Flush With Cash

[NoStoneUnturned]

Hello everyone. I am new to posting but have been reading here for about 3 years or longer and reading about Lizzie since I was 16. I am way past 16 at this point. I live in South Carolina not far from where Harry used to live. Sadly I did not know him and am mad at myself for not reaching out to have Lizzie discussions with him. I probably will not be a prolific poster but did think I would like to add my theory of the murders. I will try not to be lengthy but a little length is required. So here it is. Lizzie and Emma were swimming in money the last of July from the resale of the house that their father bought back from them. Each had $2500.00 which was no small sum (from what I can tell around $65,000.00 by today’s standards). If Lizzie had something she really wanted, now was the time. And Lizzie had something she wanted and that of course was Abby gone and the threat of her father’s money being divided except with Emma to disappear. I do not believe that Lizzie ever lifted a hatchet to Abby. There are too many “what ifs”. What if Abby happened to get the better of her before she struck a blow? What if Abby in fact were stronger than Lizzie? Somehow I do not get a mental picture of Lizzie locked behind her locked door pumping iron. No it would be better that someone else do it. So she could hire it done and in my opinion she did just that with one big caveat. She needed someone to find a person willing to commit murder for money. Heck, Lizzie couldn't even buy prussic acid much less find a killer. But Uncle John could. This would explain Uncle John’s strange and irrational behavior before the murders and after. I believe she and Uncle John and perhaps Emma decided that Emma had to go. They were not too worried about Daddy because he was old with one foot in the grave and unlikely to remarry. Besides John liked Andrew and would not have participated in that kind of arrangement. Abby – who cared? So Uncle John finds a hired killer and the plot is put in motion. Emma is to leave town, Uncle John is to be there to get the guy in, and Lizzie is to help him to know where people are and when the best time to strike would be. All went reasonably well and it was easy enough for Lizzie to keep an eye on Bridget to make sure she was out of sight and the kill could happen. I think that Abby was chased into that room. I do not believe anyone sneaked up on her. With Abby dead all that had to happen was get the killer out the back door and wait. But then things went wrong. First Andrew comes home early and Bridget moved inside. How to get the killer out the door? Since I believe there was no plan at all to kill Andrew the best case would be to get him to take a nap since I think the killer waited upstairs and the only way out the back door was through the room where Andrew decided to take a nap. Lizzie of course decides to iron to keep close to Bridget and her father so when the break came she was ready. And the break did come. Bridget (thank goodness) goes upstairs and Andrew falls into a light sleep. She motions for the killer to quietly tip toe through the room right in front of Andrew which would have been no problem except Andrew woke up. And stood up! Look at Andrew dead on the couch again and think of this. He was standing and he was pushed back down and then hit with the hatchet in the head. He looked more like this happened than he was taking a nap halfway off the couch. Lizzie never was in the room when Abby was killed nor her father. In fact the lack of blood on her shoes shows she never even entered the rooms. She was clean. I don’t think she went to the barn. I think she waited until the guy was out the cellar door – locked it – and then composed herself. Of course I also think she went into shock after realizing that she had killed her father. Her strange words and actions speak to shock. John was supposed to get back at his appointed time and point out that the cellar door was open but it wasn’t since Lizzie closed it. He was confused and didn’t go in for a while to collect his thoughts. When he finally did go in and find out that Andrew had been killed too he called for Lizzie. I think he was so angry that Andrew was killed he never spoke to the girls again. So that is my theory. Oh yes the burned dress. It had paint on it that looked like blood. There are a lot more details to sift through but this is my broadly painted scenario. If nothing else it will give us something new to think about.

[debbiediablo]

Welcome to the forum!!!

I have no theory that truly resonates with me...I see it one way and then another. But one way I have entertained is that Abby was chased around the bed and that someone beyond Lizzie and Emma was complicit in the murders. I just don't see Lizzie doing this all by herself, cleverly avoiding blood splatter and then ditching the hatchet, but then muddling through multiple contradictory alibis. We have discussed the possibility of Andrew being attacked from the front although this doesn't explain the blood splatter that points to the blows coming from behind his head. On the other hand, his position on the sofa looks decidedly odd for an old arthritic guy taking a nap. I like much of your scenario, but instead of Uncle John letting the killer into the house, I prefer a different killer coming in the night before when Lizzie arrived home from Alice's, then sneaking up the stairs and hiding for the night in Emma's room which was the only safe place in the entire house. Lots of people had to lie to place Uncle John at his niece's for the entire morning. I do agree that Emma had to go elsewhere; she needed to be beyond suspicion as the heiress. It's also interesting that if Lizzie was involved and there were accomplices, being acquitted put her in an incredibly powerful position, being privy to the absolute facts but unable to be tried again due to double jeopardy.

