Mythology and Must Knows

[Lorcan]

I'll start the list. It's sometimes hard to determine which section a topic should go under, but here's a start:

Must Knows and Myths

Myths

1. Lizzie was wearing a time-consuming Victorian dress during the time of the murders.
False, she was wearing a skirt and matching blouse, which can be changed in under 3 minutes.

2. Lizzie had no blood on her.
False, she had a 1.6mm droplet, consistent with medium velocity blood spatter from a hatchet, hammer, knife, etc. The common range of medium velocity blood spatter is 1mm - 3mm, and for a gravity drop, 4mm+.

3. Lizzie would have been covered in blood and didn't have time to clean up in the narrow window between when Andrew could have been killed and when she reported the crime.
False on many levels:
a. The number of blood droplets on the walls, ceiling, door, bedspread etc. were counted and detailed in the trial. The killer would likely have had some droplets that hit them, they would not have been covered in blood.
b. For Abby, Lizzie had plenty of time to clean up, for Andrew, if she wore one of the handkerchiefs she was ironing or a sleeping bonnet (common in that era) and used her father's overcoat, and possibly wore gloves, she would only have to clean the blood spattering off her face and hands, which could have been done in the adjacent kitchen in well under 1 minute.

4. There was only 1 pharmacy that was prepared to testify, with 3 witnesses, that they saw and/or heard Lizzie trying to buy prussic acid (containing cyanide) and Eli Bence can't be trusted.
False, there were 3 pharmacies on the prosecution's witness list, DR Smith in Fall River, where Eli Bence worked, and 2 other pharmacies in New Bedford, where Lizzie had been shopping alone for 90 minutes shortly before the murders.

5. Uncle John had too perfect an alibi because he remembered the street car conductor's bad number, the name of every priest, etc.
False, most of the mythology is from a book written decades after the crimes by a relative of the person involved in the case. The rest of the mythology comes from other sources. None of this was introduced by the prosecution nor the defense.

6. Dr. Bowen was at the Emery's house on Weybosset Street and his presence calls into question John Morse's alibi.
False, according to Andrew Jennings' notes (as published in The Jennings Journals by the Fall River Historical Society) Dr. Bowen was SW of the Borden house at 11, not 1.1 miles East NE on Weybosset Street. Two of John's relatives, the downstairs tenant, and a streetcar conductor support John's alibi for Andrew's murder. As for Abby, you'd have to come up with a way for John to get back into a locked house and not be seen.

Must Knows

1. There was city water turned on for the kitchen, cellar, and barn, along with a flush toilet in the basement.

2. The Borden house was neither small nor inexpensive. Each of the 4 floors was 1269 sq. ft. so the living area (minus basement) was 3,807 sq. ft. and with the basement, 5076 sq. ft. plus a two story barn. Andrew paid $10,000 for it in 1872, and Lizzie and Emma bought Maplecroft for $13,000 in 1893.

3. Andrew paid for Emma to attend college and sent Lizzie on a 19-week tour of Europe.

4. The Fourth Street property that was given to Abby (for her half-sister's family use) was less than 1/2 of 1% of Andrew's net worth. He had been married to Abby for decades, so I propose it wasn't the dollar value that upset Emma and Lizzie, it was both the secrecy and perceived loss of influence with Andrew, since he agreed to keep it secret from his daughters.

[Lorcan]

Must Knows

5. When investigating historical mysteries, including cold cases, it is very common for investigators to get so emotionally attached to their theories and the people they have come to know, that even carefully worded theories and speculation can cause someone to have a significant negative reaction and feel like they are the one being personally attacked. Be prepared for it, it's just human nature, and I haven't found any topic where this does not happen.

6. Expect to eventually have a bit of exhaustion explaining the common misconceptions and myths and have to step away from the case for a bit or just get burned out a bit by the topic. New insights become increasingly enjoyable when you think you have seen just about all the evidence and then some new way of looking at it or some new link or insight, even if speculative, sparks a mini-investigation.

