Do I think Lizzies guilty?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:56 am

Just curious. How many people think beyond doubt that Lizzie is guilty. I am torn between that yes she is and that I don't think she is totally innocent. I th ink if nothing else she had blood on her hands. She hired the person or she killed them herself or she knew who did it and kept her mouth shut. Maybe she was being blackmailed into keeping her mouth shut.

Chichibcc · Post by **Chichibcc** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:00 pm

I've always thought she has been, from when I first started learning about this case-there were two scenes in "The Legend of Lizzie Borden (1975) that almost made me change my mind, but I still feel the same way.

Even if she wasn't the actual killer, I believe she at least knew who was.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:26 am

I know , if nothing else, she at least knew.But I think she was invovled either by doing the deed herself or hiring someone to do it for her. I mean, back then, well brought up young ladies don't get blood on them. But she might have been so frustrated and angry that she really did do the deed. I guess we'll never know.

Chichibcc · Post by **Chichibcc** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:38 pm

It looks like Lizzie took that secret to her grave, unfortunately.....and she also got lucky that whoever else that she may have gotten involved had enough sense to keep their mouth shut, which doesn't always happen in situations like this.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:23 am

Yeah gives new meaning to the statement that I have always heard that New Englanders are very tight lipped. If she was in on the murders with someone else, she never let on who it was. Even went to trial for the person.

Chichibcc · Post by **Chichibcc** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:34 pm

I'm still appalled by the fact that she said that no one who worked for her father was responsible-when, ironically, those are the first people who would typically be looked at by a relative of a murder victim. That in itself tells me she definitely knew who was responsible, if she wasn't the one that committed the crime.

Chichibcc · Post by **Chichibcc** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:41 pm

oops...did a double post

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:07 pm

It would have been very difficult for anyone else to have slipped into that house unseen. How could an intruder know where the neighbors were every second, or who might have been peeking from a window, or whatnot ? Bridget could have been in on the killings, but I will always believe that Lizzie was involved, big time. I try to understand what drove her to murder that day. The fact that she and Bridget escaped being killed rules out "the roving maniac theory," at least to my way of thinking.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:48 am

That's been my take on it too, anyone so far gone mentally to walk in and out of the Borden house in broad daylight wouldn't have stopped with just Andrew and Abby. It defies reason to expect that someone could be careful and quiet enough to avoid being seen or heard by anyone while inside the house, and careless enough to simply walk in and out of the house, running a substantial risk of being seen.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:32 pm

I forget the timeline on Bridget's conversation with the Kelley's maid. Lizzie may have glanced out to see what Bridget was up to, and figured that she had at least a few minutes to attend to details. I can recall my female realtive's body language when they got together. I thought "I may as well get my coloring book, this is going to be a long hen session." A full coffee table was good for at least an hour. If they took off their shoes, add another 20 minutes.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:47 am

I think because Bridget was outdoors and the windows were shut while Abby was in the guest room were reasons enough right at that moment. Lizzie might not have known how well the sound of 200 pounds falling to the floor would carry throughout the house. She might have been aware of how far a loud shout might carry and from where it could and could not be heard. The only location for Bridget which was more remote would have been in the barn, and it would have been impossible to time that correctly while Abby was still in the guest room.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:08 pm

And Bridget generally had no reason to saunter upstairs in the front of the house. Lizzie could see from Emma's room, her own room, the guest room, and dress closet, (if it had a window). I envisioned her watching her father, and Uncle John leaving separately. Could she have gone back upstairs after asking her father to mail a letter to Emma ? I haven't stored all of the details in my head, and my books are packed out in the shed. With the 2 men gone, and Bridget occupied in the heat, Lizzie could set her ambush, or perhaps Lizzie and Abby had a verbal exchange that led to the first murder. If the sun came up in back of the house it would have been very hot, even in the morning. I can see Lizzie getting ticked off by a sick maids being told to wash so many windows by a woman she despised. And maybe whacking a man who killed her pigeons wasn't a tall order, either. Andrew may have been drifting into left field, and Lizzie just didn't know the guy any more. "YOU killed my pigeons!" The tale leaves a great deal of leeway for bizarre conjecture.

kssunflower · Post by **kssunflower** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:15 am

stargazer wrote: I can see Lizzie getting ticked off by a sick maids being told to wash so many windows by a woman she despised.

