Lizzie Borden Society Forum

While reading Dolan's Trial testimony, I found that Andrew had $81.65 in his pocket book (Trial 865). Now that's an awful lot! It's not a typo, because a few lines down Dolan specifies it in number of banknotes.

So, how come Andrew had such a large sum in his pockets? Any ideas?

Airmid.

Rent money ?





Tracy...

Airmid @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:38 pm wrote:While reading Dolan's Trial testimony, I found that Andrew had $81.65 in his pocket book (Trial 865). Now that's an awful lot! It's not a typo, because a few lines down Dolan specifies it in number of banknotes.
So, how come Andrew had such a large sum in his pockets? Any ideas?
Airmid.

Those who have the expansive knowledge from all the testimony can answer this, if they have the answer.
If we don't know how much he normally carried around, we can't say if this was a lot. The fact that the newspapers did/didn't comment on this would suggest it was not a large amount for a very rich man. Assumed.

I did read a book that said people early in the 20th century used to carry around more money than after WW II. This is why pickpockets were a dying breed.

theebmonique @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:44 pm wrote:Rent money ?
Tracy...

Were rents collected on the 3rd then?
We know of Andy's travels that morning, collecting was not on the list.
Could he have taken money out of his bank account? No mention?
There was no mention of what he did on Wed, or was he too sick to walk?

A rich man ALWAYS has money in his pockets.

What I am wondering is that what happened to the money after he was killed. I mean did they find it on him and what did the police do with the money? Give it to Lizzie and Emma?

When Andrew came home Thursday, Bridget said he went up to his room. Lizzie said he didn't.
If Andrew went up to his room, you'd think he would have put that money away, maybe in the desk or the safe, before coming downstairs to relax on the sofa before dinner.
It's possible he got the money from his room, and expected to need it later.
Or he came home with it and expected to need it later so kept it on him.
Or he had it on him in the morning, walked around town with it, came home and did not put it away, but kept it on him for some reason.
$81 = $1,458.

Maybe Andrew thought his pocket was the safest place for his money, considering past experience. Of course, he did have a safe upstairs.

The money in the pocket shows that the killer wasn't out for cash. But it does raise an interesting question: Was he planning to go out after dinner and spend the money on something? He made plenty of land transactions. Could a planned purchase have had something to do with the motive behind his murder?

--Lyddie

Whoever killed him should have taken the money.

*nods* My first thoughts were rents too, maybe from Jonathan Clegg, who rented a new shop from Andrew and wasn't completely done with the arrangements.
He did some business at one of the banks he visited (Witness p. 30):
Mr. Everett Cook of the First National Bank gives the following statement. “Andrew J. Borden
came to this Bank somewhere about 10 o’clock; it might be as early as 9.50. He does his business with us. That morning he deposited a check
which was made payable to him by the Troy Mills.
Maybe that was the usual amount that Andrew carried with him. But he may have been a rich man, he was not a big spender.
Or, indeed, he expected to have to pay someone quite a large sum that day.

Time for some wild speculation then, because there was an account of such an event. Here's a quote from the August 4th Fall River Herald article (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... news1.html):
A clue was obtained, however, a Portuguese whose name nobody around the house seem to know, has been employed on one of the Swansey farms owned by Mr. Borden. About 9 o'clock this man went to the house and asked to see Mr. Borden. He had a talk with his employer and asked for the wages due him.. Mr. Borden told the man he had no money with him, to call later. If anything more passed between the men it cannot be learned. At length the Portuguese departed and Mr. Borden soon afterward started down town.
The police spent lots of time and resources to investigate this story, but it all came to nothing and the theory was discarded.

Airmid.
Now why doesn't that URL work?

Kat @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:29 am wrote:Whoever killed him should have taken the money.

I totally agree. This for me dismisses the theory of the "secret visitor" or some outsider. What could they have possibly gained from murdering the Bordens?

I hate to say it- but because you know already- that anything published on the 4th was pretty wrong.

Besides the banks we know that Andrew also met on the street that morning with Clegg and Horton.

Maybe it was an advance payment from Clegg about the store he was renting. Just because Clegg didn't mention a cash transfer doesn't mean that one could not have taken place.

Since Horton was never examined (at least there is no known record of it) we have no idea what they talked about. Maybe he owed Andrew money.

The police and the prosecution did not seem much interested in the cash.

