Prussic Acid and Trying to Have It Both Ways

[TeenaBee]

Hello, I have lurked on this board off and on for years, never posted, but now I would like ask for opinions on something that has been bugging me off and on for years, but I have not seen pointed out here --

Eli Bence and friends said a woman carrying a sealskin cape tried to buy prussic acid on Wednesday morning between 10:00 and 11:30 am, and having three witnesses swear it was Lizzie seems pretty convincing. Lizzie says it wasn't her, that she was home sick, and both Bridget and Abby (when talking to Mrs. Bowen on Wednesday afternoon) supported that Lizzie had been home sick all morning. Yes, Bridget testified she saw her at breakfast and the noon meal, and couldn't be sure she was actually home in between... So, the prosecution had to rely on the presumption that Lizzie was able to go in and out of the house with three people in the house all morning unaware that she came and went, as well as no one outside the home noticing her going leaving the house and walking downtown and returning home and going back in the house on that Wednesday morning. Yet the prosecution ALSO says that it was all but IMPOSSIBLE for an intruder to go in and out of the house undetected the very next morning to do the wretched deed, and also impossible for an intruder to go in and out of the house without anyone/neighbors outside the house noticing.... Why is it reasonable to conclude Lizzie was able to do it on Wednesday, but an intruder couldn't possibly do the same on Thursday? To me, it seems they are trying to have it both ways.

Also, two of the witnesses said they thought the woman asking for prussic acid had that sealskin cape over her arm, but Lizzie's capes were kept in the attic, accessible only by the back stairs. So okay, maybe she could sneak out the front door without anyone in the house knowing, but could she go through the kitchen and up and down the back stairs to the attic to fetch and cape (and maybe an hour later sneak up and down the stairs again to put it back) without Andrew or Abby or Bridget noticing?

I'm not saying Lizzie didn't try to buy the poison, hard to discount eye witnesses, but I do have reasonable doubt. Or i just don't like double standards ha

[camgarsky4]

Hi Teenabee! Welcome to the forum.

Excellent question and I'll need to spend a little time rereading some of the documentation, but while I'm doing that, I'll toss a couple thoughts/questions back to give you something to chew on in the meantime.

Bence and crew had zero idea what corroboration Lizzie might have validating that she was home at the time they claim to have encountered her. All that would have stopped this accusation in its tracks was for Abby, Bridget, Andrew or anyone to state that around 10am, Lizzie was seen doing so and so. For all they could know, she might have been in the side yard chatting with Mrs. Churchill or Alice Russell, or absolutely anyone.

But, instead the time they reported seeing her 'coincidentally' was at the mid-point of when she was seen by Bridget and no one (that we know of) saw her. That happenstance is a solid signal for me that the Bence, et al testimony was solid.

A second intriguing piece of info involves her choice of pharmacy to reportedly visit that morning. Per googlemaps.com, it is a 4 minute walk from Borden house to D.R. Smith pharmacy. There was a Brow pharmacy directly across the street from D.R. Smith's, which Lizzie had to pass on the way to D.R. Smith's. The Brow's had two pharmacies near the Borden house, run by father and son.

Screenshot 2025-10-21 110225.png

Screenshot 2025-10-21 111433.png

Initially, that might poke a hole in the theory that the capeskin cape shopper was Lizzie Borden....why wouldn't she go to the nearest pharmacy? But maybe there was a reason to skip past Brow's pharmacy.

Lizzie Borden: Past & Present. Len Rebello's book, Page 81.
Boston Herald, August 8, 1892, Page 2.
"Mr. Brow said Lizzie traded at his store and had known Lizzie for the past twenty years. He assured the reporter Lizzie did not purchase any prussic acid. He recalled that Lizzie stopped trading at his store about four years ago. Her last purchase was chloroform, stating she wanted it for the purpose of killing a cat. Mr. Brow states Miss Borden asked for the stuff in rather a surly manner, and he answered just a as saucily. Miss Borden paid for the chloroform and went out. She has never been in the shop since."

