Uncle John's Horse Deal

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:04 pm

I found this letter from Arthur Phillips on a site that's not to be named...but anyway, it has always seemed fascinating and wonder what you think of it. In this scenario Morse fought with Andrew the day before the murders due to a horse deal gone bad (which, pure speculating) I wonder if Lizzie overheard and this was the cause of her 'bad things happening' prediction to Alice R. Could he have had foreknowledge of the impending murders and confided to Lizzie - who takes great pains to state she had no contact with Morse - and Lizzie killed Abby, but not her father, because she reasoned she would not inherit with her father in grave danger? This would give her plenty of time to clean up, toss the hatchet on the barn roof or even up in the pear tree to be retrieved later by Morse. Then Dr. Handy's wild eyed young man is let in by Andrew for a meeting. Discard all Lizzie's testimony on greeting Andrew and being so solicitous; the only one we have to account for is Bridget. Could Andrew have already been dead by the time she went up for her nap? Forgive me, but I can't recall which staircase she used for attic access - if it was the back stairs, then she would have missed the body. Morse, in the letter, is spotted near the stable....and there is the matter of that incredible alibi, and the pear eating lack of curiosity. I've always found it strange that Emma chose this rare time to be away from home, but in this possibility, the murder is more spontaneous, with the situation arising suddenly through the incapacity of the horse. Thoughts? (Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere)

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:51 pm

I have read this before and don't know what to make of it. I sure wish the FRHS had already released the papers that belonged to Lizzie's lawyer. No telling what could be found there.

My personal opinion would be to be very careful about thinking out a complicated scenario where the pieces fit. I think it is an interesting and plausible idea that Lizzie heard a violent argument between her father and Morse, or that she heard a discussion she thought was sinister for some reason.

When I think of why the weapon has never been found I also consider what kind of weapon might have been personal property of an individual, which would have been a tool of trade or which could have been traced to a certain person. I have considered the horse wrangler idea in this light. We had a spirited discussion recently about hatchets, cleavers, etc. What I think I learned is that hatchets are pretty much hatchets and there aren't any really special hatchets.

I love your idea about hiding the hatchet in the pear tree. Considering all the people who raided that tree during those days, I get all sorts of mental pictures, like the hatchet falling out and splitting someone's head, so to speak.

Specifically about pear trees, they don't have dense foliage. The leaves are kind of small compared to other fruit trees and branches and trunk are easy to see.

If Bowen took the hatchet away I rather picture him picking it up inside the house and taking it away on the spot for whatever reason.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:15 pm

I've been stuck on the idea of two murderers for awhile due to the time of Abby's death which I accept. I think Lizzie had a hand in Abby, but I'm not so sure about her father. I believe in some kind of conspiracy because I just don't think she could have pulled it off alone. I find it suspicious that the murder day involved all sorts of oddities, the addition of a guest with no travel articles, and the subtraction of Emma from the mix which was a rarity, and now intimations of violent disagreement. If Morse did have business with Andrew and it went wrong, which one of the defense members claims, and I assume they checked this story thoroughly because it could have acquitted her, that puts Morse and his bizarre actions in, as you say, a more sinister light. Even if he was not directly involved, all his actions point to knowing something was afoot - the alibi, and his pear eating outside. So, maybe he knew there was going to be payback for this - and didn't intervene for whatever reason. And if Lizzie knew there was going to be trouble, she could have seized on the occasion to do away with Abby, hoping to make it look like retaliation by the men she knew were angry. Then, the whole situation exploded when Andrew was murdered. Perhaps she thought he'd only get a beating by those men, and she was well and truly shocked, but having the consciousness of a guilty person, hence the lying and improvising contradictory statements. But my theory fails under the coincidence of two hatchets being used, in two separate murders. It always comes back to the timeline of one murderer waiting and hour and a half between murders. I know, it's so tempting to find the unified field theory about the case, some way to make the pieces fit! And they just don't, so the continuing fascination goes on.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:58 pm

Hi, Phineas,
I don't know what to make of this letter either, except that many people, both in and around Fall River and further afield, were fascinated by the Borden case for decades afterwards and many theories were developed, sometimes involving Morse, sometimes not.

The fascinating thing with this document is that it mixes reality with theory quite well in some cases, in others not. For instance, it's true there was a man called Chase who was watching things in the street for a while from Hall's livery stable. He told the police about various wagons etc he saw in the street in a witness statement, but he never mentioned any vehicle he connected with Morse. In fact he told police that he saw nothing unusual in the street.

Bridget was in the dining room with Lizzie talking and finishing off the windows, while Andrew, having returned from upstairs, was in the sitting room. Lizzie was ironing handkerchiefs in the dining room.

I don't think Andrew would have been killed then as blood splatter evidence shows that Andrew was killed by a killer who stood at the back and to the left of the couch, in fact, it is speculated, with the dining room door frame shielding him/her. Bridget then departed upstairs, having rinsed out her cloths in the sink room, via the back stairs.

Sorry, but this scenario doesn't make sense. Why, after arguing violently with a guest in his home, did Andrew allow him to stay there, especially overnight when anything might happen. Andrew was no wimp. He was a very strong-minded and determined individual. Why wouldn't he yell at Morse "Get the hell out of my house!" and why wouldn't Morse go? After all, it wasn't as if he had to pack!

