Poison poll

[Harry]

Let's assume it was Lizzie who attempted to purchase poison to do away with her father and stepmother.

Would she have gotten away with it? Unfortunately yes/no polls can only ask the basic question. Comments more than welcome.

[snokkums]

I think she might have gotten away with it if she had used poison. The only reason why I believe that is because with the family sick because of the food, the police/coroner might have just chalked the deaths up to food posioning or something like that. It might have been alittle weird that other people in the house didn't die from food posioning, but everyone's body is different, and someone else might not have had the same reaction.

[Yooper]

On the assumption that the poisoning would have supplanted the hatchet at the same point in time, I said no. Under the same circumstances as the hatchet murders with Emma absent, suspicion would likely have fallen on either Bridget or Lizzie. Since it would have to be Lizzie purchasing the poison, she would become the prime suspect. Lizzie would have almost the same amount of opportunity to use poison as Bridget, so she couldn't be eliminated based on that. Bridget would likely lack motive, but Lizzie wouldn't. I think Lizzie would have become a more viable suspect if she had used poison, to some people.

Just another thought, Lizzie might well have done away with Bridget as well as Abby and Andrew if she had used poison. Poison is going to kill anyone who eats whatever it has contaminated.

[augusta]

I think she did use arsenic on them on Tuesday, August 2. The symptoms are just like someone giving them a small dose.

Lizzie going to her parents' bedroom door and asking if they were okay was a red flag, I think. She couldn't have cared less about Abby during her bronchitis.

The whole household did not get this sickness. Lizzie only said that she did. No one heard her be sick or saw her be sick or come out of her room with barf on her dress.

From the Preliminary Hearing:
Q (Knowlton): Did you hear Miss Lizzie say anything about being sick too?
A: Yes, Sir.
(Mr. Adams) What did she say?
Q: What, if anything, did you hear Lizzie say?
A: No Sir, I heard her say she was sick all night too.
Q: How did she seem to be in the morning?
A: Well, I did not notice.

Bridget did not notice Lizzie appearing sick, yet she noticed Abby and Andrew looking bad:
From the Preliminary Hearing:
A: Mrs. Borden came down, and asked me if I heard they were sick all night. I said no. She said her and Mr. Borden were sick all night, taken with vomiting.
Q: That you heard Wednesday morning?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: How did they appear to be Wednesday morning?
A: They looked pretty sick.
Q: Both of them?
A: Yes Sir.

Lizzie was well enough on Wednesday evening to visit Alice Russell.

Bridget's throwing up was not like Andrew and Abby's continuous, probably volatile empty-ings. Bridget woke up with a dull headache on the murder morn and went outside to throw up.
From the Preliminary Hearing, Bridget says that: "I was out in the back yard; I was not feeling very well, and I was out there."
Q: How long did you stay out there?
A: I might be out there ten or fifteen minutes.
Q: Were you at the water closet?
A: No, Sir.
Q: I do not want to ask you any questions you do not want to answer about it.
A: I was sick to my stomach, and was out in the yard, and I was vomiting.
I don't think this can compare to the illnesses Andrew and Abby suffered and still did not feel well by Wednesday night.

After the murders were discovered and she was sitting on the steps by the kitchen, she never mentioned being sick anymore nor did it again that we know of. She was fit enough to go out till around 10 pm on Wednesday, August 3 and made no mention of being sick Wednesday.

From the Preliminary Hearing:
Q (Knowlton): What time did you go to bed the night before?
A: (Bridget): After ten o'clock.

I think her barfing was unrelated to Andrew and Abby's barfing. Bridget's nausea could have been from anything - maybe Lizzie dared her to smell the mutton soup. Who knows? But she was nowhere near as sick as her employers.

I think Lizzie didn't know how much to give her parents to kill them. Her idea to shop for prussic acid (and I believe it was her in the drug store who asked for it) shows she was for killing them very swiftly. Maybe she just would have given it to Abby in that case, because Andrew may not have suspected a murder had taken place. The arsenic she probably gave them would have been excreted through their sweat, urine, bowels, and nauseusness and therefore would not have shown up in any test for arsenic. If she kept giving it to them in little doses, they would have gotten sicker and sicker and it would have shown up in a medical test if the doctors knew what to test for in that case. And it would have shown up if she had given them one huge dose.