Or suggesting to Abby the windows needed some attention to get Bridget out of the house.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:21 am

snokkums wrote:I know , if nothing else, she at least knew.But I think she was invovled either by doing the deed herself or hiring someone to do it for her. I mean, back then, well brought up young ladies don't get blood on them. But she might have been so frustrated and angry that she really did do the deed. I guess we'll never know.

The number of blows Abby received indicates rage, it was overkill. I can't imagine anyone hired for the task being angry enough at Abby to strike her repeatedly when just one well placed blow might accomplish the task.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:30 pm

I've always believed Lizzie did it. I think she got away with the perfect murder only because nobody wanted to believe a woman of her standing could have done something like that.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:48 pm

Had Lizzie been convicted, and sent to a mental institution, wouldn't Emma have been running the family business ? Did many people owe $$$ to Andrews estate ? Was Lizzie possibly a better businesswoman than Emma ? Emma did eventually move away. Perhaps she figured that Lizzie did kill her parents, and maybe ol Em didn't want to wake up dead one cold morning.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:37 am

If Lizzie had been convicted of first degree murder she would have been executed, the death sentence was mandatory at that time. In order to be sent to a mental institution, Lizzie would have had to plead guilty by reason of insanity. The defense was offered the opportunity for the insanity plea, but they turned it down, probably because she would have to say she was guilty. Emma would have inherited the entire estate if Lizzie had been found guilty in any capacity because a person can't benefit from their wrongdoing. If I'm not mistaken, Emma's estate was the larger of the two at the time of her death, but it may not have had much to do with her business acumen, she may have spent less freely than Lizzie.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:33 pm

Yooper wrote:The number of blows Abby received indicates rage, it was overkill. I can't imagine anyone hired for the task being angry enough at Abby to strike her repeatedly when just one well placed blow might accomplish the task.

I agree, Jeff. I also feel that the number of blows Andrew received was overkill - granted it was not the vicious rage displayed in the number of blows Abby received, but overkill just the same. The physical evidence just does not add up for these two people to have been killed by someone for hire or an intruder.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:58 pm

I think that we discussed the possibilities had Bridget not gone up to her room. What if she had insisted on puttering in the kitchen, and singing up a happy tune ? (hypermanic maid)
"she'll be comin' around the mountain when she comes.. come on Miss Lizzie sing with me..." Maybe Lizzie would have to have sent her to the store, or something ? Give her an xtra buck.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:34 am

If Bridget sang the "Anvil Chorus" from "Il Trovatore", Lizzie could have kept time with the hatchet.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:55 pm

I love your dark humor, Jeff. We could do a whole list of possible songs relating to the Situation in the Borden House. "The Woman Who Chopped Andrew Valance" "Hang Down Your Head, Liz Borden" "Time Waits For No One" "Tallahatchet Bridge" OK..I'll stop now. I need a rice cake. Too warm for Johnny Cakes.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:26 pm

Yooper wrote:If Lizzie had been convicted of first degree murder she would have been executed, the death sentence was mandatory at that time. In order to be sent to a mental institution, Lizzie would have had to plead guilty by reason of insanity. The defense was offered the opportunity for the insanity plea, but they turned it down, probably because she would have to say she was guilty. Emma would have inherited the entire estate if Lizzie had been found guilty in any capacity because a person can't benefit from their wrongdoing. If I'm not mistaken, Emma's estate was the larger of the two at the time of her death, but it may not have had much to do with her business acumen, she may have spent less freely than Lizzie.