[irina]

Welcome to the forum!

In your reading I am sure you know many people believe Uncle John Morse was an accomplice. Franz, one of our members has a particularly developed theory which he was even able to publish. Check out his article at "Lizzie in the News". I think he is busy working right now and don't know when he will return.

I don't think Uncle John was involved even though some of his behaviour is questionable. Recently I started two threads, "consciousness of innocence" and "consciousness of guilt", ideas explained by Vincent Bugliosi in "The Sea Will Tell". Looking at it this way I think Morse showed examples of consciousness of innocence.

He seemed to be really concerned about locks on the house and his concern included the front door triple locks as well as the cellar which you mention. If he was merely startled/unhappy because Lizzie locked the cellar door when she should not have done, I would think Morse' attention to locks would have been dropped fairly quick. Therefore I see this as consciousness of innocence.

Morse' own alibi and testimony make him look guilty but I think a basic explanation is acceptable. I believe news of at least Andrew Borden's death travelled fast from person to person and that the news could have gotten as far as wherever Morse was visiting. Even if the news didn't travel word of mouth, there were telephones in those days and who knows who had them or how far they reached. Therefore Uncle John probably knew about at least one murder when he left his relatives' home and he therefore memorized everything he could to cover his back. It is odd that he said he stood in the yard at 92 Second and ate pears and didn't notice anything unusual, but that statement, to me, doesn't express anything one way or another. He may well have observed for awhile before he entered the house. Can't blame him. All in all his elaborate though odd alibi to me is an example of consciousness of innocence.

One reason I think Lizzie is innocent is because she called Bridget so quick after her father's death. Others here think she was guilty and wanted to get the legal process started before Uncle John came home. Either of these perspectives is workable. Considering your scenario it seems to me raising such a quick alarm would work against her purposes. Uppermost in her mind should have been to allow the actual killer to get away. If he was caught he would likely have exposed Lizzie, Uncle John and possibly Emma. Any men implicated and subsequently convicted would likely have been hanged. Lizzie would not reasonably have been able to assess the success of the killer escaping in a short period of time. Simply leaving the yard would not infer safety in my opinion. (Off topic, but it brings to mind John Wilkes Booth breaking his leg jumping down on the stage after shooting Lincoln. He ultimately got away but barely.)

In the confusion following the murders I don't see why Uncle John couldn't have simply unlocked the cellar door and reported it as a new discovery. That would at least create reasonable doubt. The police seemed not to have any idea what they were doing and I doubt they would have had any idea if the door was locked or unlocked. It seems that Morse' interest in the locks from that point would have been to prove they could be or were jimmied open. He would have nothing to lose.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Hope it's helpful. Welcome again! We're kind of an informal bunch and I'm sure we all look forward to your future posts.

[Curryong]

Hello, NoStoneUnturned, and welcome to the forum!

I too am way, way, past the age of 16 years! I suppose as you have been reading the forum for some time you know that I am a convinced 'Lizzie did it' poster? Nevertheless, I have read your post with great interest!

The main problem I have with Uncle John being a co-conspirator with 'the girls' in the murder of their stepmother and father is "Why?" John was reasonably wealthy so he wasn't strapped for cash himself, he seemed to like Abby and Andrew. Indeed, John was Andrew's sole friend in many ways. He bore Abby no grudge that anyone has found.

Being a conspirator in a murder plot would be a big deal for a man who was able to leave his accommodation with friends and just visit others for days at a time. His life was as he wanted it. Why risk it all for two nieces he wasn't overly fond of, to say the least? He seems to have been closer to Emma than Lizzie, but even there the 'fondness' consisted of a letter three or four times a year, and seeing each other on very occasional visits. With Lizzie, there wasn't even that! She virtually ignored him, didn't even say Hello to him on his last visit and seemed to regard him as a grub and a hick! As you have pointed out, he didn't seem to have seen or communicated with his nieces again after the trial, though of course we don't know this!

Similarly, there would have to have been an awful lot of trust involved regarding this killer. Where would John get him from and how could he be trusted? Lawyers (mr Jennings) had to be paid, as well as living expenses until probate was granted. Any withdrawals of Emma's would have gone on that, I would imagine.

