Why didn't Andrew Borden have a will?

[snokkums]

One thing that I have been curious about, and wondered why, is that why Andrew didn't have a will. No will was ever found. Now, knowing what I know about Andrew, that seems to me to be very out of charhther for him. Seems to me with all that I have read about him that he was the type of person that kept on top of things fincianually, knew where everything was at, at wanted to protect his interest; so why no whil?

To say that he didn't have one doesn't sit right me---out of charchter for him. Maybe it was misplaced or something?

What does everyone else think.

[bob_m_ryan]

I would agree. All I know of Andrew would point to him having a will written and ready to go; perhaps being held by one of the banks.

[Nadzieja]

I thought the same way, that he was a financially successful business man & would always want his affairs in order. I wonder if he was concerned about what might happen after his death if he just left it to his wife. Or if he left it just to his daughters. I think he was probably having a bit of a hard time in making those particular final decisions. He could probably see problems with the future because of the ill will in the house. He also could have gotten fed up with the whole thing and figured let them argue over it.

[FairhavenGuy]

He had planned to take it with him.

[snokkums]

I always lean towards that he had one, and it just hasn't been found yet.

[mbhenty]

Many assumptions can be made here.

Borden appeared to be a practical man. If true, that he was overly frugal, a certain common sense may have ruled his decision making.

If he was in fact going to leave everything he owned to his wife Abby, making a will would be a waste of money, since if he died first, his wife would inherit all his possessions anyway.

Perhaps LIZZIE and EMMA insisted ANDREW make out a will and what the girls found out was that he had 'NO INTENTION OF MAKING OUT A WILL".

We all assume that the girls may have been upset that they were kept out of the will, and everything left it all to Abby, when the truth may have been that there was no talk about Abby receiving anything but just the simple fact that Borden refuse to make one out at all (?)

But if they insisted that he make out a will and he refused, which would better fit his nature, the girls would feel just as abandoned. (thus, if Lizzie is indeed guilty of killing her parents she would be well aware that abby must die first.)

Could have been as simple as that.

[snokkums]

I see what you are saying mbhenty. But it just seems to me that as practical as Andrew was, to save arguements and fights, that he would have had one. And, isn't that the reason John V. Morse was there to talk about the will, or the changing of one?

[mbhenty]

Yes SNOKKUMS:

As I mention above, many assumptions can be made and any one of us may have stumbled upon the correct answer........... sadly we will never know the truth thus, it is all conjecture and speculation.

Though Andrew and Morse may have had a discussion about a will, the chances that Andrew ever got around to making one out is again "conjecture". If a legal, that is "valid" will existed, Jennings woulld have known about it or have had a record of it.

Thus, if a will was in the making, it was in the very early stages, that is, not past the "idea" stage.

[Kat]

There was talk about an inventory found or possibly found in Abbie's handwriting. I'm not sure where that came from but I've heard of it. The implication was that Andrew and she were cataloging his assests. He had supposedly talked to Morse recently about making some bequests, according to Morse. He had had a will back when he was partners in business with Wm Almy, so we know he knew they were important. Andrew had signed as a witness on his neighbor Southard Miller's will within the year (Rebello). The authorities spent at least part of 2 days trying to get into Andrew's safe. I would think that because of all these signs, it's possible Andrew was ready to make a will- if in fact he had not yet.

[mspitstop]

actually, andrew, being a practical man, needn't have made a will. dower rights give one third to abby and 2/3's to the girls, lizzie and emma. if that suited him then that was the law. no need to make a will.

[Kat]

I've not interpreted the law as pointed out in the Boston Globe in the same way. I swear I have read that word for word 5 times and have not come out with that as the outcome.

Can we all go read that again and discuss it?
(Notice there are a few rhetorical questions in there that are not part of our scenario.)

viewtopic.php?p=57558&highlight=#57558

[snokkums]

actually, andrew, being a practical man, needn't have made a will. dower rights give one third to abby and 2/3's to the girls, lizzie and emma. if that suited him then that was the law. no need to make a will.

I guess he would need to make a will so he could what 2/3's to the girls and the 1/3 to the wife, unless he wanted it all to go to the wife or the other way around.