Airmid @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:39 am wrote:...
Time for some wild speculation then, because there was an account of such an event. Here's a quote from the August 4th Fall River Herald article

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... news1.html
A clue was obtained, however, a Portuguese whose name nobody around the house seem to know, has been employed on one of the Swansey farms owned by Mr. Borden. About 9 o'clock this man went to the house and asked to see Mr. Borden. He had a talk with his employer and asked for the wages due him.. Mr. Borden told the man he had no money with him, to call later. If anything more passed between the men it cannot be learned. At length the Portuguese departed and Mr. Borden soon afterward started down town.
The police spent lots of time and resources to investigate this story, but it all came to nothing and the theory was discarded.

Airmid

Is this just a rumor in the newspaper, or does the source have a name? I don't remember hearing this before.

"Whoever killed him should taken the money"(from Kat)

The only problem I have with that is that someone would have to have known the money was in his pocket. The reason I say this is becaus there was no sign of someone rlifling thru htings to the money. So if stealing was the person motive, he would had to known the money was there or somewhere in the house. And also there was no sign of a struggle. Leads me to believe that Lizzie knew about the money and wanted it.So why not kill the folks and take the 84 dollars?

Your final question confuses me- it sounds like agreement? But anyway, anyone who killed Andrew, whether hired, a family member or especially a stranger, should have taken the money and that would have given another or extra motive that the cops would have to run down.

I remember rumors growing up of the guy in the neighborhood who supposedly hid his cash in the mattress. That could have been a kind of opinion on Andrew- where someone might have heard something like that.

I heard that kind of thing in just about every neighborhod I lived in.

I think it would have been a good ploy to take the money for the reasons I stated. It seems less smart to not take the money.

Well if it was Lizzie, then she knew she was getting the money, that was the motive all along, money. She would have had to hide that money as well, and that would complicate things. She would have to worry about a hatchet, bloody clothes, and money to hide or discard. But come to think of it, she could have very well hidden the money in some crook or cranny and I don't think the police would have found it. Or maybe she had no idea Father had that much money on him at the time.

So you think that the fact that Andrew was not robbed of his money points to an insider?

Also, if Andrew had any will or important document on him, not taking the money might cover for taking a document?

The pocket money could work in Lizzie's favor: she had established an MO of staging break-ins. Wouldn't she have been likely to rifle the pockets to cast suspicion elsewhere?

--Lyddie

If we assume Lizzie as the killer, then making it look like a robbery would certainly work in her favor. But would she use up valuable time to take it?

Dolan at the Preliminary says the undertaker handed him the money. It was loose change and a purse.

From the undertaker's testimony at the Prelim it appears the change was in his pants and the undertaker seems to think the purse in his coat.

"Q. Were you the one who removed the effects from the body?
A. I took the things out of Andrew J. Borden's clothes.
Q. Did you give whatever you took to Dr. Dolan?
A. I did.
Q. Without bothering to produce them, will you kindly tell me what they were, in the shape of valuables?
A. I think there was $78. in bills in the pocket book.
Q. In a pocket book?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What pocket was that pocket book in?
A. In the inside pocket in the coat, I should think.
Q. In the coat pocket?
A. Yes Sir, inside pocket, inside the coat.
Q. Not inside the vest. What else in the shape of valuables?
A. In that pocket there was some minor papers, which we did not examine into, just opened them, and saw there was no more money in there, or notes. That is all we examined for.
Q. There was a watch and chain?
A. Yes Sir, in his vest.
Q. Anythingelse?
A. In his pants pockets some loose change, two or three dollars in silver."

It's very odd that at the trial Dr. Dolan (page 864) gives the impression that it was he who went through Andrew's clothing. He doesn't actually say so but he doesn't even mention the undertaker.

In the killing, Lizzie would have accomplished the main goal - her inheritance. Some 80 something dollars becomes trivial when you are looking at a half an estate valued at $400,000.

Taking the money would certainly have been a good plan, I think. But it was not taken, and I thought maybe because the pocketbook was in a place where it was not easy to retrieve.
So I tried to find out where Andrew kept his pocketbook, but that isn't quite clear. Dolan says a few things about Andrews valuables:

Trial p. 864:
Q What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?
A On the outside, a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers, and a pair of Congress shoes.
Q Did you at that time notice anything about what we commonly call his "valuables"?
A Yes, sir, he had a watch and pocketbook.
Then Dolan goes on to tell the contents of the pocket book. I got the impression that "at that time" refers to the second time Dr. Dolan saw Andrews body. The first time he had a quick glance at it, and shortly after he came back to make a more thorough examination.

