OK- Andrew Did It

[Kat]

I was reading Q. Patrick's story, "The Case For Lizzie Or A Theoretical Reconstruction Of The Borden Murders" reprinted in The Pocket Book Of True Crime Stories, edited by Anthony Boucher, 1943.

Jeesh! He convinced me Andrew killed Abbie, made up the note to throw Lizzie off, fumbled at the front door on purpose to give him an alibi about the time he came home, and that Lizzie figured it out and tried to protect him. She acused him by showing him the weapon she found in the barn, they struggled and he was cut badly in the face. She knew by then that Abbie's wounds were many, and by leaving Andrew only with one (from her own self-defense) it would be very suspicious, so she made up for the lack by hitting him 9 more times, presumably after he was already dying.
Lizzie never wanted her father to be known as a murderer so HE was the one she was protecting.

[stuartwsa]

Thanks for sharing that info, Kat. I've been looking for a copy of that for years, to read. Now that I know how dreadful it is, I can cross it off my list!

[Kat]

Oh I liked it!
Listen to this:
Presumably there was strife between Andrew and Abbie. The *poison attempt* was part of this warfare. Except Lizzie, being a daddy's girl, suspected Abbie of the family poisoning, not her father Andrew.
It says:
"A murderer- especially one who intends to use an ax- would hardly walk into into drugstores where she is known and ask for prussic acid. But a daughter, worried for her father's life, might well do a little detective work around town to find out whether her stepmother had been making poisonous purchases."

It explains why Lizzie was asking for poison, to see how easy it might be for Abbie to come by- yet it was really Andrew who was bent on murder.

[Kat]

There's more!

[joe]

There's more!

Did the author offer any "speculative proof", Kat? Or was he just writing a piece of junk in a super market mag like the National Enquirer tends to do?

[1bigsteve]

You mean Arnold Brown wasn't right after all? I'm shocked! Did you hear that RayS? RayS?? RayS??? Now where did he go...

I imagin if we let our imagination run wild we could come up with all sorts of odd theories. Whatever sells books I guess.

-1bigsteve (o:

[DWilly]

Oh I liked it!
Listen to this:
Presumably there was strife between Andrew and Abbie. The *poison attempt* was part of this warfare. Except Lizzie, being a daddy's girl, suspected Abbie of the family poisoning, not her father Andrew.
It says:
"A murderer- especially one who intends to use an ax- would hardly walk into into drugstores where she is known and ask for prussic acid. But a daughter, worried for her father's life, might well do a little detective work around town to find out whether her stepmother had been making poisonous purchases."

It explains why Lizzie was asking for poison, to see how easy it might be for Abbie to come by- yet it was really Andrew who was bent on murder.

I don't know, I have a few questions on this theory.

First off, the claim that "there was strife between Andrew and Abbie." Who said that? What is his source on that? I, myself, do not recall reading that there were problems. Did not Lizzie even say they seemed fine together?


How does he know that the murderer was going to use and axe the whole time? Maybe, Lizzie wanted the poison but, since she could not get it she then turned to the axe. The axe may have been Lizzie's plan B for all we know.

[Allen]

From what I have read of the plot so far, there doesn't seem to be much of the known evidence to back up his claims. What evidence does he offer except speculation? I have never read anything about Andrew and Abby not getting along. I think that after the murders someone would've come forward to say either Andrew or Abby had been buying poison. I think that surely would've been well remembered. Andrew was well known around Fall River.

[Tina-Kate]

Jeesh! He convinced me Andrew killed Abbie, made up the note to throw Lizzie off, fumbled at the front door on purpose to give him an alibi about the time he came home, and that Lizzie figured it out and tried to protect him.

Then how come he asked Lizzie where was Abby & Lizzie then told him about the note?

[Richard]

Here's my theory:

I think Dr. Bowen commited the murders as a radical cure for their food poisoning.

[Harry]

Here's my theory:

I think Dr. Bowen commited the murders as a radical cure for their food poisoning.