[Kat]

Has anyone an interpretation of this legal question after reading the article?

[diana]

The Boston Globe article says most people believed a dowry to be 1/3 of the husband's estate but apparently this was not correct as"the widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow".

Do you think it would be less for Abby because of her age?

Also, although the opinion of some doctors at trial indicated that Abby never was a widow -- the article claims that, unless the actual murderer were to confess and detail who died first, it was impossible to ascertain priority of death with legal certainty because the opinion of doctors is only opinion and not an establishment of fact. So did the trial establish time of death with legal certainty? The following newspaper excerpt seems to indicate something along those lines.


Rebello Pg. 279:
Fall River Daily Herald, July 15, 1893: 8
"Gave a Deed / Mrs. A.J. Borden's Property Transferred to Her Next of Kin by Emma and Lizzie Borden / Legal Right Depended Upon Point / Which of the Murdered People Died First
Emma and Lizzie transferred their half interest at 45 Fourth Street property, personal belongings and bank deposits of $4,000 to the heirs of Abby Borden, Mrs. Whitehead and Mrs. Fish. The transfer was made August 13, 1893, under the direction of Emma and Lizzie Borden through Levi E. Wood, administrator. Mr. Swift was counsel for Mrs. Whitehead."

It looks as though Abby’s intentions may have been met after all.

[Yooper]

The Boston Globe article is a bit confusing because it tries to explain all of the possibilities in a less than sequential manner. What I get out of it is that generally, the surviving spouse inherits the first $5,000 and one half of the remainder of the estate if there are no common children and the spouse dies intestate. There may be further modifications if the widow's dowry percentage differs substantially. This would indicate that if Andrew died first, Abby would get $5,000 plus half (or some percentage) of the remainder of Andrew's estate and Lizzie and Emma would get the balance of the remainder.

Andrew didn't die first, Abby did, both intestate, so Andrew inherited the first $5,000 of Abby's estate, and Abby's entire estate probably didn't total $5,000, so Andrew inherited all of Abby's estate.

The fact that Abby's sisters were expecting to inherit anything is interesting. It may be the motive for the murders.

[Yooper]

I suppose the question of who died first is a matter of reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable to doubt that Abby died first?

[diana]

I think William Masterton argues quite persuasively that Abby's time of death may have been very close to Andrew's.

[Yooper]

Is Masterton's argument a reasonable doubt?

[bob_m_ryan]

Yooper - that is quite a thought. Abby's sisters did the deed so they would get money from the estate!

[Yooper]

I wasn't suggesting that Abby's sisters were the culprits, only that Lizzie was playing a game of keep-away. If she thought Abby's sisters expected to inherit part of Andrew's estate, Lizzie might have been inclined to kill Abby to prevent it. Abby's niece bore the name Abby Borden Whitehead, this might have been a clue to Lizzie and Emma as to what Abby's sisters expected.

[Kat]

Thanks you guys for interpretations.

As a friend said to me recently, it might not matter what the law was at the time, but what someone thought was the law.

Taking that into consideration- I do think tho if these killings were planned (or a killing was planned) all they needed to know was that Andrew having a will made no difference if Abbie died first, but if Abbie had a will, there might be a difference.

I have read a couple of news items that record the expectations of Abbie's *heirs* and their settlement with the girls over the estate of Abbie. I will look for them.

[Yooper]

As far as a will is concerned, the only contingency left to chance was if Andrew had a will which left something to Abby's family in their own right, without going through Abby. If the object was to prevent Abby and her family from inheriting Andrew's money, killing Abby would do it like nothing else! If Abby died before Andrew, there would, or should, be a clause in Andrew's will to address that possibility. The possibility of Andrew favoring the Whiteheads without Abby as an intermediary seems remote at best.

There were three possibilities for an awareness on Lizzie and Emma's part of the existence of a will. Either they knew there was a will, knew there was no will, or they didn't know either way. Since there was no will, there was no way to know there was a will, so that can be eliminated. If they knew there was no will, there was no problem. If they weren't sure either way, then there was the chance of a will being discovered which might disfavor Lizzie and Emma in some way, but not necessarily so. Even if they were told there was a will when in reality there was none, the estate could still be kept from the Whiteheads by killing Abby, at least in their eyes.