I'm not so sure that looking at the stomach and finding it was not visually affected by a corrosive poison was an effective test for arsenic either. Tho there would be none to detect in their bodies, I don't think arsenic can be detected like that. At most, I think in people that have had more than they did, if it did show up making the stomach look a certain way, they still would have had to test for arsenic specifically.

We'll never be able to prove it ( ). It didn't store itself in their hair or nails with that little bit. The hair samples available today were not taken from the root anyway.

[Kat]

I haven't voted yet. I'm not sure if Lizzie could have been convicted of poisoning. It's pretty hard to do, even nowadays.
There were arsenic cases in the news contemporary with the Borden murder. I don't think the culprit was caught- a restaurant's condiment had been tampered with. That is in the "Did She Didn't She?" oversized newspaper book.

[augusta]

Kat, I am curious to know why you say it's pretty hard to convict someone for poisoning "even nowadays"?

[Kat]

Well the Tylenol killings are unsolved? Product tampering cases in general are extremely hard to solve. I think just recently the poisoning at the National Enquirer has just been given a suspect name, after how many years? And the nurses who poison their patients for years and years and years going unsuspected.
People can be suspected, but proof is hard to come by, with no witness. We read about the cases which are finally cracked, but what of the ones that go unreported as poison? I'd think there were a lot.

[Susan]

I voted that Lizzie wouldn't have gotten away with it, but, that would depend on whether the poison she would have used was detectable or not. In Lizzie's time, if poison was detected, it was considered a woman's murder weapon. Suspicion would have immediately fell on Lizzie and Bridget.

[Shelley]

Actually , with poisoning, the list of suspects could widen to include Emma and even Uncle John, or someone who had access to the milk supply. The great thing about poison is you do not have to be around when the fatal dose is taken. Emma might have poisoned something like a daily tonic the two old folks took regularly. An enemy of Andrew's could have poisoned the milk can outside the door. Lizzie hinted as much to Alice.

Lizzie said she was sick Wednesday, and by Thursday morning Bridget was sick with the same symptoms. I always suspected maybe Lizzie had tried a dose Tuesday night and the Bordens vomited it up, the dose was not sufficient. Bridget, eating leftovers, got enough of it to make her sick later. Naturally Lizzie would say she was sick.

I have always believed Eli Bence, therefore I do think she tried and succeeded at getting something-of course it was not Prussic acid, but it may well have been something else-something that in those days was hard to detect.I think Lizzie's defense would have been EXACTLY what she told Alice Wednesday night- Someone was trying to poison them- it was in the milk-her father had an enemy and they were ALL sick and what a mercy SHE did not eat so much. John was walking on the edge eating in that house!

[Kat]

That's a really good point about what Lizzie told Alice the night before.
But it's just so odd that Lizzie might have thought her concern could seem unremarkable next day after everyone was dead of poison. It's like waving a red flag pointing out a possible poisoning before it has occurred.
Also, to bring it up the night of the same day she supposedly tried to buy poison? Even more odd...

But yes, true, the suspect pool does widen, even tho it's considered a woman's weapon because it can be done while the culprit is far removed from the scene. There is also no real control over how much any one person gets unless it's directly administered to the victim.
I do think Lizzie was about *control* tho- so maybe it's not her weapon after all.

[Kat]

It's also a weapon of a sadist who likes to imagine their victims writhing in agony.
Does anyone think of Lizzie as a sadist?

[Nadzieja]

I think Lizzie was probably so frustrated with living like a penney pincher and it made her mean.

[Angel]

I believe Eli Bence, but it really makes me wonder just how dim Lizzie really was. If I was planning to poison someone I certainly would not have gone to a nearby store where people would recognize me to buy the stuff.

[Shelley]

Oh I think the fatal mistake most killers make is in thinking they ARE more clever than anyone else. There were many legitimate uses for poison, and many substances were poisonous which were not regulated and controlled. Every household compendium (and I collect these vintage tomes of everyday advice) had a lengthy chapter on poisons and antidotes. When Lizzie walked into Smith's and asked for Prussic Acid, she gave the reason of cleaning her fur sacques-sounds harmless. Smith's was probably not one of the stores she usually frequented, thereby she thought nobody would recall her. She did not count on Mr. Hart, who knew her from another establishment. No, I really think Lizzie had the cool smugness to think she would waltz in quickly, ask for a cleaning remedy in a small amount, not have to sign anything, and exit with nobody connecting the incident to anything sinister. I can almost feel the cool metal of the dime she had all ready in her purse to pay for her purchase. I also believe she was not very knowledgeable about poison-and that Prussic Acid was a cyanide compound that would raise red flags right away.