Morse was a bit of an eccentric and a bit of a grub. He was known for jumping on trains (the transport he used on the Wednesday to travel to Fall River, don't know where the ponies came from!) and visiting relatives and friends at a moments notice, without so much as a toothbrush.

Why would Lizzie talk in riddles to Alice on that Wednesday? Why not come straight out and tell Alice that her father and Uncle John had had a terrible row? If she was planning to murder Abby or anyone else the next day it would certainly draw the attention away from her. The police would be hot on John Morse's trail. As it is, Morse's time down town and journey up and back is well documented.

Why wouldn't Lizzie react with horror when Morse told her his plans and rush off and find her father or a policeman and tell him? Why immediately decide "Well, if Father's going to go, then this is my opportunity to kill Abby!" Do people's thoughts immediately jump like that when someone proposes to murder their father? Smile.

Why enter into a conspiracy with an uncle she wasn't close to and barely saw? How did she know she could trust him, in that he might have some plan of his own she didn't know about. As it is, and people often forget this, she spent nearly a year incarcerated at Taunton before going on trial in a blaze of publicity at New Bedford.

Why would uncle John confide his plans to his niece anyway? As I've said, they were not close. Emma was the one who wrote to him several times a year, and accompanied him to Swansea on a previous visit. This document appears to me to be one of those 'Uncle Morse looks a likely candidate so we'll spin a story around him' sort of stories, with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in as it was proved impossible for him to have killed Abby because of his alibi.

I agree with irina about pear tree foliage. A neighbour used to have one and the foliage was quite sparse.

Sorry Phineas, to throw cold water like this. Smile. I wonder whether Franz will read it and respond?

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:39 pm

Hi Curryong, cold water is welcome! Smile. No worries, I just have been trying to think of an alternate theory. I don't think Uncle John did the actual deed, because he couldn't (that great alibi), but that he knew there was going to be a showdown with the men about the horses (sounds like a country song) and did not stop it and maybe he could have shouted, the day before, "those men are going to kill you Andrew unless you pay them, they're coming at 10:45" which Lizzie overheard and poison browser that she may have been, the idea occurred to her to kill Abby. Then the men arrived after Bridget went to bed (but that's a problem with her hearing the door) and killed Andrew. Yes, it sounds purely ridiculous as I type it...but I wonder if in the cosmic scheme of things dual murders have overlapped on various occasions? That two people in a house could be killed by two separate killers at different times. You raise great points about why talk in riddles to Alice, except possibly she was setting the stage with vague comments about a general threat, and if Abby alone was killed, Lizzie hoped to pin it on someone else. Except, say what you will about Lizzie, she didn't take opportunities to finger others.

About a conspiracy with Morse, why...? I don't think it would have been planned, but improvised. Based on overhearing (I can just see Lizzie as eavesdropper-in-chief) and her crime simply coinciding with threats from Morse about angry other men wanting to do Andrew harm. She was a woman, she was cowed a bit by Andrew and perhaps thought he was fully able to protect himself so she didn't imagine he would, in fact, wind up murdered. So she didn't report it. I noted in another thread the discussion about why didn't anyone call the police but go for doctors instead. The idea was posed that perhaps it wasn't 'done' in that time period, or people handled things themselves. Perhaps she thought she would seem foolish or presumptuous in exposing Andrew's business dealings. Perhaps she thought she'd be punished by her father for taking it upon herself to call the police. I totally grant you, that hearing your father is going to be murdered or severely injured shouldn't make you think, bingo, I can murder my stepmother - only that maybe she didn't think that would happen but the confusion would provide cover for the murder of Abby.

The one thing that bothers me is the open door of the guest room. I feel like Lizzie would definitely have closed the door behind her to conceal the body from Bridget. Unless, the chuckle on the landing was the re-opening of the door prior to knowing it would be discovered shortly. Forgive this being disjointed. I don't often post to forums but that Phillips' letter bothered me and I wanted to hear what you think of that tale. Because we have no notes from the attorneys (if only a mole could join the law firm and peek at the files), Phillips' letter to me shows at least some part of what the defense was thinking. Clearly Phillips thinks Lizzie was innocent; I wonder if Robinson did.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:28 pm

phineas wrote:
The one thing that bothers me is the open door of the guest room. I feel like Lizzie would definitely have closed the door behind her to conceal the body from Bridget.

Good point regarding the door to the guest room remaining open. It would appear to be in the murderer's best interest (regardless of who) to shut the door to keep the crime from being discovered for as long as possible. Unless Andrew came home, went upstairs and found her body, failed to reclose the door, sat down in a state of shock and was attacked from the front (initially) by someone he trusted enough that he made no effort to protect himself.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:35 pm

That's a fun theory Debbiediablo about Andrew being in shock after discovering the body! An open door points more to an intruder who is in haste, or doesn't care because he'll be gone soon.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:05 pm

I'm glad that my cold water didn't offend! Smile.

The only trouble with a scenario in which Andrew knew that he may be faced with violent men is that those witnesses who saw him downtown on Thursday morning stated that he looked ill and complained of not feeling well. It's clear that he went down town to post Lizzie's letter, look at one or two of his projects and perhaps meet with several people and he then became queasy and decided to, quietly and slowly, walk home.

Would a man, an elderly man, behave in such a way? Wouldn't he say, to his wife and daughter that day, "Sorry Lizzie, I'm not well enough to post your letter. Perhaps you could take a walk yourself and do it!" He would stay in his home conserving his strength for arguments to come.