LOL Good one, Richard. The cure worked!

[Kat]

Mr. Q. Patrick explains the motive for Andrew to kill Abbie:

"Mr. Borden had reached an age which is sometimes known as male menopause, a period when even the staidest of men are apt to go through a phase of emotional instability. Often this instability manifests itself as an antipathy to the wives of their bosom.
[ I think he's saying Andrew was irritated ]

There were many things about Abby Borden that were antipathetic- her figure, for example, or her cooking. And then she had developed a habit of fussing Mr. Borden into making suitable disposition of his property. This would have been particularly galling to a miser whose heaven was on earth and in the bank and to an agnostic who had little expectations from the future life.

A cynical Frenchman once said: 'Wherever there is marriage, there is a motive for murder.'

This, it seems to me, is especially true of a menage like the Bordens.

And so I believe that for a considerable time Mr. Borden toyed with the idea of murdering his wife. It will be remembered that it was Mr. Borden who 'discovered' the attempted burglary at Number 92. It was Mr. Borden who started the dark rumors- later repeated by Lizzie- of mysterious enemies plotting against his own life and his wife's. I see in this a sly plan to deflect suspicion from a crime he himself was contemplating.

It is also interesting to note that after the most violent bout of sickness which struck the house, Mrs. Borden was certain they had been poisoned. Mr. Borden categorically vetoed her suggestion of visiting a doctor.

Mr. Borden himself appears to have been equally sick at this time. Is not it possible however that he faked his nausea and vomiting? Is not it possible that this was his first, unsuccessful attempt to murder his wife?"

See, Andrew technically has no alibi for Abbie's death. He has *missing time.* It's been claimed, but never proved- or rather never sworn to- that Andrew was shaved. But no barber was called to verify that. No one saw him leave the house. Mrs. Churchill saw him outside around 9 A.M. but did not see him leave. He didn't leave with Morse when he could have. Why didn't he leave with Morse? Lizzie first said Andrew didn't leave until around 10 A.M. Of course we have sworn statements from those who saw him downtown starting around 9:30ish.
Abbie supposedly was not seen after 9 A.M.
And Dr. Phil says there is such a thing as "male menopause."

It's strange how everyone has *missing time*- a good 20 minutes- every one of them!

Are youse guys convinced yet?

[snokkums]

So I guess Andrew killed Abby because of male menopause, and he was irritated at her? Or does the article and writer have another explanation?

[Allen]

Well it's interesting as theories go, but can we support it with any evidence? Or is it another theory such as Browns? I do not remember any evidence that those theories about the Borden's having enemies came from anyone but Lizzie. Where is he getting the notion they came from Andrew? Where is the evidence Abby had been fussing at him to make disposition of his property? As theories go, his speculations are interesting. But so far that seems to be all they are. The reason Andrew didn't leave with Morse could be as simple as he wasn't going to the same destination as Morse, or that he wasn't completely dressed for leaving. How would he have left the house after killing Abby without Bridget seeing him?

[Allen]

Also weren't the two Elder Borden's in Swansea at the time of the robbery? If Andrew were behind the robbery, Lizzie would most likely have been an accessory at least after the fact.

Rebello page 36:

All the articles stolen at that time were property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie had never any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation......"

From New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892 : 4.

[terrie]

I was always troubled by that aspect of the prussic acid story. It seems unlikely to me that Lizzie would so conspicuously bring attention to herslef like that...seeking prussic acid. However, her insistence that she did not seek it despite the testimony of chemists also troubles me.

Kat --- is the autthor saying Andrew was killed in the barn? If so, a thousand problems arise--how to cover or hide the blood, move the body, not disturb anything in the barn....how to eat a pear or two with ones dead father in ones grasp....