I have always wondered why the defense didn't take the insanity plea. To go to trial and plead not guilty is really a crap shoot. Luckily, she was found not guilty but who knows, she might have been found guilty.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:08 pm

I think a plea of not guilty was probably worth the chance taken. If she plead guilty by reason of insanity, she would have been locked away for who knows how long? I don't know whether she could have inherited anything from Andrew under those circumstances. The not guilty plea should have been a 50/50 chance, but with the prevailing public attitude of avoiding the execution of women, her chances were much improved.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:00 pm

I don't think the evidence was there for the jurors to find her guilty. There was too many things that could cause a doubt, and it's still there even today. She probably did it, but mostly because there wasn't any one else available, as far as we know, who could have done it. As far as hanging a woman, they had no problem hanging the woman involved with the Lincoln assasination, and she wasn't even that deeply involved.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:17 pm

Abraham Lincoln is a bit removed from Andrew and Abby Borden as is Washington D.C. from Fall River, Mass. Robert Sullivan cited some interesting information concerning the death penalty in Massachusetts. It seems the categorization of degrees of murder is the direct result of the impossibility of sending a woman to the gallows regardless of guilt. Second degree murder carried a maximum life sentence, and the public was content with that.

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:24 pm

I have never thought Lizzie, herself, committed the murders... but, after having visited the house, I am convinced that she must have known who did. My niece, who visited the house with me, is convinced that Lizzie is totally guilty and "swung the hatchet" herself.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:43 am

I definitely believe Lizzie did it. There has never been a doubt in my mind.

RichardX · Post by **RichardX** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:42 pm

Allen wrote:I definitely believe Lizzie did it. There has never been a doubt in my mind.

I tend to agree. There really is no other explanation that fits the facts. Like Lee Harvey Oswald carrying "curtain rods" into work on Nov. 22 - the circumstances just doesn't add up to the actions of an innocent person. However, from a legal perspective I think the jury verdict is likely correct if that's the question. All the circumstances do point to Lizzie: motive, means and opportunity. However, the evidence presented against her did not rise to beyond a reasonable doubt. No murder weapon or blood on her. No one to confirm a specific motive or that there was any bad blood (so to speak) within the family. With that said, I'm still 99.9% certain that she did it. Why is the more interesting question to me.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:35 pm

RichardX wrote:
Allen wrote:I definitely believe Lizzie did it. There has never been a doubt in my mind.
I tend to agree. There really is no other explanation that fits the facts. Like Lee Harvey Oswald carrying "curtain rods" into work on Nov. 22 - the circumstances just doesn't add up to the actions of an innocent person. However, from a legal perspective I think the jury verdict is likely correct if that's the question. All the circumstances do point to Lizzie: motive, means and opportunity. However, the evidence presented against her did not rise to beyond a reasonable doubt. No murder weapon or blood on her. No one to confirm a specific motive or that there was any bad blood (so to speak) within the family. With that said, I'm still 99.9% certain that she did it. Why is the more interesting question to me.

I think the reasons as to why the evidence against didn't hold up in court was because of lousy police work.I mean, everybody knew where Bridget was at, her alibi checked, people saw her.The police should have dont a more thorough job, and they didn't. Come on, she was the only one in the house with motive, opportunity and the means.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:47 pm

I have always felt that Lizzie was either the killer or she worked with the killer. I don't see how anyone could have entered the house and done those two killings so far apart without being seen or heard. I just don't see how that could have been done.

Lizzie and Emma were the only ones, as far as I know, who could have benefited from their deaths. What killer would hide 90 minutes between killings unless there was something in it for him? The main problem I have about Lizzie acting alone is "where did she hide the weapon?" If it was a meat cleaver she could have cleaned it and returned it to it's place, "hidding in plain sight." If it was a hatchet she may have had a prearranged hidding place for it, a place no one would think to look. It's a real puzzle.