If Andrew had been talking about making a will at any time before the murders, it might be apparent that he did not currently have one. John Morse might have let something slip to Emma, Lizzie might have overheard a conversation between Andrew and Abby in their room, lots of possibilities exist for obtaining that information.

[Kat]

That's as complicated as the Globe article.
I think I got the gist of what you are saying. If so, saying Andrew could leave something to Abbie's family outright in a will, regardless of Abbie being alive or no, is a scenario I'd not thought of. But if we do consider that option, then I wouldn't want to then automatically remove it by saying it's "remote at best." If that could happen under the law, it should still be considered. (This discussion tends toward motive).

At that point, not knowing if there even is a will on either side becomes important, I'd think. Besides, we don't know that there was no will on either side, only that one was not openly found and produced.

And yes, we can read John Morse about what Andrew was talking about lately as to leaving property- if we believe him.

Morse at the Preliminary Hearing:

Q. I also meant to have asked you whether at any time you had any talk with Mr. Borden about a will, about his making a will?
A. He told me that he had a will once.

Q. Did you ever have any talk about it?
A. No sir.

Q. Did he ever say anything to you about a will, or anything that he proposed to do? I do not ask you what yet.
A. He told me that he had a will.

Q. Did he ever say anything to you about any proposition as to his purpose to make a will?
A. No sir.

Q. Or what he proposed to do by way of a will?
A. No sir.

Q. Did he ever tell you anything about any legacies he proposed to give in a will?
A. No sir.

Q. Did he ever tell you bout any bequests that he had a notion of making?
A. I think he said something about making--- he did not say how or anything like that.

(Mr. Jennings.) I would like to have the time fixed.

Q. Whether he ever did say anything to you about any purpose?
A. I think sometime he made a remark about a bequest.

Q. When was that?
A. I think somewhere within a year.

Q. Where were you and he at the time?
A. I think on South Main Street.

Q. What doing, walking together?
A. Just walking along.

Q. What was it he said?
A. That is all he said.

Q. What?
A. Something about some bequests that he would make; he did not say

Page 264

what they were, or anything about it; something about giving something away, bequest to somebody, he did not say who; something about these bequests that he--- he did not say anything more about it.

Q. What did he say?
A. He did not know but he might make some public bequests; words to that effect.

Q. Wont you tell me what he said?
A. He talked like he was going to make some public bequests; just in that way.

Q. That was sometime within a year?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Can you fix the time any better than that?
A. I could not.

Q. Did he say anything more specific than that?
A. No sir.

Q. Did he say anything about his farm, about giving that away?
A. We were going over---

Q. Was that another talk?
A. Yes sir.

Q. I will ask you when that was too.
A. That was some time in May of this year.

Q. What was it he said about that?
A. We were riding over by his place, we got to speaking about the Old Ladies’ Home, you know. He says “I would give them some land here, if I thought they would accept of it”; something to that effect.

Q. Nothing about a will then?
A. No sir.

Q. About giving it to them?
A. Yes sir, that is all.

[Yooper]

I think Andrew's intentions toward the Whiteheads may be illustrated by his putting the one half interest in the Whitehead house in Abby's name. If he had any inclination to favor the Whiteheads beyond Abby, he would have put it in Abby's sister's name.

[Kat]

"To Whom The Property"
This next part comes after the description of lawful heirs in Massachusetts:

Boston Globe, Saturday August 13, 1892, by John Carberry. Transcribed by Harry.

....
“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 is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune.
A GLOBE reporter had a long conversation with Mrs. Whitehead, this afternoon, at her home.
“Yes,” said she “my husband and myself will try to see if we cannot obtain some of my sister’s property in the settlement of the estate, and neighbors here tell us that we have a claim upon it.
“Mrs. Borden was just like a mother to me, and we were very fond of each other.
“She was not one to talk much about her home affairs, but I knew of her troubles.
“I never thought my sister had made a will, because she was always so well and strong, and such people don’t often think of making a will.
“So I do not think any one of hers will be found.
“All her life her greatest thought was for my welfare, and I know she fully intended to remember me in the disposal of her estate.
“She and my sister. Mrs. Fish of Hartford, were on even more confidential terms than she was with me, as Mrs. Fish was nearer her age.
“I imagine she told her a great deal about her family matters in the correspondence between them.
“My sister had quite a sum of money left her by our father which had been accumulating, and she also owned bank shares and mill stock, and only last Christmas I know her husband presented her with some other mill stock.
“I always supposed she had altogether as much as $50,000 or $60,000.
“Now she is dead I do not think we will get any more than the Borden girls can help.
“They Never Liked Me

