they had the glow from the foyer. A woman would do that- for her guest at the least- but Abby had gone to bed, maybe before full dark.
I checked http://www.almanac.com (The Old Farmers Almanac online). This year on August 3, the sun sets at 8:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time in Fall River. That would be 7:01 PM standard time.
Lamps give out a fair bit of heat and also attract bugs. Window screens were not generally used in the 1800s -- I have a book published in the 1920s that mentions what a wonderful new convenience they were and how all the neighbors were envious. They were, available, though:
Before window screens, summer-time must have been a horrendous experience. Open windows did allow the air to flow through the house but also left the occupants of the house open to attack from every gnat, mosquito, and no-see-um on the planet. Window screens solved that problem. Machine-made wire screening was available in the United States by the 1870s. As the benefits of wire screening became evident, manufacturers turned out patented screens of every design. There were expandable screens, hinged screens, sliding screens, and spring framed screens. These screens were available in numerous types of wood including rosewood, mahogany, and pine. Here at the Physick House, the family opted for sliding screens. If you look at the window screens carefully, you'll see that they can be slid up and down on a wooden track, which holds the screen close to the open window. Sliding screens meant that the maid could simply slide the screen out of the way as she adjusted the exterior shutter to block the hot sunlight from entering the house.
Since those early iron or steel screens would quickly rust to pieces (especially near the ocean) it was customary to paint them. Typically screens were painted either green or black depending on the wishes of the mistress of the house.
Wordweaver @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:10 pm wrote:
Of course, Andrew was also cheap, no question about that. (I doubt he would have sprung for screens.) But the darkness may not be sinister.
I tend to think that the house probably did have screens. Lizzie did say at one time she was out in the barn looking for a piece of tin to 'fix her screen' or something like that.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
We know also that there was a screen in the sitting room window. Bridget testified at the Prelim, page 22:
"Q. What did he do then when he came back?
A. He let the window down, it was up with the screen in. He took a chair and sat down near the window with a book or paper in his hand.
Q. Which window was that?
A. The sitting room."
There was also at least one in the guest bedroom. Dolan at the Prelim, page 163:
"Q. Did you look on the screen of that window?
A. Yes sir.
Q. There was a screen in the window, was there not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you see any blood spots on it?
A. Not that I could say were blood.
Q. Was the window open?
A. I could not tell you that.
Q. How did you get at the screen?
A. It was an inside screen.
Q. Did you look at the window?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you raise the screen before you looked at the window?
A. Yes sir."
Thanks for raising the questions about the screens. I had always wondered whether the police looked at the screens after Lizzie said she went for a piece of iron to fix one. Apparently they did, unless this is another Lincoln-ism. From page 109 of the paperback edition:
"(At the trial, Miss Russell emphasized it: "She said, 'my screen."' The emphasis was pointless, since a search, carefully overseen by Lizzie's lawyer, had revealed that no screen in the house was loose or in other than perfect shape.)"
Wordweaver @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:10 pm wrote:
Of course, Andrew was also cheap, no question about that. (I doubt he would have sprung for screens.) But the darkness may not be sinister.
I tend to think that the house probably did have screens. Lizzie did say at one time she was out in the barn looking for a piece of tin to 'fix her screen' or something like that.
You are absolutely correct.
Mea culpa! That's what happens when I let imagination work without checking the transcripts. However, the point about the heat is still valid.
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California. --Edward Abbey
Harry @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:10 pm wrote:We know also that there was a screen in the sitting room window. Bridget testified at the Prelim, page 22:
"Q. What did he do then when he came back?
A. He let the window down, it was up with the screen in. He took a chair and sat down near the window with a book or paper in his hand.
Q. Which window was that?
A. The sitting room."
There was also at least one in the guest bedroom. Dolan at the Prelim, page 163:
"Q. Did you look on the screen of that window?
A. Yes sir.
Q. There was a screen in the window, was there not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you see any blood spots on it?