-1bigsteve (o:

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:42 am

That's the most likely explanation for the lack of a viable murder weapon, a prearranged hiding place. Wherever that was, it worked well! I expect it was hidden well enough to prevent detection by the authorities while they searched for it, then disposed of afterward in some manner. Another possibility is that it was moved several times while the search was on, one step ahead of the police, but that would have been a bit of a chance!
We have to be careful with assumptions; because the police didn't find a murder weapon doesn't imply a murder weapon wasn't present, it only implies they didn't find one. If we believe Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew with a hatchet and had no opportunity to dispose of the hatchet, then it must necessarily have been somewhere in the house and the police simply didn't find it. Were the objects taken during the daylight robbery ever recovered? There may have been a good hiding place for those items, too!

RichardX · Post by **RichardX** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:01 pm

I seem to recall reading in the "Knowlton Papers" about a "glint" like material being found in Andrew's wounds. The prosecution apparently never revealed this at trial because it was evidence that the murder weapon was a new or unused hatchet and not the broken one that they offered as the potential murder weapon. If the murder weapon was new and not something found lying around the house or barn, it might be some evidence of planning on Lizzie's part. For example Lizzie might have stolen it from a local store for that purpose. If so, it's likely she would have given some thought to the means of disposal beforehand.

However, there is also the question of why she would bother to hide the murder weapon at all. She could just as easily have left it in plain sight as it would be difficult to associate a murder weapon such as an ordinary hatchet with her even if it were found on the floor next to Andrew. An intruder could have just as easily brought it into the house or found it laying around as she could. Hiding it would be risky because if it were found hidden that would point directly to someone in the house. An outsider fleeing the scene would be unlikely to take the time to hide the hatchet. They would either take it with them (maybe under their coat) or just drop it to avoid being seen on the street. They would get out of there as quickly as possible. The only person who would hide it is someone with knowledge of the house who wanted to make it look as though an intruder took the weapon. Therefore, finding it hidden in the house would have been substantial evidence against Lizzie - particularly if it were hidden upstairs or in the basement where it's unlikely an outside killer would have ventured after killing Andrew. Logic says an outsider would have beat it straight for the door after killing Andrew and finding the hatchet hidden within the house would point straight to Lizzie or Bridget.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:22 pm

The material found in the skull wounds was gilt metal, a type of foil used as a sort of decal on metal parts. I've seen it used on axes specifically, it wears off as the hatchet or axe is used. The skulls were boiled to remove the flesh and likely scraped or abraded further as a part of the process. I'm not sure if gilt metal on bone would survive the process. It may have gotten there as a result of attempting to fit various hatchets to the wounds sometime after the murders.

I agree, the lack of a murder weapon is very telling. It implies that either the weapon was carried off by an "intruder" or it was hidden within the house. For the hatchet to be carried off, we have to accept the intruder scenario with all of the attendant inconsistencies as fact. The alternative is to accept that someone put the hatchet somewhere on the premises where the police didn't look. A third option is to accept the handleless hatchet as the murder weapon, which also falls under hiding the hatchet on the premises.

An intruder carrying a hatchet off the premises undetected tends to imply an intruder carrying a hatchet onto the premises, also undetected. However, if we accept the concept of this phantom intruder, arriving and leaving undetected, then he might as well have been carrying the hatchet in his teeth because undetected is undetected! I agree, leaving the hatchet behind was the most likely possibility for an intruder, so a missing murder weapon strongly indicates a hidden hatchet and an inside job.

RichardX · Post by **RichardX** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:53 pm

That seems like a fairly important point. If a "new" or "unused" ax was used it may eliminate those found in the Borden household. And point to a weapon procured by the murderer for the crime. I don't recall if any new axes or hatchets were found in the Borden household. If not, why would the authorities test whether such a weapon would fit the wounds? I would lean toward the "glit" material coming from the murder weapon in the absence of any specific evidence that they actually used a newer hatchet to match the wounds.

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:10 pm

Lizzie may have indeed struck with a new hatchet, one which she could have obtained in New Bedford, anonymously, or on five-finger discount in Fall River, as the Liz Montgomery movie depicts.