Naturally later she would have to deny EVERYTHING- that she had even left the house Wednesday and denied knowing where Smith's even was located, which is of course is preposterous- it is only one street west and 2 short blocks from her house. And of course, she had to underline the fact that she was so sick Wednesday also- to sick to come downstairs for lunch, but not too sick to stroll over to ALice's that evening to plant her seeds of suspicion. Crafty, proud, and controlling, yes- but over -confident of her ability, and of the intelligence of others on matters with which she had little experience. People with a little knowledge are dangerous things.

[DoGeeseSeeGoD]

One of the only truly remarkable points made by Frank Spiering in his book that I walked away with was this:
Lizzie was smart enough to know that even though police had not seen any blood on any of her clothing, it could happen that once things started getting sent to labs for testing, they might look for poison traces. (especially after the acusations of trying to purchase prussic acid- regardless if the claim was true or not).

Spiering made the claim that Lizzie burned the dress that could have arsenic traces on it.
The burning of the dress is one of the most astonishing parts of the case to me. Only a complete idiot would do such a thing. Lizzie is not ever described in any account as being slow witted. Why would she do such a thing? Because there wasnt an extra nail to hang a dress- no way!. Because there some some paint on it!? Considering that she was obviously under close scrutiny only a moron would do such a thing!!.

Spiering's explaination was the closest thing to make sense of it. She burned her evidence of guilt. Only it wasnt blood evidence. She had to get rid of any chemical evidence of poison. Like the dress she had worn while working with it!

Its a theory, and only just such. But it is the closest thing to any reasonable explanation to Lizze doing something so insane as burning her clothes while under investigation for murder.

[Kat]

Partial quote from Shelley:

When Lizzie walked into Smith's and asked for Prussic Acid, she gave the reason of cleaning her fur sacques-sounds harmless. Smith's was probably not one of the stores she usually frequented, thereby she thought nobody would recall her. She did not count on Mr. Hart, who knew her from another establishment.

Actually, Bence was consistent in stating the lady he thought was Lizzie asked for the prussic acid to "put on the edges of a sealskin cape ." It has long been said she was thought to say it was for cleaning or for killing pests but Bence never said she said that.
Also, Hart is not one who had seen or known who Lizzie was before.

Bence Inquest:
Q. Did she say what she wanted it for?
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.


--and this is Hart:

Q. Did you see anybody coming in there, inquiring for prussic acid?
A. I did.
Q. State what you saw and heard.
A. Between ten and half past eleven o'clock Wednesday morning, a woman came in the store, and inquired for prussic acid. She said she wanted it to put on the edges of a seal skin cloak. She was refused the acid and went out.
Q. Who waited on her?
A. She was on the point of asking me, as the other clerk stepped up, and she asked him.
Q. Did you know who it was?
A. I did not at the time, no air.
Q. Have you since seen her?
A. I have not, no sir.
Q. So you dont know who it is, excepting by hear say?
A. I dont know, except from a picture I have seen.
Q. Seen in the paper?
A. In the Fall River Globe, yes sir.
Q. That is all the way you know is by the picture. Does she resemble the picture of Miss Borden you have seen in the paper?
A. She does.
Q. That is all you know about it?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Had you ever seen that person in the store before?
A. No Sir.

[snokkums]

One of the only truly remarkable points made by Frank Spiering in his book that I walked away with was this:
Lizzie was smart enough to know that even though police had not seen any blood on any of her clothing, it could happen that once things started getting sent to labs for testing, they might look for poison traces. (especially after the acusations of trying to purchase prussic acid- regardless if the claim was true or not).

Spiering made the claim that Lizzie burned the dress that could have arsenic traces on it.
The burning of the dress is one of the most astonishing parts of the case to me. Only a complete idiot would do such a thing. Lizzie is not ever described in any account as being slow witted. Why would she do such a thing? Because there wasnt an extra nail to hang a dress- no way!. Because there some some paint on it!? Considering that she was obviously under close scrutiny only a moron would do such a thing!!.

Spiering's explaination was the closest thing to make sense of it. She burned her evidence of guilt. Only it wasnt blood evidence. She had to get rid of any chemical evidence of poison. Like the dress she had worn while working with it!