(There's no evidence by the way, that Andrew was ever interested in trading horses, even for profit. John Morse was a horse trader, out west! Why would John, who came to Fall River by train, be bringing a load of horses/ponies into town? This wasn't Laramie but an industrial mill town on the East Coast. Surely, if Andrew was involved, the place to forage such animals would be at Andrew's hobby farm at Swansea!)

My objections to Andrew having a violent argument with Morse still stand. There were no ties of blood between them. Why didn't Morse just leave instead of staying the night and then having a peaceful breakfast with Andrew and Abby the next morning?

Where was Abby when this violent argument broke out? I take it that it was before 6pm when Lizzie set off to visit Alice, so Abby was almost certainly not in bed. Middleclass reluctance or not, I can't see any wife, hearing a threat against her husband being issued that Wednesday afternoon, just placidly the next morning dusting and worrying about the guest room and issuing orders about washing windows, rather than going to the police station in the interim to report threats to his safety. Or, at the very least, consulting with her friend Dr Bowen! Smile

Second St was a busy location. Did no-one, neighbour or passerby, see determined-looking strangers entering the Borden property at about 10:45am? Mrs Kelly, seeing Andrew on his front porch at about that time, certainly didn't see anyone approaching. (I'm excepting here, Dr Handy's pale young man, who was apparently a known alcoholic and probably tubercular, tottering along.)

Did these men just enter the house (through a locked side door) not speak/shout to Andrew about this debt, giving him one last chance to pay up? Did Andrew not shout back? (If he was asleep he'd certainly be woken up by them with a final demand, wouldn't he, or were they hell-bent on murder at all costs?) Why didn't any neighbours, including Mrs Churchill's mother who was baby-sitting, hear any ruckus? Why didn't Bridget?

As for Lizzie being cowed by Uncle John, I certainly don't think she was cowed by anyone (except by her father financially.) She was a bit of a snob and in my opinion kept clear of John Morse because she regarded him as uncouth, and probably not very clean! Smile.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:19 pm

phineas wrote:That's a fun theory Debbiediablo about Andrew being in shock after discovering the body! An open door points more to an intruder who is in haste, or doesn't care because he'll be gone soon.

I'm an Undecided-ite so yes, it could point to an intruder in haste, but there's a side to me that says even in haste an intruder will attempt to cover up the crime for as long a possible. He/she took the time to deliver multiple blows to the back of Abby's head, overkill for sure, but doesn't pause to swing the door shut on the way out? I don't see it as impossible so much as less probable. Given veracity to the letter, I can also see Morse delivering a warning to Andrew; Andrew choosing to ignore it, and Morse making himself scarce the following day knowing that Andrew may forfeit his life for the price of a black mustang. Morse sees himself doing all that he can do....except keep his own involvement limited. Now the really funny thing would be the two intruders kill Abby as a warning to Andrew (sort of like Khartoum and Jack Woltz in the The Godfather except for he doesn't wake up with her severed head at the foot of the bed)...they drop the hatchet and Lizzie decides to make further use of it. As much as I like thinking somewhere outside the box, I find it difficult to believe that the police chose to ignore any or all of the above. Then again, they did something very similar with JonBenet....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:42 pm

The door to the guest room has been argued/debated over several times, hasn't it? It may have been closed for a time following Abby's murder, and then opened again just before Andrew came home, so that after his death, police and others would be urged to look for Abby's body, and it could be seen from the stairs!

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:51 am

the only person up front that morning besides Abby (after JVM left) was Lizzie-- so all we know for sure is that door was open when Bridget and Mrs. Churchill ascended the stairs....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:27 am

Well, exactly, Anthony, left open for others to find the body.

Why do I keep thinking now, after debbie's post, of Andrew waking up next to a severed horse's head!

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:29 pm

I favor the idea the intruder cracked the door open to listen after Lizzie went down stairs when her father came home. When he decided to leave or make a run for it he left the door wide open. Doors in those days might not close as quietly as our modern doors. I still think Lizzie's vague idea that Abby returned might be that Andrew called out to Abby as he heard the intruder trying to leave, either by trying to open the front door or making his way to the back of the house to leave by the screen door. Lizzie may have been on her way out the side door.

Another thing I find interesting is that shortly after people arrive at the scene Lizzie is asked how she found the screen door. Her answer was, "Open". She is so dense when it comes to lying, why would she make that up? "Closed", would have worked just fine. Considering the security precautions in the household I would think the usual state of the door would be "closed" or "latched" or "locked". Of course it wouldn't have been latched or locked with Lizzie outside, but she presumably wouldn't have left it "open", due to habit if nothing else.

When considering intruder(s) in the yard, one thing to remember is that I think, from photographs, that there was a fence around the yard when the murders took place. It wasn't high enough to obscure someone in the yard but I think it would have made neighborly surveillance a little more difficult. If an intruder stooped or sat down for instance, he might not have been really noticeable.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:47 pm

irina, how did the intruder know the layout of the downstairs rooms? If he decided to scuttle off from the front door he was extremely lucky not to have been seen by passersby, as well as noiselessly manipulating a door with three locks.