Here's the rub: Did Lizzie obtain the hatchet, say, in New Bedford, for chopping wood at Marion (as may have been indicated in the letter to Lizzie Johnston, as press leaks of the day would have it), and LATER decide it would make a handy-dandy murder weapon, or:

Did she obtain the hatchet specifically to commit the murders?

It would make sense that she struck with a new hatchet, so it could not be matched, somehow, to the Cellar Collection of Borden tools, implements, pick-me-up's, and general detritus.

And, it would be nice and sharp at that.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************

I'll never forget the psychic who had the vision of a man bringing the murder weapon into the house, then seeing the pic of Uncle John in the B&B and freaking-- "That's the man who brought the hatchet in, at the side door."

For Lizzie to use, that is.

Of course, JVM says he brought nothing, but he could have packed an ostrich-feather-trimmed dressing gown, for all we will ever know.

As for all the JVM defenders, I say: "Blood is thicker than water." Maybe he thought his late sister's children should inherit, not their stepmother. Maybe he had a payoff. Sure he had five grand in the bank. Emma probably had as much, if not more. Lizzie had twenty-five hundred. So, so what? Five grand ain't the same as ten grand, or twenty.

(Gee, you'd think Emma, Lizzie, and Uncle John would all be happy with what they had-- not.)

Anyway: It's a possibility, and, as such, it should not be ruled out by those who are in total sympathy with him, for whatever reason.

In solving a case in the Sherlockian fashion, eliminate the impossible.

Not the possible.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:20 pm

Perhaps another perspective on John Morse, he may have been seen by Lizzie as a bit of an embarrassment. He was an eccentric farmer, not necessarily someone a social climbing young woman needed as a credential. We can't underestimate the part played by the perception of social status in this case. Lizzie took the Borden name far more seriously than Andrew did, and the prospect of wealth and the social standing of the Borden name in Fall River are key elements, in my opinion. The motive for the murders was ultimately money in an overly simplistic sense, but power and control were the core issues. The money was important as a means to an end, that of establishing a niche for Lizzie high up in the Fall River social hierarchy. I'm hoping the new book Parallel Lives will deal with the social stratification present at the time. The upper classes at that time were divided between the Nouveau Riche, or newly rich, and the Old Money groups. The Borden name suggested old money, and that was where the real power was found socially.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:35 pm

You know, you may be on to something here, Jeff. The thought of Uncle John being a bit of an embarrassment to Lizzie, never crossed my mind. If I remember correctly, Lizzie didn’t have much to do with Uncle John, before or after the murders. Wasn’t it Emma to kept in touch with him?

I have always thought that social status was a priority in not only Lizzie’s life, but Emma's as well. Although, I believe, Lizzie was more into the social status than Emma. However, the lifestyle these two women chose, after the trial, is very telling. They moved up the social ladder by purchasing a grand house on ‘the hill’, and then Lizzie went so far as to christened the house as Maplecroft – the name was even craved in the front steps. To top it all off, after Emma left Fall River, Lizzie changed her name to Lizbeth, which is much more elegant and sophisticated than Elizabeth.

Whatever the motive was for the brutal killings of Andrew and Abby, the fact is, both Lizzie and Emma lived out their lives in a high social status. I think social status was a significant piece if the mystery surrounding the Borden murders.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:45 pm

Yes, Emma seemed to be the one keeping in touch with Morse rather than Lizzie. While I don't think Emma was unaware of the social standing associated with the Borden name, she seemed less likely to want to flaunt it than Lizzie.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:24 pm

Lizzie evidently associated material things with her social standing-- and believed she ought to have them. Including a well-staffed house in the most fashionable neighborhood, with the latest means of conveyance.

Judging from Lizzie's post-trial actions, she was a highly social being who wished to entertain freely at home, something she couldn't do at No. 92.

She didn't have much room to entertain, and there were Andrew (conduction business) and Abby always hanging around.

Yes, I don't doubt that one of the reasons Lizzie looked down on Abby and her relations was that she believed them to be beneath her in social standing. Talk about nouveau riche-- Lizzie had no intention of allowing them to become thus.