[Lorcan]

For clarity, my comment about the risks in 5 and 6 don't really apply to our tiny group on this forum, but overall to the general field of cold cases and historical investigation. Specifically, 3 separate Wild West history groups fell out and broke up, usually instigated by believers in Brushy Bill, the same sort of thing happened with Jack the Ripper with the anti-Lechmere crowd.

I think the Lizzie investigators tend to be older, calmer, and more friendly. It's too bad a lot of the historical mysteries are mostly to do with murders, but when you go back to the mystery genre: Sherlock, Poirot, Marple, etc. that's where the real mysteries tend to be.

[camgarsky4]

4. The Fourth Street property that was given to Abby (for her half-sister's family use) was less than 1/2 of 1% of Andrew's net worth. He had been married to Abby for decades, so I propose it wasn't the dollar value that upset Emma and Lizzie, it was both the secrecy and perceived loss of influence with Andrew, since he agreed to keep it secret from his daughters.

A little more information to go with this comment. In 1887, when the Fourth Street drama occurred, Andrew had not yet begun construction on the A.J. Borden Building (1888/89), nor had he purchased the Birch properties on South Main Street (1891). These two projects made up a sizable share of his total portfolio at the time of his death.
I suspect Andrew only 'caved' to the sister's grievance after he tired of the distraction and wanted to put his full focus on his upcoming A.J. Borden Building project.
I think the sisters were just a standard pair of 'run of the mill' greedy daughters. Their father could have given the Abby's family a doghouse for free and they would have felt they had been pickpocketed of 'their' money.

[Lorcan]

Regarding the Ferry Street house, do you think Andrew was trying to teach his daughters a lesson about just how much hard work is involved in owning and managing a rental property?

[camgarsky4]

I don't think so. He really didn't own many residential rentals, and he wasn't about to hand over a commercial property.

Based on the Fall River City Directories, the sisters enjoyed very stable occupancy at 12 Ferry...basically zero turnover. How difficult could repairs be in a structure that didn't have electricity (it did have city water) and probably simple sewage solutions. I highly doubt Andrew would do any random carpentry repairs himself, but he could readily provide the sisters recommended professionals to handle needed work.

I think it was the simplest property to give them.

[trojanusc]

1. I don't think anyone needs to argue that Lizzie was wearing some elaborate evening gown that required a team of servants to remove. But saying she could change a skirt and blouse in under three minutes is also an assumption. More importantly, what about the other layers of clothing? Petticoats, stockings, etc.? And if we're suggesting she changed after the murders, what exactly did she change out of? Bridget did not testify to observing a change of clothing between Andrew's arrival and the post-murder sightings. If Lizzie did change, where did those garments go, and why was no bloodstained clothing ever recovered?

2. Yes, there was a tiny bloodstain, approximately 1/16 of an inch in diameter. But it was found on a white underskirt, not on the exterior of her dress. Professor Wood testified that he couldn't determine whether it was menstrual blood. So how do we get from that to confidently identifying it as medium-velocity impact spatter from a hatchet? The diameter of a single stain doesn't establish how it got there, particularly on fabric. You're taking an unexplained spot of blood and assigning it a very specific origin that the evidence simply doesn't establish. Unless there's some dark secret we don't know about, Lizzie was a menstruating woman, and finding a tiny spot of blood on an underskirt is hardly extraordinary.

3. I agree that the killer wouldn't necessarily have been covered head to toe in blood. But there's a considerable difference between that and suggesting that a person could strike Andrew repeatedly with a hatchet, remove an overcoat, gloves, and a bonnet, dispose of or conceal those items, inspect themselves for blood, wash their face and hands, and appear completely presentable within minutes. And all of this supposedly happened without leaving any incriminating clothing behind. It's possible to construct that scenario, but calling the time constraints a "myth" because you've imagined a way around them seems rather backwards. There's also no evidence that Lizzie actually wore any of these protective garments. The house was searched repeatedly, and no such bloodstained garments were recovered.