[libby]

i'm really inclined to believe the prussic acid story. not only from the testimony of the chemists, but also from the fact that poisoning is such a woman's way to kill. maybe she was aware that, at the time, arsenic was more easily detected forensically.
not to mention the fact that lizzie was dragging around a sealskin cape on a hot summer's day to lend credence to her moth story.

and if she WAS poisoning them with something else that week, it clearly wasn't working as all had survived. and now abby was suspicious. and there may have been other reasons why the deed must be done soon.

after all that, i don't think lizzie was thinking any more clearly than she wanted them dead. she did, after all, move onto plan "b" without putting much planning into her alibi.

just my opinion, of course.

[terrie]

Yes...I think she must have sought the prussic acid. I just can't understand why she would do something so conspicuous and then go for the hatchet so quickly when the acid was unattainable. But I just got up from a nap and my brain isn't running too well. I suppose, if she did it, she did it in a fit of rage and didn't plan on the hatchet...it was just handy. I suppose they could have just as easily been killed with a cast iron skillet or a fire poker... a tool of opportunity.

What is it in me that wants to believe in her innocence so badly?

[Allen]

and now abby was suspicious.

I found this particular statement to be worth exploring a little further. Abby was fearful enough that she was being poison to have gone across the street to visit Dr. Bowen. He calmed her fears by assuring her that it was simply a case of eating bad food. But what if his advice had calmed them only temporarily? Lizzie may have been afraid Abby might start alerting other people. People who might take her a little more seriously? Maybe after being refused sale of the prussic acid Lizzie felt she was forced to go to plan B before Abby attempted to raise the alarm again. On the morning of her death maybe Abby was talking about doing this? Lizzie might also have thought twice about using the poison. If Abby died in this manner after expressing fears to an outside party of just such an occurence, how would that have looked? Or if continued to only make them sick, instead of killing them outright, Abby was more likely to try discount it just being bad food.

[terrie]

Good point, Allen. I would imagine that food prep and keeping was not so hygenic in the time. They must have had many questionable meals and many a gastrointestinal complaint (and cast iron stomaches). Victorians usually didn't flock to seek medical advice. My own parents were raised in the early 1900's and the doctor was a last resort to them, even in the 1990's. For Abby to have sought out the doctor, which was a pretty drastic thing, she must have thought something was seriously wrong...not just *run of the mill* belly aches. (by the way ---ewwwwwww -- what a nasty way to live).

[Allen]

edit.

[Allen]

What is the theory to account for Andrew's missing time?

[Kat]

Any *missing time* theory that would account for where Andrew was from about 9-9:30 would be completely my own.
Some think he went and was shaved at that time.
If Rebello's book is handy, check in the back for his last walk.

Here is my timeline for Andrew from the Preliminary Hearing.
Asfar as I'm concerned, he has 2 *gaps* in time:

[Kat]

Did Andrew see Clegg twice?
Did he return to the bank, as Hart & Burrell thought he did, but did not witness?
Was he shaved during the second gap and was killing Abbie during the first?

[Kat]

Lizzie thought Andrew left around 10 am.
He happens to have a *gap* of time around then. Maybe he slipped home? And left a second time?
She said she had thought he was not gone very long.

[DWilly]

I think that the so called *gap* or missing time may be explained by the fact that the times given by witnesses are all approximate times not exact. There is no telling how many minutes off some of those people were. Also, I do not think most people have a witness to account for every minute of their whereabouts.

[1bigsteve]

Has anyone done a full recreation of the entire events of that August morning, the movements of the people in the house and the known travels of Andrew, all at the same time? I just thought it would be nice to see a full recreation of everyone's known movements in real time. In other words, have "Lizzie," "Bridget" and "Abby" going through all their known movements within and around the house/barn within the known time limits. At the same time that is going on "Andrew" is making his rounds in town, on the same streets, going into the same buildings, staying for the known time and then traveling home again. On a film set each tiny scene is shot independent and out of sequence to other scenes but to have all the "players" in the Borden case doing their own scenes at the same time may give us a better idea as to how events unfolded on that August morning and what kind of gaps are involved. I thought it may give us some ideas.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Allen]

I think that the so called *gap* or missing time may be explained by the fact that the times given by witnesses are all approximate times not exact. There is no telling how many minutes off some of those people were. Also, I do not think most people have a witness to account for every minute of their whereabouts.