and whenever I called there they seldom spoke to me.
“Why, they had rather give anything to any one than to me. Emma told my sister that she was going to see to it that I got nothing of Mrs. Borden’s effects.
“I have some of my property in the Borden house that my sister was keeping for me, and I am afraid I won’t get it.
“We are going to try to get the title to the half of the house that Mrs. Borden owned and which I know she fully intended to bequeath to me.
“I don’t think there was any good taste shown in the burial.
“The ceremony was as short as it could be made, and it was remarked that poor people have had better ones.
“The money found in the Borden safe was undoubtedly Mrs. Borden’s, as she always kept the money she wanted to use there.
“She had a dislike for checks, and when she went shopping always took the necessary money out of the safe instead of drawing checks to pay for her purchases.”

[Kat]

There is also a complication as to awareness of the laws by the Whitehead family that possibly infused Lil' Abbie with wrong information: The Trickey-McHenry newspaper hoax, October 1892. It told all kind of tall tales of what the Whiteheads should be getting by Abbie's death.

[Yooper]

I can't imagine why Andrew would leave anything to the Whitehead family unless it was through Abby. It's a moot point anyway, there was no will. We absolutely know that because no one came forward as attorney, notary, or witnesses to any will by either Abby or Andrew. It's difficult to make a will just go away, you can't just destroy the document and accomplish that. Since there was no document or paper trail, there was no will. This is like the discussion about the note, the absence of something is self-evident, it doesn't require proof. The presence of something requires proof beyond idle chatter. We can and do know there was no will.

[bob_m_ryan]

Due to the fact that no one ever came forward and said they had witnessed or helped draft a will for either Abby or Andrew, I believe a will never existed.

[Kat]

Thanks you guys for interpretations.
...I have read a couple of news items that record the expectations of Abbie's *heirs* and their settlement with the girls over the estate of Abbie. I will look for them.

--partial

Here is one from the Terence Duniho Collection:
Fall River Evening News, Aug. 23, 1892
"Postponed"
..."Mrs. Borden's Relatives Discussing the Division of Property"
The property rights of the heirs and possible heirs under the conditions which now prevail in the Borden case are being more and more talked of. These rights are dependent on such a complication of laws and precendent that it will take the supreme court, it is said, to determine them. There is certain property from the estate to go to the heirs of Mrs. Borden if it can be proven that she was not the first of the two old people killed. Her nearest heir in such a case is her sister, Mrs. George B. Fish, of Hartford, and her next, a half sister, Mrs. George S. Whitehead. It transpires that Mrs. Fish has already engaged counsel to look after her interests when it comes to the settlement of the estate. Ex-Mayor Jackson, of the firm of Jackson & Slade, has taken her case.

Mr. Jackson said yesterday that it might happen that Mrs. Fish had no claim to heirship but the hearing would go some way toward settling the question. Mrs. Borden had about $5,000 of her own, and this Mrs. Fish wishes to secure at any rate. If she gets any more depends on whether Mrs. Borden died before or after her husband. If she died after him, she had dower rights, and the dower rights include about $75,000 worth of personal estate, which cannot revert to the estate on the death of the widow, though all the real estate a widow obtains is but an inchoate heiriship.

[snokkums]

Due to the fact that no one ever came forward and said they had witnessed or helped draft a will for either Abby or Andrew, I believe a will never existed.

I, too, believe there was no will. But it just seems odd that he never had one, but there was no paper trail or person coming forword saying there was one. It just seems out of charchter for Andrew not to have one. He was a very good business man.

[Harry]

I agree that there was no formal will prepared. However, that does not preclude the possibility that one had been discussed. Not with Cook, not with Jennings but with the family, primarily Abby.