Its a theory, and only just such. But it is the closest thing to any reasonable explanation to Lizze doing something so insane as burning her clothes while under investigation for murder.

I know this sounds like a silly question, but did they have tests back then to for things like that, to determine if there was blood and what type and arsenic poisoning? Maybe I am alittle slow - witted. LOL.

[Shelley]

Well yes- Bence said she wanted it to put on the edge a seal skin cape as I mentioned above. We are in agreement on that statement. The uses of prussic acid were and are are varied. Engraving, explosives and dye processes all make use of HCN. Historically, it has also been used in vermin or insect poisons, thankfully, due to the danger of the compound, thatis no longer the case. When Lizzie said she wanted it for the edge of a fur coat- it is implied that moths or some other insect was present. To clean a garment or cleanse a garment did not mean, in the lingo of the times, only wet washing it- it was the terminology for banishing insect infestation. Example: The mattress had to be cleaned (cleansed) of bed bugs. Dry cleaners are still called CLEANSERS in some New England towns.
Recently I read that, -( and yes, I WILL dig for it and name the source), Hart DID say he knew Lizzie from seeing her at another establishment once before where she was pointed out to him and identified. The source even names the business. It may take me awhile to dig it out, but I recall taking note of it to see if I could learn more about the store he cites by name. Stay tuned.

[Harry]

I believe it was Kilroy who said he had seen her before. Hart testified he had not.

The other store source is probably from an article in the Lizzie Borden Quarterly, July 2000, by a Marilynne K. Roach titled "Poisonous Thoughts". She writes in part:

"Well, my good lady," Bence said, "it is something we don't sell unless by prescription from the doctor, as it is a very dangerous thing to handle."
At that she turned and left, walking past a second clerk, Frederick B. Hart, and past Frank H. Kilroy, a medical student who had been chatting with Bence. "That is Andrew Borden's daughter," Kilroy remarked. Bence knew the woman only by sight as a Miss Borden. He had never seen her in Smith's before but thought he might have waited on her six years earlier when he worked in Riddell's drugstore...."

I get the two of them, Kilroy and Hart, mixed up myself.

[Shelley]

Ah, Harry to the rescue! Yes, this is the quote indeed. Riddell's- I always get it mixed up with Rexall. No, I did not recall it from the LBQ but some other place. I remember running across it when I was on my Bencemania kick 2 years ago. The trouble with having been a'Lizzie-ing for so long, and reading so many things, one tends to forget just where and when one has read a thing. And this is not improving with age.

[Harry]

The reference to Riddell's is in Bence's Preliminary testimony, p309.

"Q. Did you ever trade with her in your life?
A. Not in that store.
Q. Where else?
A. Possibly in Riddell's drug store, when I worked there.
Q. When?
A. Six years ago.
Q. Sure you ever sold her anything in your life?
A. I think so. I had seen the lady quite often before, and had her pointed out to me before as Miss Borden, a good many times.
Q. Before this time?
A. Yes Sir, a good many times."

[doug65oh]

I know this sounds like a silly question, but did they have tests back then to for things like that, to determine if there was blood and what type and arsenic poisoning?

No, it's not a silly question at all, snokkums. If you'll recall, the stomachs of both Bordens were removed and sent to Profeesor Wood up to Boston, where they were tested for several types of "irritant poisons" if I remember the wording correctly.

Dr. Wood also tested milk specimens that were collected and sent to him. His testimony is at the beginning of the second volume of trial transcripts.

As to the blood testing, I'm quite frankly a bit dim myself at this hour, but I believe there was such a test, which at least distinguished between human and animal blood. It's mentioned actually, at pg. 1,005 of the trial transcript. Dr. Wood is the witness on that as well.

[snokkums]

thanks doug65oh. I guess I am just used the 21st century stuff that I don't think that they probably did have something back then.