Earlier he says this, when asked about the position of the body compared to the photograph (p. 854):
... how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q Which is the coat, sir?
A This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

So the pocketbook might have been just anywhere, including the inside pocket of the coat Andrew took off.

Harry, when you wrote what Dolan said in the Preliminary I got quite confused again. It might mean that Dolan didn't find the pocketbook until he did the autopsy. I guess I really should order the Preliminaries!

PS: Thanks for that quote from the Preliminaries, Harry!

Airmid.

(Kat) :Your final question confuses me-- it sounds like an agreement"

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like that. I am just saying that she could have taken the money and killed them and make it look like a robbery.

The staging of a robbery definately would have worked in her behalf. I wonder why she didn't use it in her favor.

RayS @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:00 pm wrote: Is this just a rumor in the newspaper, or does the source have a name? I don't remember hearing this before.

I guess it's a rumour, though the police thought it important enough to question Lizzie about a Portuguese in one of the first, or perhaps the very first, interview. Officer Doherty, Trial page 595:
.... I said, "Miss Borden, where were you when this was done?" She said, "It must have been done while I was in the barn." "Was there a Portguese working for your father over the river?" She said, "No, sir, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eddy worked for my father." .......

I can't find anything in the official documents about where the story originally came from. Porter in his book says it was Bridget (p. 45):
Thorough investigation of theories advanced upon the strength of Bridget Sullivan's statement that the crime was committed by the Portuguese employed upon the farm of Andrew Borden in Somerset, resulted in placing them with the other numerous opinions and possibilities which have been exploded by the authorities.

Airmid.

Regarding the Portuguese reference, this appeared in the Fall River Herald on August 12th(?) in an article on the case. Not quite sure of the day but it's somewhere around there.

"... C[harles]. S. Sawyer believes thoroughly in Lizzies innocence. Said he: "When I was on guard outside, on the day of the murder, Bridget told me of a Portuguese employee of Mr. Borden, and suggested that he might have committed the crime. Lizzie was completely prostrated by the shock she had received, but as soon as she heard of Bridget's story she sent Miss Russell out to me to deny the possibility of the story. .."

Another man, I believe his name was Gifford, referred to Alfred Johnson, the Swedish employee at the Swansey farm, as Portuguese. And Gifford lived in Swansea. I think that some people referred to anyone not of the same ethnicity as themselves as Portuguese, especially to farmhands.

EDIT here: Found the reference to Gifford. It was in the FR Herald of the 4th:

"At 12:45 o'clock Marshal Hilliard and Officers Doherty and Connors presented a carriage and drove over to the farm, hoping that the suspected man would return there in order to prove an alibi. The officers will arrive at the place some time before the man, as the distance is some ten miles, though it is hardly probable that he will return there. What makes it rather improbable that the man suspected is a Portuguese laborer is the statement of Charles Gifford of Swansey. Mr. Gifford says that the only Portuguese employed on the upper farm is Mr. Johnson, and he is confined to his bed by illness."

Bridget is asked at the trial (page 193:

"Q. Or was there any man who worked there while you were there taking care of a horse or anything of that sort?
A. No, sir. There was a man on the farm who used to come there and do chores, and go back again.
Q. He came from the farm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his name?
A. His first name was Alfred. I don't know his last name. I never asked him."

Rather strange that Bridget didn't know his last name him being a fellow employee of Andrew's and sometimes slept barely 20 feet from her in the attic rooms.

Very interesting, Harry!
So, there was a second account that Bridget was the source for the hunt for the Portuguese. Should we take that for a fact/high probability now?

If so, it solves some, but also raises some more interesting questions. If we regard Portuguese=foreigner, it explains Lizzie answers when she was asked about the Portuguese. From memory (it's a bit late for me to hunt quotes now), Lizzie said: "He is not a Portuguese, he is a Swede". It had struck me already as a bit odd that Lizzie would know exactly whom they were referring to when they asked her about the Portuguese.
If Bridget was already americanized enough to refer to Alfred Johnson as "Portuguese" (or if this habit was Irish in origin), then I ask myself if she was actually meant Alfred Johnson, and if so, what reasons Bridget could have had to accuse him of murder!

A nice new puzzle!

Airmid.

Yes, I would consider Sawyer a reliable witness. He was one of the more calmer people there that morning.

In that Herald article it says that Johnson was sick and confined to his bed. I think that is wrong and it was Mr. Eddy who was sick. Unless Johnson was sick as well but I don't believe I've heard that before. Andrew had two farms in Swansea one run by Johnson, the other by Eddy.

That's a great question - what made Bridget think Johnson was the killer? Lizzie certainly didn't think so.