We don't know where Bridget was immediately following Andrew's return (before the ironing business.) If she was finishing off cleaning the inside parlour windows surely she would have heard someone coming downstairs and gone to investigate. It would have been logical for her to do the parlour windows as that would be in sequence after the hall one.

She then moved on to the sittingroom windows, when Lizzie and Andrew were having their quiet conversation in the dining room. Then, when Andrew came into the sitting room ready to read and snooze Bridget moved into the dining room to do those windows and the conversation with Lizzie occurred.

That is an awful lot of moving about by three people in the two rooms which essentially blocked any getaway via the back door. Or did he wait in the parlour, knowing that, and somehow knowing that Bridget would soon retire upstairs and Andrew would be asleep and Lizzie would be in the barn? Smile.

Lizzie would have had to have said the back/side door was 'open'. Otherwise, the question would have been "Then how, Miss Borden, did you get inside the house from the barn and discover your father's body?"

Remember, in Lizzie's own testimony, she said that Bridget was in charge of that door (and had a key.) There's no evidence that Lizzie had a key to that door. The Bordens were absolutely paranoid about locking everything behind them. This was indeed the house of a thousand locks, not a normal household. Laugh.

Obviously, when she said 'open' the logical sequence of events, according to Lizzie, was that she left the side door open
(in order to spend her twenty minutes in the hot barn) came back heard noises (telling Bridget one story and Mrs Churchill another) and found the side door open.

She had inexplicably missed any intruder (who had obviously escaped through the door) while she was in the barn. That, of course, doesn't collate with her hearing noises as she was walking towards the house, so she left that bit out when later talking to the police.

The police accepted that scenario at first until it became clear that this was a 'house of a thousand locks' in which everyone religiously locked up behind them. Bridget would no more, I would suggest, go up to her room leaving the house vulnerable to an unlocked side door than she would have danced naked on the roof! Smile. I'm talking here of the actual side door (which because of the heat from the stove was usually left open in the summer months when Bridget was in the kitchen) not the screen door on the snib.

Once the police decided that the barn scenario was a lie they realised that Lizzie was inside, not outside that house, and was the only person besides Andrew who was on the ground floor.

I believe there was barbed wire over the back fence to prevent any theft from the precious pear trees. It's not so clear that the barbed wire continued all the way around on the Kelly side. On the Churchill side I don't think so.

I agree that the contemporary photographs/sketches don't give a clear idea of the height of the fencing but Mrs Churchill saw Lizzie and Andrew quite clearly that day. Surely anyone bobbing about in the back and sides of the Borden property would be vulnerable to surveillance from the second floor of neighbouring properties, especially the Churchill house, which was massive and held several relatives and lodgers?

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:32 pm

My thoughts are simpler than that as I think the intruder entered around 9:30 and I think it is possible it could have been someone they knew. My theory has to do with who/what/why did someone become so angry with Abby that she was so brutally killed? I also cannot rule out that Lizzie knew who did it~which certainly would not make her innocent. She could have let the person in, etc. On the other hand I think an intruder COULD navigate the house, perhaps just by listening and hearing Abby mount the stairs. It could have happened while Lizzie was "down cellar" or using the WC. We seem to know the side screen door was open and unlocked while Bridget went in and out with the window washing. She had the conversation with Lizzie and there is no testimony that anyone let her in the screen door to finish the window washing so it seems the door was unfastened.

I take the word "open" to mean just that. Lizzie seems to be a very literal person, which is why she is a dreadful liar. She doesn't deal with abstractions. So I believe the screen door had a catch beyond a hook or locking mechanism. I believe when Lizzie did go out, and I do believe she did something in the barn/yard/vicinity, she shut the door. It would be so out of character to leave the door swinging open. When she returned the door was open meaning not latched, meaning swinging open. I do believe she heard something and I suggested before she might have even heard the killer crawling out a window.

Pretty much any scenario that allows for an intruder would have to work around Lizzie being down cellar or in her own room with the door shut. Possum says the house is rather small. In a LBQ edition a stage director going for accuracy for some Lizzie based play, measured out all the rooms downstairs so he could authentically block his play. He said the premises were so small and crowded it was impossible to direct the actors in and out without everyone bumping into everyone else. I am almost dyslexic when it comes to measurements and it's something I can never work out in my mind. The description the director provided makes the downstairs sound like a rabbit warren and certainly a feng shue nightmare.

So could it all have worked out this way. Yes. Lots of crimes happen because everything works out just right for the criminal. Or it's possible Lizzie knew who did it and why. Or Lizzie knew a person that was in the house and covered for that person when she knew murders had taken place. Some of my replies have a tendency to get lost as did one in which I said if Lizzie recognized for instance a family member as being in the house at the time, she may have covered simply because having a convicted murderer, probably hanged to boot, in the family would be too humiliating. The way it ended is Lizzie continued to be suspected which was humiliating but not so humiliating as if someone close to her or the family was convicted.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:15 am

But we then come to the old thing of, if Lizzie knew who did it, (whether lover, relative, family friend whoever) would she have displayed such an iron nerve that she would endured nearly a year in incarceration, followed by a trial and the possibility of being hanged afterwards, for that killer?