A. Not that I could say were blood.
Q. Was the window open?
A. I could not tell you that.
Q. How did you get at the screen?
A. It was an inside screen.
Q. Did you look at the window?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you raise the screen before you looked at the window?
A. Yes sir."
Thanks for raising the questions about the screens. I had always wondered whether the police looked at the screens after Lizzie said she went for a piece of iron to fix one. Apparently they did, unless this is another Lincoln-ism. From page 109 of the paperback edition:
"(At the trial, Miss Russell emphasized it: "She said, 'my screen."' The emphasis was pointless, since a search, carefully overseen by Lizzie's lawyer, had revealed that no screen in the house was loose or in other than perfect shape.)"
My apologies for my error. Thanks for the quotations. I always appreciate how ready you are with the text.
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California. --Edward Abbey
Heavens, never apologize for raising a question. It did send me looking for whether the police looked at the screens which was good.
It doesn't appear though that they ever asked Lizzie to show them the screen she wanted to fix. But by then she had changed her story to looking for sinkers.
I checked http://www.almanac.com (The Old Farmers Almanac online). This year on August 3, the sun sets at 8:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time in Fall River. That would be 7:01 PM standard time.
Thanks for the almanac reference!
So that means that if Eli Bence went around to the house at 8 p.m. it would have been dark outside -- and he would have made his identification of Lizzie by whatever illumination was used in the kitchen at that time.
diana @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:25 pm wrote:
So that means that if Eli Bence went around to the house at 8 p.m. it would have been dark outside -- and he would have made his identification of Lizzie by whatever illumination was used in the kitchen at that time.
Yup. I tend to be dubious of the prussic acid purchase attempt, partly because the identification was scarcely impartial, and that kind of testimony is often mistaken. Moreover, one of the out-of-town reporters noted that variations on Lizzie's face were seen all over Fall River.(Sorry I can't produce exact quotes -- I'm typing from a cafe, and my books are at home.)
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California. --Edward Abbey
So does it get darker earlier in northern climes than it does in the south?
Because today it was almost dark at 8 pm and that would have been almost 7 in Fall River, but it's only April!.
I especially noticed today.
Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:23 pm wrote:So does it get darker earlier in northern climes than it does in the south?
Because today it was almost dark at 8 pm and that would have been almost 7 in Fall River, but it's only May!.
I especially noticed today.
THanks for the info Diana and Wordweaver!
The closer you are to the equator, the less variation you have in length of day between summer and winter. At the equator it's 12 hours of sun year-round. At the poles, you have times when there is no night at all--or no day. In Maine, summer days are longer than they are in Florida, but winter nights are also longer.
With the time zones being what they are, there's a great deal of variation in the hours of sunrise and sunset along with twilight times. I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, immediately north of Wisconsin. This is about as far west as you can go in the eastern time zone. Our sunrise/sunset is later than the east coast.
U.S. Naval Observatory (Eastern Standard Time) data for Fall River, Wednesday, August 3, 1892 indicates:
Begin civil twilight 4:10 a.m.
Sunrise 4:41 a.m.
Sun transit 11:50 a.m.
Sunset 6:59 p.m.
End civil twilight 7:30 p.m.
diana @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:25 pm wrote:So that means that if Eli Bence went around to the house at 8 p.m. it would have been dark outside -- and he would have made his identification of Lizzie by whatever illumination was used in the kitchen at that time.
I think the light from the lamp (or possible lamps) would have been sufficient to allow identification.
According to Bence's Inquest testimony Officer Harrington was talking with Lizzie at the time. Bence said he noticed "... a peculiar expression around the eyes, which I noticed at the time, and noticed then."
He seemed to be pretty definite when questioned:
"Q. Did you recognize her as the one that you had had the talk with the night before?
A. I did, yes sir.
Q. Positively?
A. I dont think I could be mistaken."
I don't get the reference to the "night before" though. According to his testimony he identified her the evening of the 4th and that she had been in the store somewhere between 10 and 11:30 in the morning on the 3rd. Maybe it was confusion on the part of the questioner.