[DJ]

I haven't cast a vote, but I think Lizzie would have come under suspicion regardless, because her attitude and actions toward her Stepmother were ongoing, well-known, and even broadcast by Lizzie herself. People such as Anna Borden and Hannah Gifford-- a Quaker, no less-- were upset enough by Lizzie's pronouncements to volunteer themselves as witnesses against her. In other words, there would have been more than idle chat, more than quiet speculation, had A & A dropped dead all of a sudden.
In a larger sense, I think it's important to consider Lizzie's intent to do away with Abby (and Andrew, because she had to, after killing Abby-- if she did it), at just that point in time. What was the hurry? What was up and about to go down in that household? On those questions, the solution to the case hinges.
The trip to Eli Bence's was foolish, almost desperate. The "Father has an enemy" and "the milk can" stories she spun for the benefit of Alice Russell reek of Lizzie's desperation to install a "plausible set-up" as swiftly as possible. There's a rush to this-- Lizzie is not thinking through things as carefully as she ought to have.
If you believe the Eli Bence story, and I do, then the murders were premeditated. Lizzie was thinking murder. And so was Abby, if she thought she had been poisoned, and she most certainly did.
Now, any cool, calculated person plotting murder would have pulled back after Abby expressed her fear. The time wasn't right. What if she had told someone the name of WHOM she feared was attempting to poison her?
But, Lizzie plows on with her accelerated mission, as foolhardy as it would seem.
What's driving her? Why doesn't she join her vacation group, mull things over, and allow Abby's talk of being poisoned to die down? Something's afoot, and Lizzie believes she must nip it in the bud.

[Michael]

Why not? She got away with hatcheting her parents to death.

[Allen]

I think if Lizzie had been successful with the poison it would've been easier to convict her. As it has been pointed many times since the murders, poison was considered a more feminine mode of killing. Poison also points to an inside job, or someone who had intimate knowlege of the elder Borden's routine. The poisoner needs intimate access to a person or else there is no way to administer it. One thing that may have worked in her favor had she successfully poisoned them is she would not have been forced to concoct such a lame alibi as she did for the day of the murders.

[Yooper]

Lizzie would have had a lot to explain if she had poisoned Abby and Andrew. Why both she and Bridget were unaffected by the poison, for instance. An alternative would be to allow Bridget to be poisoned. She might have an easier time explaining why she alone was left alive. It is a possibility that this is why the idea of poisoning might have been abandoned in the first place, Bridget would almost have to be collateral damage.

[Kat]

Shell, if you have the Lizzie disc you can check testimony quickly in your computer before posting and refresh your memory. We all do that, even longtime posters. It's an easy way to avoid confusion. Luckily I know where to look and I know when something is incorrect- but I dare not post from memory myself.

[Kat]

Someone could have sent poison food items to Abbie and/or Andrew. Delivered or in the mail. The Armstrong case was like that. Not everyone would have known.
There were so many stories in later times that Abbie was a secret eater, some might believe that happened without popular knowledge. I don't believe that happened, but it's a small point to make. It would not necessarily have to be an "inside job."

Also, Lizzie pointed to the milk left on the porch, as a possible point of tampering. They did not take a sample of that batch. That's not impossible.

But Missy, you know me and poison- like I know you and poison over the years. It's nice to have you back in discussion!
I'd put a "smilie" here except it would be inappropriate...

[snokkums]

I think if Lizzie had been successful with the poison it would've been easier to convict her. As it has been pointed many times since the murders, poison was considered a more feminine mode of killing. Poison also points to an inside job, or someone who had intimate knowlege of the elder Borden's routine. The poisoner needs intimate access to a person or else there is no way to administer it. One thing that may have worked in her favor had she successfully poisoned them is she would not have been forced to concoct such a lame alibi as she did for the day of the murders.

I agree with you on this point; she would have had some explaining to. And it was considered the female way of killing someone. I think thats why the jury didn't convict her. How can a well brought up woman take an axe to someone? It was too gruesome for a woman.

[Harry]

I voted no for much of the same reasons as Allen and Yooper.

[Yooper]

Someone could have sent poison food items to Abbie and/or Andrew. Delivered or in the mail. The Armstrong case was like that. Not everyone would have known.
There were so many stories in later times that Abbie was a secret eater, some might believe that happened without popular knowledge. I don't believe that happened, but it's a small point to make. It would not necessarily have to be an "inside job."

Also, Lizzie pointed to the milk left on the porch, as a possible point of tampering. They did not take a sample of that batch. That's not impossible.

But Missy, you know me and poison- like I know you and poison over the years. It's nice to have you back in discussion!
I'd put a "smilie" here except it would be inappropriate...