I personally believe that, in such a scenario, Lizzie would have remained silent for only one person, Emma. And it would have been vice versa where Emma was concerned. Emma, however, wouldn't have kept quiet with her sister on remand for a crime she didn't commit and it's difficult to believe who would.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:34 am

Whenever we talk about eyewitnesses seeing (or not seeing) strangers or family members or Billy Borden or David Anthony or Uncle John or The Pope lurking in the Borden yard, my mind turns to Possum who introduced me to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and then to my daughter who has her PhD in Biological Engineering from MIT and also really loves this guy. Tyson says, "If scientists invented the legal system, eye witness testimony would be inadmissible evidence."

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:48 am

Debbie- LOVE the Tyson quote. He is my current hero. Yes, we need to be very, very, VERY careful basing any critical piece of a theory just on eyewitness testimony. There was an experiment done where college students watched a film of several people throwing a basketball back and forth to each other in a circle. The subjects were instructed to watch the film and count how many times each subject tossed the ball. Afterwards, they were asked to comment on the Gorilla who walked into the circle, stood there for a few seconds, and left. NOT ONE subject even saw the gorilla, who was in plain sight for several seconds and casually strode off out of the circle. People are HORRIBLE eye witnesses.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:02 pm

I love Tyson too. An interesting thing to study would be how much neighbors in a city, especially those who live on a busy street, actually see of happenings in a neighbor's yard. It seems to me for privacy and sanity's sake we deliberately ignore what happens in a neighbor's yard unless we are the neighborhood gossip or there is a reason to be alert, like a recent crime.

There used to be some morality about minding one's own business. My mom taught me to always avert my eyes if I knocked on someone's door that contained a window. It would be very impolite to stare through the window in the door, looking around till the people came. I don't know anyone who is like this anymore but I am. Also if a neighbor has regular activities or has kids or something like that someone may see activity and not pay attention. If asked later the viewer may have no idea on what day any activity happened.

I too have seen the basketball game and the gorilla. Makes me wonder if a person's head and shoulders walking around behind the fence at 92 Second would have been readily noted as a whole person that was recognisable? On the other hand something else I read pointed out that the Borden's yard was actually very small and houses were very close. My own city lot was measured in hundreds of feet. I have lived in duplexes and other tight conditions however, and some people choose to ignore each other for the feeling of privacy. I would think long term individual habits of viewing among the Borden's neighbors would be interesting except we will never know. It does sound like neighbors took the extra effort to speak to each other in those days.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:02 pm

It's a truism isn't it that today we lead very busy lives and are away from home a lot? Over a hundred years ago, with little home entertainment and limited transport, this wasn't so, for most people anyway. During the day women who didn't work had breaks to observe the world around them. When my children were small thirty or more years ago I didn't work and I lived in a street where there were many women in my situation. There was lots of interaction among the young mums.

I believe that people who have been to no. 92 are surprised by how small the interior is and by the narrowness of the block of land the house occupies. From the drawings, sketches available it does seem as if the neighbourhood houses were very close.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:56 pm

It looks that in this century the yard at 92 is even smaller than it would have been in Lizzie's day.

Over 20 years ago I signed up to sell Avon cosmetics. In those days we had territories to work. I knocked on 105 doors one day and only 3 people were home. That was in a medium sized town. When I did find people home, more often than not it would be pre-teen kids who would leave the door locked with the chain and snag the catalogue through the crack and slam the door in my face. The brochures cost us a bit of money and I wanted the opportunity to make a sales pitch. I had a ledger sort of thing to keep track of the addresses I serviced. There was a space for comments and since I read & write the Russian alphabet I wrote vicious, four-letter word descriptions of those houses. We didn't have much nasty crime in that town but all the kids had been taught that everyone is a child molester. Indeed I have pretty much given up being a caring neighbor who watches out for kids, because it is not uncommon for parents to view a caring stranger/neighbor as something far worse than Jack the Ripper. Bitter experiences.

So...maybe Andrew taught his girls everyone in the outside world just wanted to rape and molest them and hence every door was locked all the time. Speaking of, I think it's weird that Lizzie locked her bedroom door every chance she got, like in the cooler months (but not in the hot months when she wanted the cross breeze). I can't imagine living with family or even friends and locking my bedroom door at night. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm................

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:40 pm

The sort of attitude you've described in your Avon experiences has developed more and more in the past 20 years, hasn't it? Of course, kids need to be taught about 'Stranger Danger' and all the rest of it, but there has to be a balance.

In my opinion it's very sad when parents panic so much they won't let their children play in the street or go to the shops alone, etc. Very different to my childhood! I was an only child but did a lot of exploring, going to different places with my friends. (I grew up in a seaside resort. Lots of strangers about in the summer!)

Back to Lizzie! I have to say that I don't think Andrew would be warning his daughters in that way. Parents just didn't speak about sexual matters. Often, the only hint a girl got of what was to come was a little chat by her mother (in general terms only) the evening before the wedding! Of course that code of silence could well have allowed incest to go on undisturbed for years in some households.

I'm afraid I think Andrew covered up his own social ineptness and lack of close personal friends by discouraging friends of his daughters to call, allowing them to hold parties etc. in an era when so much socialising centred around the home.
Of course they themselves were ashamed of their home which exacerbated that attitude.

I wonder whether Lizzie, who spent so much time in her room partly because she was disinclined to spend her days with Abby, played a sort of tit for tat game with Andrew. Since the daylight robbery Andrew had taken to locking his (and Abby's) bedroom door at all times and leaving the key openly on the sitting room mantelpiece.