[quote="Harry @ Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:52 am"]
According to Bence's Inquest testimony Officer Harrington was talking with Lizzie at the time. Bence said he noticed "... a peculiar expression around the eyes, which I noticed at the time, and noticed then."
He seemed to be pretty definite when questioned.
They've always said that the eyes are the windows of the soul, and I have always believed that. Lizzie's eyes have always been very disturbing to me. I don't think I would have become this interested in the case if it hadn't been for the almost haunted look I noticed when I first saw her picture as a child.
Andrew's personality was possibly the root cause for the entire incident. How many people had Andrew screwed out of their boots over the years? These people had friends and family who likely knew what Andrew was like because of that. How many people were genuinely sorry that Andrew was dead? How many secretly said, even if only to themselves, "It's about time!"?
Lizzie was partly the creation of her sister Emma. She likely learned the concept of "Wicked Stepmother" from her. She probably learned of the relative wealth of the family from Emma, also. Lizzie and Emma were Nouveau Riche amid all the affectations of Victorian society and their aspirations showed it. They felt stifled by their father and began playing a game of "keep-away" with their stepmother.
The police understood that human nature hadn't changed simply due to Victorian affectations. They knew what people were capable of despite the pretense. That had not changed previous to 1892 and it hasn't changed since. However, the trial seemed to be a matter of simply going through the motions. She couldn't be found guilty due to a lack of direct evidence. Nobody believed that she was innocent, and they still don't. Not guilty is the only option left, a convenient "out", so they took it.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:48 pm wrote:I edited my post to say April, rather than May.
It can't be May yet-I haven't done my taxes!
Did you mean it when you said that summer days are "longer" in Maine than Florida?
Yes. Specifically, the days keep getting longer until the summer solstice, when they start shortening.
I'm sorry- I'm confused.
I thought the days were longer- meaning more sunlight on average- closer to the equater.
How exactly, does Maine compare to Florida?
I was on the phone to Fall River recently at sundown and it was dark there but not yet dark here whilst we were talking. It surprised me at the time.
Actually, the amount or duration of daylight depends on the time of year and the latitude. The the beginning/ending time depends on longitude. Today's twilight/twilight data for where I live at W 87.7, N 46.5 runs from 6:32 am to 9:10 pm. Maine to Michigan is 1.7 degrees latitude separation, but are separated by 18.9 degrees of longitude. There is only a 7 minute difference in daylight duration, but a difference of an hour and twelve minutes in start/end time. Florida to Michigan shows a longitude separation of 6.3 degrees and a latitude separation of 18 degrees. Difference in daylight is 48 minutes and the start time is only four minutes different, with the 48 minute difference coming at the end of the day..
The further west you are in a given time zone, the later daylight begins and ends.
The further from the equator you are, the greater the seasonal dynamics. For instance, parts of Alaska have days where the sun never clears the horizon in winter and never dips below it in summer. The arctic tends to an all or nothing scenario while the equator tends to a 50/50 dynamic, but the average amount of daylight is the same for a given year.
THat's good stuff!
How do you know all this? Were you a navigator?
Thanks!
Anyway, in simple terms it looks like Florida today had a half hour more daylight than Maine. That's what I expected.
But time zones are both Eastern Daylight. I suppose as one moves West, it changes- that makes sense.
I read there is no Daylight Savings Time in Hawaii or Guam because they are so close to the equator it makes little difference.
Latitude has an affect.
First, regarding gas. Wasn't the furnace powered by gas, or was it coal powered? I know that that furnace was the one luxury they had. It just occurred to me that Taunton Asylum would have been more luxurious--nice bathrooms with hot and cold running water, nicely situated on a hill. . .
Second, does anyone know how to read this almanac for 1892? Just wondered if there was a moon to provide light Wednesday (August 3) night. It looks like new moon for the first week of August to me. What do the rest of you think?