There was the list that was found in Abby's handwriting that listed some of Andrew's assets. Perhaps this was in preparation for a formal will. Perhaps it was those items he wished to leave Abby for herself.

It should also be noted that Andrew didn't need a will to put things in Abby's name before he died. He did just that with the portion of the Whitehead house. I should think that that procedure would create far more anger in Lizzie than any inheritance for Abby in his will. Whatever Abby inherited in a will (sans whatever the law allowed) would revert back to the girls upon Abby's death. Not so with the property Andrew could transfer to her. Abby could have written a will for that property or transferred it herself while she and Andrew were both alive. Not likely Andrew would agree to that but it is possible.

[snokkums]

I think you are right, Harry. I think that maybe they were talking about the will and what was to be left to whom, but they just never got that far.

[Kat]

This item pre-dates the other one I transcribed. Please note it is out of date sequence.

Fall River Daily Herald, August 10, 1892:
"Mr. Borden's Estate"
A story was printed in the New York papers today which attributed to a business associate of Andrew J. Borden the statement that not only had Mr. Borden begun to take an inventory of his property for the sake of preparing a will, but he had even gone farther and made known certain provisions. Among his property was a small block of Union national bank stock and a larger one of the B. M. C. Durfee Safe Deposit and Trust Company. This was to go to Mrs. Borden's heirs, it was claimed, in the proportion of ten shares to the wife and one to the daughters. The 'business associate' is quoted further as saying that this proportion was to be followed with the rest of the estate. The story is not given much credit by other business associates of Mr. Borden, who say that it was not the man's custom to discuss his private personal affairs with anybody. They think it extremely doubtful that Andrew Borden told anybody about his will even if it was true that he was engaged in preparing one.

--This would have been published the second day of the inquest. I'm not sure how accurate this type of *disclosure* might be this close to the beginning of the investigation. Info like this tho, may have influenced the supposed *heirs* of Abbie Borden. (They may have believed what they read in the papers!)

[Kat]

One more item from the Terence Duniho Collection;
As written in his handwriting:
Daily Globe, Mon. Eve. 9/12/1892: 7
"Mrs. Borden's Estate"
Heirs Ask For the Appointment of An Administrator
Friday afternoon James F. Jackson of this city, at the request of Mrs. Fish of Hartford and Mrs. Whitehead of this city, heirs of the late Abby D. Borden, deceased, asked for the appointment by the Probate Court of L. E. Wood, Esq., as adminstrator of Mrs. Borden's estate. It is probable that the request will be granted by Judge Fulles (sp?). The administrator's bond will probably be $5,000.

[Kat]

I still recall seeing items on the final dispensation- I will continue to look.

[Yooper]

I agree that there was no formal will prepared. However, that does not preclude the possibility that one had been discussed. Not with Cook, not with Jennings but with the family, primarily Abby.

There was the list that was found in Abby's handwriting that listed some of Andrew's assets. Perhaps this was in preparation for a formal will. Perhaps it was those items he wished to leave Abby for herself.

It should also be noted that Andrew didn't need a will to put things in Abby's name before he died. He did just that with the portion of the Whitehead house. I should think that that procedure would create far more anger in Lizzie than any inheritance for Abby in his will. Whatever Abby inherited in a will (sans whatever the law allowed) would revert back to the girls upon Abby's death. Not so with the property Andrew could transfer to her. Abby could have written a will for that property or transferred it herself while she and Andrew were both alive. Not likely Andrew would agree to that but it is possible.

I agree, Andrew could have transferred any or all of his assets to Abby while they were still alive, and she could have transferred them as she saw fit. The possibility exists, but it doesn't seem likely. If we assume the household would remain intact, we can see what a minor property transfer engendered as far as domestic tranquility is concerned. Andrew was within his rights to send his daughters packing at any time if he didn't like their antics. That makes more sense to me than having to tiptoe around them for any reason.

There was the distinct possibility that Andrew was somewhere in the process of making a will. If that was known, then it may imply he was without one currently (which was clearly the case), or that could be known as a fact separately. The knowledge he was going to make a will does not preclude the possibility that he had a will and was going to change it. What I'm trying to get at is whether Lizzie and Emma were aware that there absolutely was no will at the time of the murders.