Neither of these two tidbits answers the question if Lizzie did visit D.R. Smith's as Bence, Kilroy and Hart reported, but they do add context that gives their testimony more credibility.

[TeenaBee]

Thanks so much for your thoughts camgarsky, I had always heard about Lizzie and chloroforming a cat, but thought it was one of those wild rumors, I missed seeing that in Rebello, and you inspired me to go pull it out of my box of Lizzie books in my garage ;) Anytime I learn something new about this case (I have been obsessed with for decades off and on), it is usually from lurking on this forum. It seems it not so highly trafficked at the moment, I would guess because of all the trouble from those wretched bots attacking the forum, and I applaud the administrator for working through that and getting this fabulous forum back online! I am sure with that new Lizzie miniseries from Netflix coming up this next year (they are shooting it now!), there may be a wave of renewed interest coming soon, a whole new generation. It will be like the Elizabeth Montgomery TV movie was to my generation, I still remember my teenaged self being riveted by that!

I find it interesting that the majority of discussion I come across here and other places about things like the prussic acid attempt so often start with looking at the case through the presumption of her guilt, rather than "innocent 'til proven guilty,' while what personally keeps me hooked is looking at it from both sides. How would this visit to this pharmacy have happened if she was guilty, how would it have happened (or not happened!) if she was innocent. Because I can come up with good points for both, this has led me over time to move from a position of "yeah she almost certainly did it," (because Elizabeth Montgomery did after all) to about a 50/50 "I have no idea."

So I find that when I accept the accuracy of Bence and Kilroy and Hart's identification of Lizzie, then that necessarily means Lizzie was able to sneak in and out of the house at 92 Second Street on Wednesday, with no one inside or outside on the street noting it, which then necessarily means an intruder could sneak in and out of that house with no one inside or outside on the street noting it the very next day. So score one for the prosecution AND the defense in one fell swoop. This is how I end up hanging out in 50/50 land!

[camgarsky4]

Teenabee -- here are my thoughts on the issue of not being sighted walking to or from the pharmacy.

To leave the house unnoticed simply meant walking out the door and down the street in a manner that no passerby takes note.

To enter the house would require that same outcome, but in addition, the intruder must somehow breach the multiple locks that secured the house. From my perspective that makes these two activities incomparable.

To our knowledge the occupants of the house before noon on August 3rd were Lizzie, Bridget and Abby. It is well established that Bridget had no job related reason to be in the front portion of the house and Abby rarely had cause to go to the second floor in the front of the house. If the wish was stealth, it would seem quite 'doable' for Lizzie to depart the house via the front door and avoid being detected by an occupant of the house.

As far as why no one was reported to have identified Lizzie walking from her home to pharmacy, there isn't a way to definitely know. Did she wear a veil? Was she lucky? Did she look ahead and take measures to hide her identity?

Similarly, no one reported seeing Andrew walk the morning of August 4th before he arrived at the banks on Main Street. Before that he had to walk several blocks. An early newspaper report states that he got a haircut at Pierre's, but that is not mentioned in testimony or police reports.

At the time of the murders and trial, no one reported seeing Morse walk from the Borden house to the Emery's. Or after he exited the street car and walked down Second St. to the Borden home.

Their movements that morning were probably even more infamous than Lizzie's walk to the pharmacy and yet no one came forward in either case.

When I first realized that D.R. Smith pharmacy was not the closest to the Borden house, I viewed that as a pro-Lizzie finding. Why would she not visit the first pharmacy she come upon. Then I read the Brow quotes and it seemed compelling to me that she would avoid a Brow pharmacy due to the high likelihood of being recognized.

By the way, I definitely believe Lizzie had an active part in the murders, but I now think it very feasible that she had an accomplice with the dirty work....particularly when it came to Andrew.