I just wonder if Lizzie (who probably knew she was suspected of that robbery) resentfully thought "Well, you're not the only person who can lock their door all the time!" and did the same back. What a family!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:07 am

As far as people seeing what was going on with neighbors, all we have to go on is eyewitness testimony. Having said how unreliable it is, the fact is Neighbors DID see Andrew leave, come back, Bridget run to fetch a doctor, come back, and Lizzie come out to the side door. Quite a bit of observation if people wanted to "ignore" their neighbors. From the descriptions, it seems that the Borden neighbors saw who came and left that day, and since no sinister ax murderer was spotted, makes me think it was an 'inside job'. I would feel much less confident if no on e saw any other comings or going that day, but the neighbors WERE nosey.

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:00 am

We also see what we want to see. If it is important to greet our neighbors our minds will alert to the sight of the neighbor on the street. If there is an emergency or something far out of order our minds will alert and we will start paying attention. Even if we see mundane things happening they might not stick in our minds or if they register at all we might not know what day we saw them. I cannot say that if there was a lot of street traffic that I would know who, when or if someone entered a neighbor's yard.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:22 pm

People, like Chase, first at the store and then over at Hall's Livery did have time to talk and stare, though. The store, only two doors down from the Borden's on the Kelly side (will have to look up the name again) and Hall's livery stables both had a crowd standing in front. This is something I find quaint and have only seen in very small bush towns in Australia.
People were anxious to help after these terrible murders and it wasn't like people such as Chase, Dr Handy, Mrs Churchill and others didn't see anyone or anything, (in the shape of wagons, pale young men etc.) They did. They just didn't see anyone entering the Borden property.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:30 pm

The 3-page letter from Arthur S. Phillips appears to be a combination of Arnold Brown’s and Franz’ theories. Like Arnold Brown’s theory, Phillips makes statements which are written as fact, but does not give a source. For example, the first paragraph on page 2: Now it is well known that the evening before the murder Mr. Morse talked with Mr. Borden at his home with reference to repayment of money which Mr. Borden had loaned to him to bring on the horses. On account of this pony loss and some other unusual transactions the talk became quite violent. Lizzie Borden either testified to that fact at the inquest or told us and told the officers about it. I have no reason to doubt her statement.

Almost like Franz’ theory, Phillips states in the last sentence of page 2 (Underlining is mine): If the note in question was sent to Mrs. Borden by Mr. Morse in order that he might get something which he claimed to have left in his room that morning and the man followed Mrs. Borden up to the room there isn’t any considerable chance that he would have left the telltale note behind him after the murder.

Arthur S. Phillips, was a junior attorney assisting on Lizzie’s defense team, who believed that Lizzie was innocent. Yet when he wrote this 3-page letter, he slipped up by stating the first two sentences on page 3 (Underlining is mine): You will realize that we were not trying to convict anyone else; we were simply trying to show that Miss Borden did not commit the murder. If we had suggested the name of a person other than she who had committed the murder, we would have failed to prove it, and it would likely have convicted her because of our failure.

On Nov 20, 2006, Harry posted in the topic titled, A Boy and a Note:

Assuming there was a note in the first place, it's delivery is a mystery in itself. The only source for the note is Lizzie and she says she neither seen the note nor the boy who delivered it. Other than this I can't seem to find anyone who saw the boy come to the front door. Lincoln (p70) has this:

"... But there is also impressive evidence that the note did come. In the first place, a young man was seen going to the front door at nine; it was briefly opened to him, but he did not go in."

She does not cite a source. Who was it that allegedly seen the boy? In lieu of not finding the boy himself this person would be able to offer important evidence in the case. Was he or she looked for? There doesn't appear to be much on this anywhere.

Then there is this footnote in Pearson's 1937 Trial of Lizzie Borden, p35:

"(15) That "Mrs Borden was called to the rear door by a boy who presented a note" is asserted as if it were a proven fact by Arthur S. Phillips, Esq. (New Bedford Standard-Times, May 13, 1934.) Mr Phillips, who aided Mr Jennings in preparing the defence, adds that defence counsel "believed that the note called for the delivery to the bearer of some article from Mr Morse's room; that the assassin followed Mrs Borden into that room . . . " It is not clear whether this means that the boy was also the assassin, or if there were two in the plot. At all events, why Mrs Borden should have deceived Miss Lizzie as to the contents of the note, saying that it said "somebody was sick" (see Miss Borden's inquest statement), and where the "assassin" was standing during the conversation between the two women, are points which this theory does not reveal."

Here we have possibly two people coming to the door with again no source.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2445

There are electronic downloads of both Edmund Pearson’s book, Trial of Lizzie Borden, a well as an abstract, titled Borden Murder Mystery, taken from Arthur S. Phillips’ book, The Phillips History of Fall River (Fall River, MA: Dover Press, 1944-6, 3 vols.), which is in regards to the 3-page letter Phillips wrote to Homans Robinson, of the Robinson-Donovan law firm at: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... dBooks.htm

I found Arthur Phillip's book, very interesting!

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:12 pm

I live in an old (1883) house 'up main street' house in a small town. It was built the same year the town was formed. My family owned it for generations until my parents sold it and moved after my sister died. To escape memories I believe. They regretted it-- and bought it back as soon as it was up for sale again-- some 20 years later.

The neighbors are fairly close-- we can see into one another's windows if we look out our own. Like most lots-- they are narrow but long. My garage is a good half block from the street! Unlike the Borden house-- we have an alley behind.