--Lyddie
Lunation number -1336
New moon JDE = 2412097.639 31-12-1891, 3.33 = 3h 20m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412104.549 7-01-1892, 1.18 = 1h 11m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412111.644 14-01-1892, 3.45 = 3h 27m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412119.656 22-01-1892, 3.74 = 3h 44m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1335
New moon JDE = 2412127.193 29-01-1892, 16.63 = 16h 38m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412133.901 5-02-1892, 9.63 = 9h 38m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412141.319 12-02-1892, 19.65 = 19h 39m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412149.511 21-02-1892, 0.27 = 0h 16m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1334
New moon JDE = 2412156.657 28-02-1892, 3.77 = 3h 46m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412163.301 5-03-1892, 19.22 = 19h 13m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412171.039 13-03-1892, 12.94 = 12h 56m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412179.220 21-03-1892, 17.28 = 17h 17m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1333
New moon JDE = 2412186.053 28-03-1892, 13.28 = 13h 17m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412192.765 4-04-1892, 6.35 = 6h 21m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412200.769 12-04-1892, 6.45 = 6h 27m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412208.750 20-04-1892, 6.00 = 6h 0m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1332
New moon JDE = 2412215.407 26-04-1892, 21.76 = 21h 45m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412222.300 3-05-1892, 19.20 = 19h 12m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412230.458 11-05-1892, 23.00 = 23h 0m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412238.119 19-05-1892, 14.86 = 14h 52m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1331
New moon JDE = 2412244.742 26-05-1892, 5.80 = 5h 48m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412251.911 2-06-1892, 9.87 = 9h 52m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412260.064 10-06-1892, 13.55 = 13h 33m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412267.375 17-06-1892, 20.99 = 20h 59m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1330
New moon JDE = 2412274.087 24-06-1892, 14.10 = 14h 6m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412281.593 2-07-1892, 2.24 = 2h 15m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412289.572 10-07-1892, 1.73 = 1h 44m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412296.574 17-07-1892, 1.77 = 1h 46m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1329
New moon JDE = 2412303.479 23-07-1892, 23.51 = 23h 30m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412311.324 31-07-1892, 19.78 = 19h 47m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412318.998 8-08-1892, 11.95 = 11h 57m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412325.775 15-08-1892, 6.60 = 6h 36m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1328
New moon JDE = 2412332.958 22-08-1892, 10.99 = 10h 59m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412341.063 30-08-1892, 13.50 = 13h 30m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412348.380 6-09-1892, 21.11 = 21h 7m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412355.034 13-09-1892, 12.81 = 12h 48m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1327
New moon JDE = 2412362.553 21-09-1892, 1.28 = 1h 17m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412370.764 29-09-1892, 6.33 = 6h 20m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412377.757 6-10-1892, 6.18 = 6h 11m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412384.401 12-10-1892, 21.62 = 21h 37m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1326
New moon JDE = 2412392.267 20-10-1892, 18.42 = 18h 25m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412400.393 28-10-1892, 21.44 = 21h 26m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412407.158 4-11-1892, 15.80 = 15h 48m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412413.918 11-11-1892, 10.03 = 10h 2m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1325
New moon JDE = 2412422.056 19-11-1892, 13.33 = 13h 20m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412429.935 27-11-1892, 10.45 = 10h 27m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412436.595 4-12-1892, 2.27 = 2h 16m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412443.604 11-12-1892, 2.51 = 2h 30m Letztes Viertel
Lunation number -1324
New moon JDE = 2412451.843 19-12-1892, 8.23 = 8h 14m Neumond
First quarter JDE = 2412459.390 26-12-1892, 21.35 = 21h 21m Erstes Viertel
Full moon JDE = 2412466.070 2-01-1893, 13.67 = 13h 40m Vollmond
Last quarter JDE = 2412473.437 9-01-1893, 22.50 = 22h 30m Letztes Viertel
No, wait--I just figured out how it works: they use English notation for dates. The full moon was on 8-8-1892, so it would have been nearly full on the fourth!