How would John find someone willing to kill and not give him up to the police beforehand? By trawling the bars of Boston or New York? There's no evidence however, that John was a big drinker or used to hanging around bars. Like Andrew, John may have been teetotal, and a believer in temperance. I think finding someone willing to kill someone else they don't know and taking huge risks to do it, is probably a great deal harder than watching TV crime shows etc would have people believe.

No strange man was ever seen entering the Borden house on that Thursday morning. Uncle John too, would be liable to blackmail for the rest of his life if this fellow didn't keep absolutely silent and never told, wife, mother, clergyman, father, brother, best friend, even on his death bed what he had done.

The blood evidence in the guest room tends to suggest (and of course it's all speculative) that Abby was leaning over the bed when the first blow was struck. (I tend to think that Lizzie, hiding the hatchet, was close behind her and engaging her in conversation.)

If Abby was chased into the guest room from downstairs, Why? Why make for the guest room if she was frightened, why not yell and scream and make a noise near windows on the ground floor, where near neighbours could hear? Or, if she was trapped in the guest room, make for the windows and yell? I don't believe, anyway, that Abby was stronger than Lizzie. Lizzie was young and fit, a robust woman, not some little slip of a thing! And, after the first blow was struck by a weapon like a hatchet Abby would be at a distinct disadvantage anyway.

Do consider three things in the Borden case. Means, motive and opportunity, and who was nearby when these two people died, ninety minutes apart. Never discount the motive of hatred for Abby allied to a large amount of money to enable Lizzie to live as she wished. The huge number of blows on each head speak of resentment and anger, not something a hired killer who had no personal motive would exhibit.

I could rattle on for an hour on this, so I'd better finish now! Hope you keep posting occasionally!

[Bronte]

Isn't it true that in order to examine Abby they had to pull her from underneath the bed? I heard about this on a documentary that she had crawled half-way under the bed trying to get away from her killer..So maybe she was trying to run and was chased around the bed before she went down

[Curryong]

Hello, Bronte! Poor old Abby was found in between the bed and the dressing table in the guest room. That bed was pretty low and Abby wasn't small so I don't think she would have got under there. Do take a look at the 'crime scene' photos taken later that day and you'll see what I mean. I think the doco was a bit misleading!

There is also a thread on the Forum called 'All about Abby' which illustrates the wounds and blood splatter evidence which I'm sure you'll find interesting.

[debbiediablo]

I love a new theory!! And yours is new NoStoneUnturned!! I somewhat agree that Abby wasn't chased up the stairs...except I can always see things from multiple perspectives. If Abby were caught in the front room and couldn't get the door unlocked then the stairwell might have been the only choice. If Lizzie had retired to her room and locked the door to avoid witnessing the carnage then the guest room would offer the only safe haven. This brings to mind earlier discussion that some folks in Fall River think she may have been trying to crawl under the bed. Does anyone recall which of the guestroom windows had the curtains drawn?

I see Bronte's post ahead of mine. No, they didn't have to pull her from under the bed but some people think she was attempting to edge under the bed. I'm not sure we really know as the body was moved and the furniture was moved. Even though she might not have fit under there, I can understand why she might try to squeeze out of reach of the killer.

[Curryong]

I thought the guest room had blinds and shutters which were closed against the sun? Don't tell me there were curtains drawn as well! No wonder poor old Bowen mistook that Abby had fainted, and that Dr Drederick complained about the lack of light in the room! Actually, I think Bowen had to open one of the shutters to let light in.

I depends which way any intruder came when threatening Abby, doesn't it? If (hello Franz) she answered the front door to him and he looked dangerous surely she would try and retreat back through the various rooms, to the kitchen. Of course, if he came up behind her from, say, the parlour, then she could have fled up the stairs. The problem is, I don't think Abby was a terribly fast-thinking or pro-active woman. Faced with a hatchet-wielding stranger in her home she could easily have just stood where she was, screaming her head off.

Plus, if she was chased into the guest room my former question still applies. Why box yourself in to that tiny space in which she was found? Why not head for the windows or somewhere nearer the door?

[irina]

I have thought of Abby "partially under the bed" in a rather gross way. She was soon dead or unconscious. The blows came from left to right. Her body would have been limp and subject to being pounded toward/against/ (partially) under the low bed.