I imagine a jury would have to be convinced it was not an inside job. They would have to weigh the likelihood that Abby and Andrew consumed some delivered (by the same person delivering the note) food substance to the exclusion of others, against Lizzie's possible motives for committing the crime. Another important point is that the sender would have no control over who ate the "magic cookies". This could range anywhere from no one to everyone within the Borden household, and without specificity. Due to the lack of specificity, the assumption of motive would have to be that all of the Borden household was targeted. To do otherwise, it would have to be proven that both Abby and Andrew were "secret eaters", or were in the habit of consuming food to the exclusion of others to some extent. Even if that could be proven, there would be a limited number of people in possession of that knowledge who also had motive to kill them. Perhaps limited to one.

[Kat]

We know Lizzie told people she did not eat with the Bordens.
That could get around. Of course, she may have wanted that to get around.
Morse was asked if she ate at the table- his answer seemed like he wasn't sure if he should stress that she did, to show the family was friendly together.
I think Lizzie was ambivalent about eating with them or not eating with them- and I'm not yet sure why...
I have not yet voted.

[Yooper]

Lizzie would have to eat different food than Abby and Andrew to avoid poisoning, regardless of when it was consumed. Either that, or she would have to avoid whatever food the poison was in. Bridget would have to do the same if she was to be spared.

In a sense it boils down to the same dilemma, whether poison or a hatchet was the murder weapon, why was Lizzie left alive?

[Yooper]

Maybe the "mutton that wouldn't die" menu that week prompted an attempt to purchase poison. Lizzie would have little trouble explaining why both she and Bridget avoided yet another meal of the stuff!

I wonder if Morse's arrival thwarted any further attempts at poison, she couldn't be sure how long he would stay, and plan B (hatchet) was initiated.

[Kat]

Well that's an interesting take on Morse's arrival- trying not to poison the uncle!

But remember, whatever he knew or didn't know, and no matter what Abbie thought or didn't think about being *poisoned* (that we surmise) - Abbie still sat Morse down, upon his arrival Wednesday, when he said he told her he wasn't that hungry, and fed him the same food they had been eating!
Was she waiting to see if he balked? Or was she waiting to see if he got sick too? Or was she not that concerned?

[Yooper]

It wasn't the same food that caused Abby and Andrew's illness was it? I thought they became ill having eaten warmed over fish rather than mutton? In any case, it didn't seem to affect him in the same way.

[Kat]

Yes the fish was the night they were ill- but if people think the food is poisoned and no one knows what food... you see what I mean?
They thought fish or milk or bread...
We have hindsight- we know sort of what was going on- they didn't. They had no context- unless they had been poisoned previously or suspected that they had.

[Yooper]

Still, the food given to Morse by Abby had been eaten by herself and Andrew at noon the same day without adverse effects. I understand what you mean about Abby being uncertain which particular food item might have been poisoned. The following day she would not have used the same milk which may have made her ill, and the specific loaf of suspected bread could be avoided or replaced. If it was food in general which was suspected, she would have avoided eating anything in the house until it could be replaced. She did not do this, she ate breakfast the morning after her illness and right before going to see Dr. Bowen.

I don't think Abby suspected any sort of generalized poison application, she probably would have suspected a specific application, to her portion and Andrew's portion of whatever food. Both Abby and Andrew were ill from the fish. Lizzie claimed some minor illness as a result, but Lizzie also asked through the door while Abby and Andrew were stricken if she could do anything to help. If this took place, it would appear to Abby that Lizzie was not affected. It really doesn't matter whether Lizzie was or wasn't ill, only Abby's perception is important. Bridget did not seem affected by the meal either. Abby might well get the idea that she and Andrew were the targets of a specific application of poison if all had eaten the same food. If everything which Abby and Andrew consumed the night of the illness had been dispensed with, and if Abby closely monitored the food preparations, she might be safe enough.

Dr. Bowen's diagnosis of food poisoning was correct, according to the available evidence. After the murders, Dr. Bowen had his doubts about his diagnosis until an examination showed no trace of poison. I don't believe Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen was focused on poison specifically, it was more about being targeted for murder. Bowen was a doctor, Abby had a legitimate complaint about violent illness. What better opportunity to initiate a discussion on the subject? How else could Abby do this otherwise, if she suspected it? Could she go to the police with her suspicions? The first thing they would ask her is if she had seen a doctor.

I keep coming back to Dr. Bowen's comment after the murders that he was "satisfied something was wrong" due to their illness the previous day. There is no logical progression from food poisoning to hatchet murder. You need an intermediate of some sort, like suspicion of overt poisoning, of being targeted for murder. Then Bowen's comment makes all the sense in the world. Without that, it sounds like the ramblings of an idiot.