4. I think this is a particularly misleading distinction. The fact that two additional New Bedford pharmacists appeared on the prosecution's witness list doesn't establish that Lizzie visited either pharmacy, much less that she attempted to purchase poison. We have the allegations involving Bence and the other witnesses at Smith's pharmacy, which Lizzie denied. The New Bedford allegations are a separate matter, and we don't have sworn trial testimony establishing what those pharmacists actually witnessed. A proposed witness is not the same thing as proven corroboration. There's also historical reporting about a police inspector's wife being identified in connection with another attempted poison purchase, as well as accounts of women being sent into pharmacies to test whether poison could be purchased without a prescription. I haven't been able to conclusively verify the latter as an organized sting operation, but it certainly raises questions about treating every alleged poison inquiry as evidence against Lizzie.

5 and 6. John Morse. Here I think you're on considerably firmer ground.

[camgarsky4]

If you search this forum you'll find considerable information concerning the various aspects of the Pharmacies and pharmacists in New Bedford. Once you have an opportunity to do that, we can dive into any specific factors you'd like.

To your observation about the 'sting' operation that was reportedly occurring in Fall River pharmacies. The Borden case was a national sensation...to call it huge in Bristol County and Massachusetts would be an understatement. The sting was reported in the newspapers; the claims by Bence, et al were reported everywhere. If Bence's shopper was an undercover 'agent', they would have been there at the direction of law enforcement. Marshall Hilliard would have approved any state or county law enforcement efforts within the city limits. I imagine he would have confirmed that the D.R. Smith shopper wasn't part of the sting operation.

[Lorcan]

I really didn't just make up that 3 minute time. Shelley Dzidzig and I think maybe Rebecca Pittman and one other woman (if my memory is correct, it was over a year ago) were discussing Shelley's book, Dressing Miss Lizzie, and to the best of my recollection, Shelley was able to change every type of clothing Lizzie testified to wearing in under 3 minutes (a skirt and blouse, a wrapper) and people saw her in (also, I think they were describing a skirt and blouse, referred to as a dress back then, even when 2 separate pieces).

I don't believe Lizzie changed anything other than the top layer, since the blood droplet was found on the outside of her underskirt, 1.6mm. That is within the range of medium velocity blood spatter 1mm - 3mm and outside the starting range of a gravity drop 4mm, but as was pointed out to me, a sub-droplet or a splash of a gravity drop can be in the 1.6mm range. When blood lands on cloth like the skirt it wicks even larger, which puts an un-splashed gravity drop even further out of range. The placement is also - if she was wearing the rear centerline in the position of her body's rear centerline, at about her left calf. We don't know that for sure, but again, it is consistent with what would be expected with the leg movements counterbalancing overhead hatchet strikes while straddling Abby's back. So, I'm not saying it's confirmed, but it is 100% consistent with the weapon used and the body position Lizzie would have been in if she is the culprit.

As for the coat, this is much more of a gut feeling. Do I really think Andrew has the personality to roll up his overcoat as a pillow? Absolutely not. Would it be effective if Lizzie wore it as a shield. I think it would and it would even protect her hands as Andrew was 5' 10", I think, and Lizzie about 5' 4". The handkerchiefs were readily available, as were leather gloves, waterproof wipeable raincoats, and sleeping bonnets. I don't think it is far fetched for Lizzie or anyone else who killed Abby to be a bit more careful the next time as far as shielding themselves from blood spatter.

I disagree with you on 4 because I don't think Knowlton and Moody would have those pharmacies on the witness list unless they thought they were relevant. Some people may disagree on Knowlton' and Moody's professional ethics and we can agree to disagree. For me, the trust is trusting Knowlton and Moody. I don't have any more information, but Camgarsky may have a bit more of the specifics of those pharmacies. I believe he was involved in a thread where the walking routes and maps of where Lizzie was staying are all laid out. I think the evidence is worth looking at.

Please continue to push back. It really helps. I'll try to keep an open mind on everything.

[trojanusc]

Thanks to both of you. First, I appreciate the clarification about the clothing experiment, and I don't doubt that someone could change a skirt and blouse in under three minutes. But changing clothes isn't really my objection. It's everything else Lizzie supposedly accomplished after Andrew's murder: removing potentially bloodstained garments without transferring blood, cleaning herself, dealing with the weapon, and concealing the evidence, all within minutes. And Bridget never testified to seeing Lizzie change clothes between Andrew's arrival and the discovery of his body, so I'm not sure what the experiment establishes.