I am a night owl-- and have been out in my yard quite late-- skulking about.

The town has VERY hard water-- so I have a water softener-- but don't like to drink the salted water-- so I actually get water from my outside hose to put in the fridge. (bottled water is not an option for me as I am a militant recycler) I can go out there-- while my neighbors are having dinner in their dining room-- windows open-- and they don't even turn their heads!

However-- if I was outside, or walking up from the post office or store-- I would notice someone at another neighbor's door. I would notice a suspicious car or person. But, is this because of the times we live in today? Is it that I am in a small town and while it's not unusual to see strangers-- it isn't all that common either. The funeral home is 3 houses down-- I always know when someone has died because there are cars all over the street. I know when something is happening in the park across the street too-- cars/noise/etc.

My neighbor to the south is the City Superintendent. I saw in the city meeting minutes in our local paper that he was scheduled to go out of town-- and when I saw lights at his house, I called his parents and was informed he couldn't due to issues with the city water system. He had to stay home to monitor it. Am I hyper vigilant? I don't think so....

This is a stretch- but does anyone remember the episode of The Brady Bunch where Jan lost her locket? They all thought everyone was in bed-- but when they recreated the night-- it turned out everyone was all over the house-- just missing one another and not knowing it. I think that happens a lot more than we think.

Has anyone here just stayed frozen or just stepped out of side to avoid a neighbor?

This makes no sense! I am rambling-- my point is-- could things have happened on 2nd street that day and no one noticed.... Is it different from today where we are more programmed to be on the look out? The most popular television shows-- crime. It's in our faces all the time anymore.

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:10 pm

Exactly my point, Aamartin~some people and events are no more than wallpaper in the scheme of things. We interpret things according to our values and preconceived notions. If a big, dark truck is pulled up at the neighbor's we'd assume it is UPS and pay no more attention. If it was actually full of burglars emptying the neighbor's house we might not figure it out even after the fact. Sleight of hand sometimes works because the human brain/eye cannot process certain combinations of movements. We expect to see certain things. If a person entered the gate at 92 Second, then ducked down or bent over behind the fence would a non-engaged watcher think it odd or simply wonder if they saw what they thought they saw? Certain colors blend with other colors and patterns blend with other patterns. I think the house color inLizzie's time was some shade of brown which would provide far less contrast if a man in a brown suit was viewed with the siding for background. Anything is possible.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:14 am

It is interesting isn't it. However, rather than being hyper-vigilant about crime, robbery etc as we are today, I do think that neighbours 120 years ago, would be interested in each other's lives in a different sort of way.

For instance, a woman observing another leaving a neighbour's orchard with a basket of apples might say to herself " Well now, mrs F....'s daughter's arriving Tuesday with her little daughter, so I'll bet those apples are going into those turnovers she loves."

Or a man, seeing another neighbour leaving a yard with some timber might think " I guess Tom's going to help build the Barries' barn that nearly collapsed last winter". It would be a much more personal sort of observation of neighbours and friends than most of us, especially in larger urban centres, are used to nowadays.

That sort of observation of others still prevails in small bush towns in Australia. I grew up in a small town in England and when I had my 21st birthday it was said later (jokingly) that 90 per cent of the locals knew what my present from my family was before I did!

I found that kind of thing quite claustrophobic when I was growing up, and the thought that everyone knew your business was anathema. A friend bought his first car. The news was round the neighbourhood within half an hour of him driving it home because someone had seen him driving it from the car yard.

In a much slower world, without telephones or computers or TV occupying people's time that sort of observation of others, which I dare say we would call nosiness, wouldn't have been uncommon.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:30 am

Love your post Aamartin. I think most of us here are old enough to remember back before internet and cable tv. When I was young, we sat on the porch. We took walks, we were WAY more aware of our surroundings. I LOVE The Andy Griffith Show. Life in a small town, it gives me a sad nostalgia for a time gone forever. In the show, they sit in the barber shop and gossip, sit on the front porch and notice the Beeman family going to church, they notice their neighbors. My Grandparents lived in Baltimore City in the 1930-1945 WWII era. Even in that large, rough city they knew their neighbors, tattled on the neighbor kids who were misbehaving, and generally looked out for each other. Sometimes we examine the Borden crime from the paranoid anonymity of modern America. I believe it is no coincidence that neighbors on ALL SIDES came together after the crime and reported a comprehensive picture of who came and went from that house. It isn't necessarily being a 'busy-body', but just a vigilant neighbor. I guess I'm willing to entertain the idea that a mysterious stranger could sneak in and out...perhaps. But I think any sane individual would know that in town, in broad daylight, their chances of being seen and identified would be high.

When I sit and contemplate the crime I keep coming back to someone having to sneak past all those watchful eyes in broad daylight, sneak into the house without Lizzie, Bridget, or Abby seeing them. Killing Abby, sitting around for 90 minutes without being seen, coming downstairs in broad daylight without Lizzie, Bridget or Andrew seeing them, finding Andrew and killing him without anyone seeing him, including Andrew, sneaking back out of the house int bright sunshine, and off down the street. Put like that I don't believe it. IF it were anyone outside the household, there would be much better times/places to kill them. In a carriage on a lonely road when they were alone, at night under the cover of darkness....If it were Lizzie or Bridget, none of that matters b/c they BELONG in the house, and didn't have to run away after.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:53 am

Some good points raised, twinsrwe! Isn't it clear, by the way, that the source of the belief in any note being delivered was Lizzie, and Lizzie alone? The defence team's belief in the note came from their client, Lizzie!