Since there was none, there was no way for them to know there was one. They either knew there was no will, or they weren't sure. If they weren't sure, then there was nothing to gain by killing Andrew, whatever was in the current will would be enforced. There was no need to risk prosecution for murder, certainly. If they knew there was no will, then there might be a reason to risk prosecution if there were plans to make a will. If they were aware there was no will, they could successfully play out the objective of keeping Andrew's estate out of the Whitehead family's hands by killing Abby first. Even under the law, which states that Abby would have the use of Andrew's estate over and above her widow's portion, she might have favored her family with the income to the exclusion of Lizzie and Emma. Abby's own portion of the estate would have been substantial, and the prospect of that someday going to the Whiteheads might have been more than the Borden daughters would tolerate. I expect that Abby would be inclined to do the legal minimum for the welfare of Lizzie and Emma if their conduct towards her was as we expect it was.

There seems to be an awareness on the part of the Whiteheads that Abby might some day come into some money, and why wouldn't there be such an awareness? Andrew was wealthy and Abby was younger than Andrew. Women generally live longer than men. There was every reason to expect Abby might inherit a sizable portion of Andrew's money at some time. If Lizzie and Emma made it a point to snub Abby's relatives, the Whiteheads might have felt there would be a day of reckoning. This might have been used as retribution for the snubs.

[Kat]

Along these lines- sounds like motive to me from Abbie's family.

My interpretation of the law is different (as published in the Boston Globe ).

We do have a tradition of a will and the burning of a will in the stove as a possibility in books and articles on the case.
If we don't know for sure, it's a good device for authors. I personally can't just say an author can't use a scenario like that for their story.

[Yooper]

Maybe I have the interpretation wrong based on the newspaper article. What I get from that is the widow gets $5,000 in her own right, the first $5,000 from the estate being the widow's portion, and a life interest in a percentage of the remainder. The age of the widow is a determining factor in the percentage, and it is unclear whether that is increased or decreased with age, and the magnitude of the increase or decrease is not specified in the article. In the Borden case, Abby would get $5,000 from Andrew's estate outright, assuming she survived Andrew. Then she would get control of some percentage of the balance of the estate, say one half of the remainder for the sake of argument. Lizzie and Emma would get the other half of the remainder outright, and Abby's half of the remainder whenever Abby died. Until Abby died, she would benefit from the income from her half of the remainder, and she could use it as she saw fit.

I'm not clear on what is meant by motive "from Abby's family", motive for who?

A tradition in fiction is the perpetuation of a fantasy. Authors of fiction are free to use whatever literary devise they wish. The simple fact is, there was no will, and we know that for sure.

[Kat]

I still recall seeing items on the final dispensation- I will continue to look.

The "final dispensation" was covered earlier in this thread, out of Rebello. Harry had also found for me Bill Pavao's article in the [LBQ on Abbie Borden. Somehow I recall local news items leading up to the distribution of Abbie's estate- If I run across those I will post about it.

[Kat]

I'm sorry but we appear to be at odds over this. We might agree to disagree. I've already said what I wanted to about the tradition in *Lizzie writing* to use a will as motive. I didn't especially name fiction. When I say *authors* I usually mean those ones who are considered as true crime on the Library shelf. But I also refer to "articles."

Since Jenning's was a family friend of very long standing, it would be hard to believe he would suppress a will. But Cook is another character altogether. He asked to be questioned privately- he did not wish to make a statement to a mere police officer. Who knows whathe knew. And who knows who he knew- he did die pretty rich, tho alone.
I don't discount a will as existing on August 4th, 1892. I can't. I also can't prove a negative.

[Yooper]

It is unnecessary to prove a negative for the existence of anything, the concept is absurd. "Look! There it isn't!" should suffice. If the existence is the product of talk or conjecture, it is a fantasy. Those directly affected by Andrew's lack of a will accepted that there was none, I guess it doesn't much matter what we think of it. My point was that the existence of a will was pursued by many with either an interest in the contents, or to provide a motive for murder, but the lack of a will may have provided the motive in this case. Any talk Andrew may have engaged in with respect to having to make a will further suggests he was without one. There was no need to suppress something that did not exist.