[Shelley]

I think Abby mentioned the bread was poisoned because she knew that was something they all had eaten, and Lizzie said milk for the same reason. The comment about someone she had heard of being poisoned by cream cake clouds the meaning of whether she meant deliberate poisoning or food poisoning. When Bowen says that if something was wrong with the bread, (which was bought elsewhere, not home made), then it suggests that since nobody else had come calling to complain of sickness, there was either nothing wrong with the bread -OR there was ONLY something "funny" about the bread on Abby's table, or that IT had been tampered with. Yes, I agree, Yooper, Bowen's odd remarks linking the visit and the murders only make sense if Bowen was connecting the statement Abby had made the day before with REAL poisoning- not food poisoning.

Well, there is another thought- the killer could have insured food poisoning symptoms by deliberately introducing bottulism organisms or salmonella in the fish- or bread portions. When that did not work, -then the immediate thought would be to try something surefire.

[Kat]

partial Yooper--

I keep coming back to Dr. Bowen's comment after the murders that he was "satisfied something was wrong" due to their illness the previous day. There is no logical progression from food poisoning to hatchet murder. You need an intermediate of some sort, like suspicion of overt poisoning, of being targeted for murder. Then Bowen's comment makes all the sense in the world. Without that, it sounds like the ramblings of an idiot.

--When I read this I started a word search for "satisfied" in Dr. Bowen's testimony. I didn't find this quote there. Then I searched the Witness Statements and found the statement was Doherty recounting his version of what he says Dr. Bowen said. You know me- I check things, and want context:

DOHERTY

Thursday August 4, 1892.

11.35 At this hour I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said “I am glad to see you.” I inquired “what is the trouble?” He said “Mr. Borden is dead.” I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying “to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead up stairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright.”

If we are to build upon this statement in further discussion, which was presented in quotes, it's helpful to have the real source of the statement, and the context, so I'm supplying it here.

[Kat]

partial post, Shelley

I think Abby mentioned the bread was poisoned because she knew that was something they all had eaten, and Lizzie said milk for the same reason

I was checking as to who ate what because I don't recall they "all" ate these items.
Bridget says she did not eat the bread she bought- she only ate her own bread. And Lizzie only mentions cookies and of course, pears. She said she ate with the Bordens Tuesday, but not what she ate. We don't know what she ate- so to me that lets out "all" as to the milk and the bread.

[Kat]

It's fun to look things up- it really is! I hope we all can enjoy doing it!

[Kat]

Shelley, partial

Yes, I agree, Yooper, Bowen's odd remarks linking the visit and the murders only make sense if Bowen was connecting the statement Abby had made the day before with REAL poisoning- not food poisoning.

It's still confusing, because in the Witness Statements I posted above, Doherty states Dr. Bowen supposedly thought Abbie died of fright, not poisoning or by hatchet like Andrew, if we believe Doherty quoted Dr. Bowen properly.

[Shelley]

Don't know how well Bowen knew Alice Russell, but it is possible Alice may have repeated things to him that Lizzie had said to her Wednesday night, and the two linked poison and the events of Thursday together. Alice and Bowen were certainly together in the house a lot, in close quarters- especially on Thursday.

As for Bridget and that "bread of doom"- I find it extremely interesting that Bridget got sick also- one day later on Thursday morning. What did she eat that caused that. Bread? Milk? What were the odds that she would suffer exactly the same condition of nausea and vomitting Abby and Andrew had suffered? There has to be a link. In so many poison cases, one finds a little slip-up, or unforeseen consequences. You can never count on people's actions completely. Who knows- maybe Bridget was deliberately slipped something so as to make the other two cases in the house look less suspicious.

[Yooper]

I've wondered about that too, Shelley, why was Bridget ill the morning of the murders? I expect she must have avoided the fish on Tuesday, Abby and Andrew seemed to be reacting at about the same time on the same night. It would likely have acted about as quickly on anyone who ate it. If that's true, then Bridget must have eaten or drank something the rest did not in order to be ill Thursday, if it was food poisoning. How frequently and randomly did people suffer from food poisoning back then?

[Yooper]

partial Yooper--

I keep coming back to Dr. Bowen's comment after the murders that he was "satisfied something was wrong" due to their illness the previous day. There is no logical progression from food poisoning to hatchet murder. You need an intermediate of some sort, like suspicion of overt poisoning, of being targeted for murder. Then Bowen's comment makes all the sense in the world. Without that, it sounds like the ramblings of an idiot.