I agree on both points DWilly. I also think many of the witnesses did a guesstimation of times. Unless everyone was looking at a clock when they saw him they would have to. So while the timeline gives us an idea of what Andrew did that morning, it's probably not very exact in it's outline. If someone said he stayed for 10 minutes, it might only have been 8 minutes. Or maybe it was actually 15. So even if there are gaps, there probably is no way to be positive of the time frame.

[shakiboo]

I wonder if instead of going around to the side door to get in, if Andrew had gone around to use the out house? He wasn't feeling well so maybe he went there first, instead of trying to get in the house.........just a thought

[bobarth]

Or to the barn to throw the lock in the box with the other junk.

[Allen]

That's possible. If he was feeling ill he might have gone to the privy, or just to the back yard, to vomit. Did they ever find the lock? I cannot remember if it was ever accounted for during the investigation.

[Kat]

We've got a kind of gap of 10 minutes that can account for what you'all are getting at about witnesses and times: ie: between meeting Burrell & meeting Cook.
That sounds reasonable.
But the gap between when Cook saw Andrew and Clegg saw Andrew is 25 minutes.
If one makes their own timeline it is more convincing.

So there is the approximate gap also of 30 minutes at the beginning of Andrew's sojourn downtown.
2 gaps equaling 55 minutes I don't think can be brushed aside without further study.
(We can grant the time it takes to walk downtown and walk home from Spring- maybe 10 minutes total? We've walked the last section and it's really about 3 minutes, but allow for Andrew's age...)- that's still 45 minutes.

[Allen]

The Witness Statements page 30, August 7, 1892, from the notes of William H. Medley:

Edith Francis, clerk for C. C. Cook makes the following statement. " I happened to be looking out of the window of our office in Mr. Borden's Block on South Main street Thursday Morning, shortly after 10'oclock; and saw Mr. Borden going south on So. Main street, walking on the East side of the street. He looked up at the building, but kept right on. He was alone at the time."

[Allen]

If Andrew killed Abby what did he do with his bloody clothing? Lizzie would then have two sets of bloody clothing to hide from the police search. If he hid the axe in such an obvious place, without washing the blood off, Bridget might then have found it also since she was going back and forth to the barn for water. Or caught him in the act of trying to hide it. If Lizzie found a bloody axe in the barn, and was thinking Abby was out, what made her connect it to Abby? The blood could've been from a farm animal. Did she then go upstairs and find the body? If he had washed it she may not have thought anything of it at all until it was too late. Or if she found the body first without any evidence of who did it, why didn't she raise the alarm?

Why didn't anyone come forward to say Andrew J. Borden had been buying poison, especially after it came out that Abby had visited Dr. Bowen? Someone came forward to say Lizzie had been trying to buy poison without even first knowing about the doctor visit, or Lizzie's story about Andrew Borden's "supposed" enemies. Why nothing about Andrew?

Where is the evidence that Andrew and Abby were not getting along? We have plenty of statements made to the effect that the girls and Abby did not get along. Why nothing about Andrew and Abby? How could he commit a "robbery" from the farm in Swansea? Why if he committed the robbery, were there people who said they received those stolen tickets from Lizzie?

Why did Lizzie[ tell Andrew and Bridget that Abby had gotten a note?

If Andrew killed Abby, he'd have to get up to his room, change clothing, hide the bloody clothing, hide the axe in the barn, and all without being seen by Lizzie who claimed she was in the kitchen. Or Bridget who was outside washing the windows. If Lizzie had been anywhere else in the house, especially in her room, she still should've seen or heard Andrew at some point. The key to get into his room was kept on the mantle in the sitting room. None of that makes any kind of sense to me.