I read it as the 4th being half way between the First Quarter and the Full moon. Four days after the First Quarter (7-31-1892) and four days before the Full (8-8-1892).
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
I have another question. I've often wondered why, if they had no hot running water, there is a reference to the police searching near the 'hot water heater' in the basement. What does this refer to? Am I just thinking of a hot water heater in a more conventional sense than is meant by this reference?
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Lyddie, I believe the furnace was coal fired as the Borden house wasn't hooked up to the gas main. Weren't there bushels of ashes held in the basement near the furnace?
Melissa, I imagine the hot water heater they were speaking of was in the laundry room, Bridget would have needed some way to heat the water to do the wash. I did find this, but, its about a gas fired water heater, I wonder if a coal and wood fire could have been used just the same?
"Hot Water in the Victorian Age
At first, people heated water in vessels. Later, the affluent used gas-fired, coil-type, tankless water heaters to heat the water in their Victorian homes. These water heaters consisted of a gas burner and copper water pipe formed in a coil, which acted as a heat exchanger. After a hot water fixture was opened, the gas burner would then be lit, heating water as it flowed through the coil. Unfortunately, this type of water heater had no water temperature control. Instead the ultimate output temperature of the hot water depended upon the heating capacity of the burner size and the volume of hot water sent through the coil. It was critical to maintain enough water flowing through the heater, while the water heater was in operation, in order to avoid dangerously overheating it. Since this system provided a constant heating capacity, the ultimate ability of the system to provide the desired hot water temperature depended upon both the temperature of the incoming water as well as the volume or flow rate."
I thought Bridget heated water in that big bowl within the fireplace in the sink room?
There were such things as hot water heaters then tho- I just saw a TV show on innovations of the times.
But Andrew did use a coal furnace to heat the house thru radiators. I'm not sure how that worked.
Lyddie, did you type all that? I hope not! Is it an online Almanac?
In Did She Or Didn't She? there is a "Miniature Almanac" in the Evening Standard, for Saturday, Aug. 6th, 1892, pg. 5:
Full Moon, Monday, Aug. 8, 6:57 PM
Third Quarter, Monday, Aug. 15, 1:37 AM
New Moon, Monday, Aug. 22, 5:59 AM
First Quarter, Tuesday, Aug. 30, 8:29 AM.
--4 nights before a full moon might not necessarily be very bright. However, with less ambient light from cityscapes at night, it might be darker all-round- at least more so then we are used to.
Thank you very much for the information Susan. I have always been a bit confused by the reference to the hot water heater. I've never really been able to figure out exactly what it was or how it may have worked.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Allen @ Mon May 01, 2006 5:27 pm wrote:I have another question. I've often wondered why, if they had no hot running water, there is a reference to the police searching near the 'hot water heater' in the basement. What does this refer to? Am I just thinking of a hot water heater in a more conventional sense than is meant by this reference?
As far as I know, the Bordens did not have a hot water heater. It doesn't sound like Susan is saying that- only describing what was available at the time.
Missy, can you give the testimony to which you refer, and the surrounding context? Thanks!
Talking about coal fired furnaces, many of these little rooms that held the coal still exist in Fall River homes. There is one in my basement. I remember years ago going into some basements that still had coal in them. Of course that coal had been left there for countless years. Interesting. I have a furnace in my basement that use to run on coal. It is around 100+ years old and still going strong, on Gas of course. It heats the second floor apartment on steam. It has gotten me up more than once with it's unfailing bangs and pings.
Allen @ Mon May 01, 2006 5:27 pm wrote:I have another question. I've often wondered why, if they had no hot running water, there is a reference to the police searching near the 'hot water heater' in the basement. What does this refer to? Am I just thinking of a hot water heater in a more conventional sense than is meant by this reference?
As far as I know, the Bordens did not have a hot water heater. It doesn't sound like Susan is saying that- only describing what was available at the time.
Missy, can you give the testimony to which you refer, and the surrounding context? Thanks!