--When I read this I started a word search for "satisfied" in Dr. Bowen's testimony. I didn't find this quote there. Then I searched the Witness Statements and found the statement was Doherty recounting his version of what he says Dr. Bowen said. You know me- I check things, and want context:

DOHERTY

Thursday August 4, 1892.

11.35 At this hour I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said “I am glad to see you.” I inquired “what is the trouble?” He said “Mr. Borden is dead.” I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying “to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead up stairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright.”

If we are to build upon this statement in further discussion, which was presented in quotes, it's helpful to have the real source of the statement, and the context, so I'm supplying it here.

This exchange took place at 11:35 August 4th, according to Doherty. Had Dr. Bowen examined Abby by that time, or had he just heard about her death from Mrs. Churchill and Bridget? It seems he met Doherty at the door, maybe he hadn't been upstairs yet. Do we have a timeline on these events?

[Shelley]

I gather food poisoning or "summer complaint" was not uncommon in summer months when refrigeration was not always the best, -those old Victorians did have cast iron digestions though. I think their tummies were accustomed to far more foods in the rough than we are nowadays. Now we are full of allergies, bad digestion, overprocessed food, preservatives, lactose intolerance, artificial everything-and I wonder if we could eat a lot of the unpateurized stuff the Victorians munched with impunity! Their gut probably had great bacteria in it and plenty of roughage and fiber.

Either Bridget's food was deliberately tampered with , or else she had the misfortune to be hungry and gnosh on leftovers which nobody expected her to eat. I am currently writing about a true murder case where 15 people became ill and five died from arsenic poisoning- the killer did not count on the inmates of the house getting the poisoned vegetables at dinner!

I also thought it strange that the supposedly sick Lizzie (who was too ill to leave her room Wednesday) did not seem to want Dr. Bowen to see her that morning when he came to check on Andrew and Abby, but instead ducked up the front stairs when he came in. Doctors' visits were a diversion many Victorian ladies enjoyed-who does not like to prattle on about their aches and pains? Oh, I suspect Bowen would have known at once she was not ill in the least.

[Kat]

Well, I must question that we know Bridget had "exactly" the same symptoms as the Bordens. I don't think we know this. It didn't seem like her throwing up lasted as long, for one thing.

Bridget says she has these headaches (Prelim.66). Maybe her illness was a chronic condition, like migraines? I was talking to Harry today about the drugs Bowen left for Lizzie, and thought, why don't we ever think Bridget might have taken drugs for her headaches? If she did, that might be why she may not have heard Andrew's murder whilst having her lie-down?

[SarahJay]

Well the Tylenol killings are unsolved? Product tampering cases in general are extremely hard to solve. I think just recently the poisoning at the National Enquirer has just been given a suspect name, after how many years? And the nurses who poison their patients for years and years and years going unsuspected.
People can be suspected, but proof is hard to come by, with no witness. We read about the cases which are finally cracked, but what of the ones that go unreported as poison? I'd think there were a lot.

I totally agree Lizzie would have gotten away with it. The first thing that came to mind was a case in Perth in 18?? where a woman by the name of Ruth (i forget her last name but ill check in my books and get back to you!) married a man that had a few children. Basically, he was after a new wife that would be a handy baby sitter and maid (sound slightly familiar??) and would leave Ruth alone with the kids for weeks on end. She wasn't able to work all the time, so money was pretty tight. Eventually, one of the children died after becoming violently ill. The Dr. examined the child and considered the death 'natural' (in that many kids died from flu like illnesses especially from poor families).
A few weeks later, another child died. Again, nothing suspicious. A few weeks later a third child died, which started alarm bells ringing.
In the end it was discovered that she had been poisoning them and the only reason they caught her was that the children were dying too quickly. If she had taken her time, and spaced the murders out, it is more than possible that they would never have suspected her. People knew she purchased arsenic frequently, but then again, so did many other people, for all types of cleaning and medicinal purposes.

Im sure it was the same in America, but there are countless cases of women in Australia around this era who murdered family members with arsenic, particularly if they were made to be their primary carer for long periods of time. Time and again, the police state that if the killings hadn't been so periodic, nobody would have suspected them.

I know its slightly off topic, but i think it helps demonstrate the great possibility that Lizzie would've gotten away with it.