Harry @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:42 pm wrote:Yes, I would consider Sawyer a reliable witness. He was one of the more calmer people there that morning.

In that Herald article it says that Johnson was sick and confined to his bed. I think that is wrong and it was Mr. Eddy who was sick. Unless Johnson was sick as well but I don't believe I've heard that before. Andrew had two farms in Swansea one run by Johnson, the other by Eddy.

That's a great question - what made Bridget think Johnson was the killer? Lizzie certainly didn't think so.

It is rather surprising that Bridget would not only think that Johnson was the killer but that she also thought of it so soon. Could she have seen Johnson with a hatchet around the house doing some sort of work? Did she hear Johnson complain about Andrew?

If we regard Portuguese=foreigner, it explains Lizzie answers when she was asked about the Portuguese. From memory (it's a bit late for me to hunt quotes now), Lizzie said: "He is not a Portuguese, he is a Swede". It had struck me already as a bit odd that Lizzie would know exactly whom they were referring to when they asked her about the Portuguese.
If Bridget was already americanized enough to refer to Alfred Johnson as "Portuguese" (or if this habit was Irish in origin), then I ask myself if she was actually meant Alfred Johnson, and if so, what reasons Bridget could have had to accuse him of murder!

A nice new puzzle!

Airmid.[/quote]

Sounds like a bit of racial profiling , huh? Not so uncommon today.

Aren't the sources still all newspapers? I may be wrong, without going over this thread again. I think Sawyer is reliable but what about the reporter?

I haven't found all that much incorrect in the newspapers after the first few days.

The Trickey-McHenry thing soured some people on the papers but I find them as accurate, if not more so, than the books written on the case.

Is Sawyer the one who sometimes slept in the attic? Maybe he had made a nuisance of himself to Bridget. I've always thought she disliked the man for some reason--that would be a strong reason.

The Irish community was so tight in Fall River that she may well have been able to tell Swedish accent from Portuguese. I do think it's a sign that Bridget had her prejudices against non-Irish immigrants.

--Lyddie

Hi Lyddie -- I'm sure you meant to put in Johnson not Sawyer? Sawyer was the neighbor put to the task of guarding the door. He only lived a few doors down from the Borden's.

But yes -- the hired man, Alfred Johnson, did stay over sometimes when he had work to do at 92 Second and most probably did stay in the attic on those occasions. So I guess it's possible to speculate he may have tried it on with Bridget, which would then account for her being so quick to include him in the frame.

Misquotes and misstyping are all part of human nature - human error.
Lets not get upset about it.

Thanks for catching that, Diana. Yes, I did mean Johnson--whose name is even more appropriate under the circumstances (or do I mean circumcisions? )

--Lyddie

People used to hide money in kinds of places, they didn't trust banks. A neighbor was remodeling his kitchen and founf $10,000.00 stuck under the kitchen sine behind it and the wall!


StevenB

I had always heard that too. I lived at one time in the second oldest house still intact on Beacon Hill in Boston and found money by searching around the place.
But Andrew had a safe that took at least 2 days to break into, so I'm not sure if he also may have hidden money?
What is the dynamic? Maybe he did, or maybe Abbie did?

Harry wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:21 pm Besides the banks we know that Andrew also met on the street that morning with Clegg and Horton.

Maybe it was an advance payment from Clegg about the store he was renting. Just because Clegg didn't mention a cash transfer doesn't mean that one could not have taken place.

Since Horton was never examined (at least there is no known record of it) we have no idea what they talked about. Maybe he owed Andrew money.

The police and the prosecution did not seem much interested in the cash.

New info that Harry didn't know about back in 2006.....Page 134 in Jennings Journals, Horton provides some comments to Attorney Phillips about talking to AJB. Said they only talked for 3 minutes at the most and doesn't mention exchange of monies.

At one of the seminars I attended during the Conference in 1992, the grandson (or great grandson) was present and produced a $20 gold piece that he said Dr Dolan, one of the doctors present at the autopsies, had found in Andrew's pocket and kept as a souvenir. He was quite amused as he showed it to us but I have to admit it sure gave me a negative opinion of his grandfather.

Hi Mspitstop!

In the hours immediately following the killings, no one could have possibly foreseen that this crime would capture the nations attention or still be talked about >130 years later!

So if the Medical Examiner did indeed snatch a $20 piece from AJB's body on August 4th, that would make him nothing but a common thief (vs. a treasure hunting thief!!).

I agree. The gentleman presenting the coin was amused. I was kind of appalled!