Sorry, I didn't clarify in my post. You are right, Kat, as far as I have heard and read on this forum, Bridget heated up water for the wash in that inset tub or bowl in the chimney in the laundry room. But, I did want to show that there were hot water heaters available at the time, that oddly enough, are like the newest ones available today that are energy efficient. The new ones, like the Victorian ones, are tankless and make hot water on demand, but, are much more efficient at it. Kat, you have seen this bowl or tub in person, yes? How big is it, its hard to tell from the pictures I've seen. And, is that the original bowl or tub that was there in the Borden's day or some sort of replacement? I was reading on a site about doing laundry in the Victorian days and how the some clothing actually needed to be boiled to be cleaned. And how the water was heated in a copper, which was a cast iron tub that had brick built around it so that a fire could be made under it to heat the water, interesting stuff.
I think I've found what Melissa was referring to in the trial document, at least where I looked it up after reading Melissa's post; page 618, Michael Mullaly on the stand:
Q. After you had completed what you had to do in the cellar, where did you go?
A. I looked in the hot-water heater there and in a coal bin, and in a place to the north side of the wash cellar, and through what I would call a walk-way, a way up and down the cellar.
And then it appears again on page 633:
Q. (By Mr. Moody) Were these axes found in the same place with the hatchets?
A. They were found on the south side of the cellar.
Q. Of the same compartment in the cellar or another one?
A. I would not say that.
Q. Don't know whether they were or not?
A. I think if I remember right, they were found along in range of where the hot-water heater is.
“Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever.”-Margaret Cho comedienne
Thank you Susan!
That area is the furnace, to which he refers. I think they are calling it that because it supplied the steam to the radiators. Or the heat to the radiators. It's a misnomer on the men's part.
That bowl was in *our* video. And it glowed from Luminol. And Lange and the crime scene analyst were so excited! And we asked each other here on the Forum if that bowl was original to the Bordens and whether it was reacting to bleach, remember?
Allen @ Mon May 01, 2006 5:27 pm wrote:I have another question. I've often wondered why, if they had no hot running water, there is a reference to the police searching near the 'hot water heater' in the basement. What does this refer to? Am I just thinking of a hot water heater in a more conventional sense than is meant by this reference?
As far as I know, the Bordens did not have a hot water heater. It doesn't sound like Susan is saying that- only describing what was available at the time.
Missy, can you give the testimony to which you refer, and the surrounding context? Thanks!
I was not stating that I thought they had a water heater. I was thanking Susan for the information, and stating that it has always confused me that they made a reference to a hot water heater, and that I've never been able to figure out what it was or how it may have worked. Maybe I needed to clarify my answer a little more before posting it. I would also like to thank Susan for posting the testimony referring to the water heater. Here is the picture of the bowl from my personal collection.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Thanks for the discussion and picture! This is fascinating information on the hot water heater. I'd always (wrongly) assumed it was something like the hot-water reservoirs in a coal-fired range.
Facts! The more facts, the better.
Lynn
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California. --Edward Abbey
You're welcome, Melissa and thanks for posting the picture of the bowl or tub. Do you recall how deep this thing was, it doesn't appear to be that big around, but, I recall someone saying that the opening there in the chimney was big enough for a person to go in and stand up in.
Yes, Kat, I do recall that thread, I believe it came about right after the Lizzie show that you were in. I don't recall if we ever came up with a definite answer if that bowl thing was original or not? I'll see if I can hunt up the thread.
“Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever.”-Margaret Cho comedienne
We didn't get central heating until around 1949 (end of the Depression).
My Monday job was to start a coal fire in the hot water heater. It was connected to a tank (like today's gas water heaters) by gravity (thermal). One the water heated up, then we had hot water for washing.
For other times, you heated up water in a big pot on the stove (coal or gas).
I wonder what this has to do with "solving" the crime. I'm surprised that others have not looked this up. I didn't live on a farm, with a hand pump to get water into the kitchen, so I don't know what they did. But they got hot water for washing somehow.