(By the way, if there had been one tiny inkling that Morse had owed money to Andrew or was on bad terms with him, the defence may not have named him but I believe there would have been some heavy hints thrown around in their summing-up.)

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:02 pm

Thanks, Currong. You're right, the only person who mentioned anything about a note, was Lizzie.

Arthur Phillips stated in his abstract titled, Borden Murder Mystery, that the Killer had followed Abby up to the Guest Bedroom. I can't imagine Abby allowing a stranger to follow her into a bedroom; wouldn't she have asked him to stay downstairs while she got the 'something' that supposedly Morse just had to have that morning? Not only that, where was Lizzie while Abby was being hacked to death?

Furthermore, what made the defense team believe the note was from Uncle John? I just found it eerie that Franz came up with almost the same scenario, particularly regarding who wrote the note and its contents! I wonder if he read the 3-page letter shown above, or the Borden Murder Mystery by Phillips, in order to form ideas for his theory? I look forward to his response.

I think that if there really was a violent outburst between Andrew and Uncle John over money owed to Andrew, then John Morse would not have been allowed to stay overnight in Andrew’s house, nor would he have been invited back for the noon meal. Furthermore, where was Abby, Lizzie and Bridget during this violent talk?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:32 pm

Yes, twinsrwe. I think I posted exactly those points, re a violent argument between Morse and Andrew, on another thread. It's not a viable scenario as far as I'm concerned.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:42 pm

Yes, I recall that you did post the same point of Uncle John not being allowed to stay overnight. Guess we think alike! Ohhh, now that is scary!

Did you also post something about the killer following Abby up to the Guest Bedroom?

I agree, it is not a logical scenario.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:26 am

Yes, I've never been able to see that scenario developing. I see Abby as a rather meek person, who would be more inclined to persuade Andrew into buying more barbed wire for the fences than having a row with someone in the back garden about pears and then toddling back into the house without bothering to snib the side door allowing a stranger access.

Talking about logic, there's, in my view, never a clear alibi from Lizzie as to where she was between say 9:30am (after the conversation with Bridget about water) and 10:30am. It's all 'flying by the seat of her pants' contradictory stuff.

It's almost as if a bulb flashes on in her head when she has answered "Yes, I was in my room, sewing a tape." She then thinks "No, no, I can't say that, because if I say I was in my room then it's too near the murder room, so I'd better be downstairs doing something!" You can see that very clearly in the exchange between Knowlton and herself at the Inquest about the laugh on the stairs moment, and where exactly she was just before her father came home.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:43 am

Before you all get too excited about a murderer following Abby upstairs and killing her, remember the fact that when Andrew came home, the 'night lock' on the front door was still locked, and Bridget had to fumble with the key to open it. That is my main contention with Franz's elaborate theory of a man on the sidewalk distracting Abby while a second man sneaks in and up the stairs. All indications are that the front door had not been opened from the night before until Andrew came home. IF a messenger brought the note to the front door, it would be apparent b/c Abby would have left that middle lock unlocked after she opened it. That was their standard practice. If you have the messenger coming to the back door, then he would have to sneak past Abby through the kitchen, parlor, hall, up the stairs and into the guest room to prepare to Kill Abby there. We delve deeper into the realms of the improbable. And I DON'T see Abby allowing a total stranger to come into her house, and follow her up to a bedroom...That is even more improbable.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:13 am

Yes, Possum, twinsrwe and I were agreeing that neither of us could see such a thing occurring.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:20 pm

twinsrwe wrote:Now it is well known that....I have no reason to doubt her statement.[/color][/i]

I've done mediation for almost two decades. Anytime I hear (or read) language that goes something like, "To to the truth..." or "To be perfectly honest..." or "I simply/merely..." and other such lead-ins, my immediate attention is to whatever comes right afterward because this often means exactly the opposite. Someone is lying or trying to make a highly improbable point seem incontrovertible. Attorneys use this language all the time, especially in oral argument when they're trying to get a jury to ignore facts and operate on emotions or rhetoric.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:02 pm

debbiediablo wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:Now it is well known that....I have no reason to doubt her statement.[/color][/i]
I've done mediation for almost two decades. Anytime I hear (or read) language that goes something like, "To to the truth..." or "To be perfectly honest..." or "I simply/merely..." and other such lead-ins, my immediate attention is to whatever comes right afterward because this often means exactly the opposite. Someone is lying or trying to make a highly improbable point seem incontrovertible. Attorneys use this language all the time, especially in oral argument when they're trying to get a jury to ignore facts and operate on emotions or rhetoric.

I agree.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:32 pm

This is another interesting thread I'd forgotten about!

RGJ · Post by **RGJ** » Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:56 pm

Thanks, I read this awhile back. It reinforced my belief.

RGJ · Post by **RGJ** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:52 pm

Is there question in the provenance of this letter?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:10 pm

Arthur Sherman Phillips was a legal assistant helping on Lizzie's 'dream team' of lawyers in 1892. He later opened his own law firm. Phillips believed in Lizzie's innocence all his life and developed the above theory in the years after the trial.