I'm particularly unconvinced by the blood droplet argument. How do we even know it was spatter? We're talking about a single 1.6mm spot on absorbent fabric, not a pattern of bloodstains. Fabric absorbs and spreads liquid, and a small stain could result from an ordinary drop or contact with blood. Professor Wood couldn't even rule out menstrual blood as the source. So how are we getting from one tiny, unidentified stain to Lizzie straddling Abby and counterbalancing hatchet blows? The stain may be compatible with your reconstruction, but there's no basis for identifying it as impact spatter, much less using it to establish Lizzie's position during the murder.

As for Andrew's overcoat, I'm not sure his personality tells us much about whether he'd use it as a pillow. And while bonnets, gloves, and raincoats certainly existed, their availability doesn't establish that Lizzie wore them. Each additional garment may explain the absence of blood, but introduces another item that had to be removed and accounted for. And we still have the weapon. If the handleless hatchet was used, how was it cleaned so thoroughly? If it wasn't, how did another bloodstained weapon disappear?

On the pharmacies, I don't question that Knowlton and Moody considered the New Bedford witnesses potentially relevant. But inclusion on a prosecution witness list doesn't establish that Lizzie visited those pharmacies, much less attempted to purchase poison. I'd be interested in what those witnesses actually claimed rather than inferring the significance of their testimony from their inclusion on a list.

Regarding the reported sting, I'm not suggesting Bence's customer necessarily was an undercover shopper. But we can't rule it out simply because we assume Hilliard would have known about the operation and corrected the record. That's speculation about what law enforcement would have done, not evidence of what happened. Do we have documentation identifying the women involved in the sting or excluding Bence's customer?

As I've said, I don't necessarily disagree that Lizzie is the most plausible suspect. Frankly, I have a hard time believing she knew absolutely nothing about what happened, even if she didn't wield the hatchet herself. But consider what we're being asked to accept. Within minutes of brutally murdering her father, Lizzie supposedly removed bloodstained protective clothing without contaminating herself or her surroundings, cleaned herself (without the convenience of a sink with a mirror), cleaned or concealed a bloody weapon, disposed of or hid everything incriminating, and calmly summoned Bridget, leaving no identifiable evidence of any of it. And this is after supposedly committing another hatchet murder earlier that morning. There's no evidence of the protective garments, no evidence of the cleanup, and no established hiding place for the weapon. Every logistical problem seems to be resolved by introducing another assumption for which there's no independent support. At what point are we no longer reconstructing what the evidence tells us, but inventing an increasingly elaborate series of events to explain why the evidence isn't there?

[camgarsky4]

The official court documents do not provide a solution to the crimes. All we can do is look for related breadcrumbs and attempt to interpret and 'connect the dots' in a balanced, thoughtful manner.

Here are a few more tidbits on why I dismiss the sting operation.
Knowlton continued to pursue introducing the testimony of Bence, Kilroy and Hart in the trial 10 months after the murders. Jennings Journals (Jennings & Phillips case journals) make no mention of a sting operation possibly explaining Bence's claim. Robinson never uttered a word about it. The lawyers argued extensively about the admissibility of the testimony, but never once did Robinson declare that it was proven by law enforcement that the shopper was not Lizzie. In Phillips "History of Fall River", published in the 1940's, Phillips basically concedes that Lizzie visited the pharmacy, and he definitely doesn't mention proof that she didn't.

The 'sting' operation was mentioned in a single brief news snippet in the early days of the news coverage.

If all of that anecdotal information doesn't satisfy your opinion about the sting operation, then it is just one of those 'we agree to disagree'.

Regarding the matter of Lizzie visiting a pharmacy (or two) in New Bedford, there are relatively extensive amounts of information which suggest that she did visit these shops. Sorry to repeat the earlier note, but have you read all the previous research and thoughts on this topic on this forum?

[Inspector]

In this forum there are the names of the husband and wife team that “supposedly “ performed the sting operation of which Hilliard was aware.
The wife’s description was unlike Lizzie.
So even if the operation did happen, it’s not necessarily good for Lizzie.