However, just because she may have considered her uncle beneath her doesn't mean that she or Emma would not be willing to accept his assistance, and he did in fact spend much time at No. 92 following Lizzie's unfortunate incarceration.

Emma didn't ask her Uncle HIram and his wife to move in for the duration, nor a male relative of Borden extraction.

You know, this picture we have of Lizzie and Uncle John being at odds and being uncommunicative is one that they paint at the Inquest. Emma does nothing to disabuse anyone of this notion.

Perhaps some evidence from an independent party (other than these three) will surface to give someone else's view of how close (or distant) Lizzie and her Uncle John were.

Be he shaggy (but full of news of Andrew's financial affairs), he was Lizzie's and Emma's closest living relative, after Andrew.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:20 am

It would be interesting to know if Andrew's sister was interviewed at the time. Uncle Hiram seemed to do all the talking, but it is unclear if he is representing his wife's viewpoint as well as his own. She may have been able to shed some light on the Borden household and the dynamic present.

If I'm right about the motive being to prevent the Borden money from benefiting lesser mortals, it might not be the first time murder was committed for the same reason. It likely wouldn't be the first time it was gotten away with, either. Maybe from a 19th century perspective it was somehow more acceptable than it is now. People were socially stratified in those days and they came to accept the discrimination as a fact of life. They realized they could do nothing about it, so they put up with it. Justice was different for the wealthy than for the common person.

DJ · Post by DJ » Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:50 pm

It's interesting to stop and think how omnipresent Uncle John is, from the eve of the murders into the months following.

Of course, it may well have been beneficial to Emma to have a male in residence at the time (although that wasn't much of an issue at Maplecroft, was it?), but she probably could have found some male relative-- or several of them, in rotation-- to hang in with her. At least to spend the night, or come and go.

No Borden men, nor Borden in-laws, such as Uncle H.

I would be interested to see more correspondence (or similar evidence) from Lizzie's relations-- Andrew's relations-- regarding their feelings about the case.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:55 am

John Morse's lifestyle was footloose, he could come and go as he wished. He seemed to be focused on his family rather than touring Europe or visiting the Dalai Lama. This included other nieces and nephews, relatives other than Lizzie and Emma. Under the circumstances, his continued presence at the Borden house seems understandable, perhaps he had no more pressing business than what was at hand. He had no household of his own to maintain, so as long as he was welcome to stay with Emma, why not?

I agree, some of the answers we seek may well be found among correspondence stored away in various attics and long forgotten. I have to wonder how much of that stuff has been summarily tossed out over the years by people with absolutely no interest in the Borden case? Might even have been thrown out without knowing what it was.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:35 pm

Yooper wrote:... I have to wonder how much of that stuff has been summarily tossed out over the years by people with absolutely no interest in the Borden case? Might even have been thrown out without knowing what it was.

People who have as much interest in preserving history as the owner of Maplecroft?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:25 pm

From what I've read, there were and are any number of people who are tight lipped about the Borden case, they simply don't want to discuss the matter. Destroying things such as correspondence, which might some day be the target of research, might have been thought of as a public service by some!

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:36 pm

Uncle John had a job with the Butcher Davis, to whom he refers often in testimony, how Davis allowed him a day off to come down to Fall River to look at Mr. B's cows.

(Very much on the up and up-- just business-- there for a specific reason.)

JVM obviously leaves this job, after the murders.

However, he did have a position, and a residence (of whatever sort-- the high or low of it was his choice-- remember, he had that much-touted money in the bank) outside of Fall River, prior to the murders.

Now, whether Emma asked him to stay, or whether he was "The Man Who Came to Dinner"-- who knows? Maybe a bit of both, but Emma was evidently happy, whatever the reason, to have her "very dear uncle" in residence.

Anyway, this fact remains: He gave up the job in South Dartmouth to stay with Emma, after the murders.

Then, after Lizzie is released, he makes himself scarce, choosing not to discuss the case.

For whatever reason.