[TeenaBee]

Camgarsky you just put an entertaining image in my mind of Lizzie, preparing for her covert mission, changing out of the dress Bridget saw her in at breakfast,hiding her face behind a veil, then surreptitiously moving down the street, peeking around corners, making sure no one she knew was around to see her. But you make good points with which I agree, and I do think you are right that Lizzie avoiding the closest pharmacy where she'd more likely to be recognized does tip the balance a bit toward it being she who walked into Smith's. I do believe its very possible Lizzie could come and go from the house with no one inside or outside the wiser, my point was that if she could do it, then an intruder could do it too, and also be able to walk away "in a manner that no passersby take notice." The one advantage Lizzie had was keys to unlock the front door, but if the side screen door was unlocked while Bridget was outside vomiting, then again for another hour while she was outside washing widows,then the intruder wouldn't need a key, just stealth, Well, and an inordinate amount of luck. To me, that would be at least as feasible as Lizzie having an accomplice who was able to escape detection as well. Which I don't rule out either. Hope to learn more of your theories on that!

[camgarsky4]

The New Bedford Standard Times was recently added to the newspaper archives available via newspapers.com. The article below is related to the alleged visit to D.R. Smith's pharmacy by Lizzie. Doesn't really resolve anything, but interesting read.

Keep in mind that the 'sighting' occurred in the same building where Lizzie's attorney, Jennings office was located. Hmmm...

Click on image to enlarge

Screenshot 2025-11-12 094816.png

Screenshot 2025-11-12 094834.png

Screenshot 2025-11-12 094852.png

[TeenaBee]

Oh wow, now THAT is a great find, thank you so much for uploading that! And also interesting that the article implies Jennings was the source of the story. Do you think that means he may have manufactured it, or do you suppose he heard about it from a man in the same building and wanted to use the story as part of his defense of Lizzie? If the latter, then he would just be doing his job, eh? I believe Jennings addressed the Bence allegation at the preliminary hearing opening remarks as a case of "mistaken identity." I have always been disappointed that the prussic testimony was ruled inadmissable because I would have liked to know how Robinson would have addressed it. (And also would have liked to know if those New Bedford pharmacists on the witness list would have claimed she did the same there). It seems Robinson really did believe Lizzie innocent, so would he have hammered on mistaken identity? I think it was Arthur Phillips, the lawyer who assisted her team who wrote years later something to the effect that Lizzie had tried to buy prussic acid "for an innocent purpose?" (Sorry, don't have a source for that, just my memory). Was that just his personal opinion? I can't imagine the defense would have taken that approach when Lizzie had so clearly denied it was she at Smith's that day.

I did find this intriguing bit in an essay by Florence King published in the National Review on August 17, 1992:

"Lizzie looked like everyone else in that inbred Wasp town. New York Sun reporter Julian Ralph wrote during the trial: "By the way, the strangers who are here begin to notice that Lizzie Borden’s face is of a type quite common in New Bedford. They meet Lizzie Borden every day and everywhere about town. Some are fairer, some are younger, some are coarser, but all have the same general cast of features — heavy in the lower face, high in the cheekbones, wide at the eyes, and with heavy lips and a deep line on each side of mouth."

I would be more inclined to believe in the possibility of mistaken identity if only some woman somewhere had come forward to say, oh hey, that was me. But alas....

[camgarsky4]

There is a ton of well researched details about Lizzie's New Bedford trip on the forum. Not sure if you've read all of it, but if not, a good search will stack you up with some fine reading.

Also, Jennings Journals has a very informative interview Phillips & Jennings had with Nancy Pool, whom Lizzie stayed with while in New Bedford.

[Inspector]

Wow, somehow after all these years I thought the Bence sighting was about a week prior to August 4th.
How the court ruled it too remote in time to be admissible is unthinkable, but surely the court knew how it would hurt the defense.
I also thought the chloroform story was a rumor.
Very interesting, I’ll enjoy reading the newspaper articles you posted.

[Inspector]

Hmm.. the article is interesting, but I tend not to associate it with Lizzie, unless it was an attempt to offer her some protection from the Bence story.