I rather accept the idea that Abby once faced her attacker and that resulted in the "flap" to the side of her head. Makes sense to me. I also think she may have turned or planned to turn and run to the window. I also believe she was in the room finishing up her chores when she was attacked. It doesn't make sense that she ran to the room. Even if she was light on her feet which it is said she was not, the assailant, including Lizzie, could have easily outdistanced her. If the assailant was a man he could easily have overpowered and killed her before she had a chance to go upstairs.

[debbiediablo]

I'm sure you are right about the blinds and shutters as opposed to curtains. For some reason I'm thinking part, but not all, of the windows were closed to the sun when Abby's body was found, that the window furthest from the door but facing the street was still open. The orderly way to shut blinds is around the room either clockwise or counterclockwise. This is one of those little things that bothers me, doesn't quite make sense. Similar to why the guestroom door was left open when it makes better sense to hide the body no matter who the killer is.

An unarmed person will most likely flee when attacked by a hatchet wielding killer. I'm not sure there's much thought put into where to go so much to get away. Possibly Abby was trying to get the chair against the wall between her and the killer or maybe she really thought she could stuff herself under the bed. Whether she was chased up the stairs and into the corner or surprised while putting the finishing touches on the bed, Abby appears to have been struck from the front and then turned her back to the killer. To me that says she was trying to get away.

If someone came in the front door then someone had to lock it again for Bridget and Andrew. The only two people who would understand the importance of this would be Lizzie and Bridget, and Emma if she were home. I do agree that almost anyone could've out-distanced her to the stairs but perhaps didn't want to leave her body halfway up the steps.

[Curryong]

The room was very dim when the doctors were there. It's probable that the killer needed a bit more light.

Of course there are the facial bruises, showing Abby fell like a tree in the forest. I think I remember Possum posting that the bruising showed Abby fell to the floor without putting out her arms to protect herself. Seemingly she was already deeply unconscious or moments from death.

[Curiousmind2014]

Hi again everyone!

It is an interesting new theory. However, after reading the trial and a few books, I believe it is an insider job. Lizzie definitely was involved, and so was Emma. If one was to believe this was all planned, it does explain Emma's rare outdoor excursion to Fairhaven as she was the one to inherit all of the wealth. I can't see Bridget not being involved in any of it. Of course we can't trust the newspaper articles, but if one had to believe that her reported behavior after the murders were true; followed by her tight lipped answers at the trial, I want to believe she was an accomplice. Uncle John was really weird in his behavior. If anything, he would have helped them plan it; without a known motivation. The only motivation I can think of for Uncle John would be a business benefit in case Andrew and him were competing in again businesses they operated.

I am sold to Debbie's theory about a possible sexual intimacy with "Many Maggies" to this story. However, I would then wonder why would she approach Lizzie to kill Andrew assuming she had a high regard for Abby. I wonder if Debbie would entertain the possibility of Andrew having sexual intimacy with his daughters. If that was true, the story falls right in place.

+ Emma was old, and probably Andrew lost interest in her.
+ Abby knew of everything Andrew does with the maids. She now has a way to get things from Andrew by keeping his secret. It is surprising for a couple who were paranoid about someone killing them, to have a maid, who was an outsider, living in the same part of the house as them.

+ Lizzie recognizes how Abby gets it her way. Her father's taboo is too shameful to be disclosed and too dangerous to be allowed to continue.
+ Emma too, recognizes that Abby has to go, or else Andrew won't leave much for them. She recognizes she has to go as she would be the heiress if both of them had to die.
+ Emma plans the murder and creates her Alibi. She summons Lizzie and Bridget to execute it. Her cost of execution maybe a minor sum to Bridget and half share of the estate for Lizzie.
+ Bridget sees this as an opportunity to give back all the shame and humiliation she faced and make some money. However, for Andrew to be killed, she has to agree to be an accomplice in Abby's murder.

Now, this is where I get a bit confused. If it was a planned murder, the planners would have picked a day to execute it. I ponder what was so different or special about the Thursday of August 4, 1892 for the murders to have taken place. Was it the presence of Uncle Morse? If that was the case, he should have been an accomplice in some way. Maybe he bought the hatchet in the house.

Also, I don't want to trust Bridget or Lizzie on their testimonies. I am not even sure if Abby told Bridget to clean the windows. To me, it seems to be the best way to keep an eye on the world while Lizzie kills Abby.

+ 900-930am: Lizzie kills Abby.
+ 930-1030am: Lizzie cleans herself very well after the murder.
+ 1030-1040am: Bridget comes in the house
+ 1040-1045am: Andrew comes in
+ 1045-1050am: Bridget kills Andrew with a hatchet with Lizzie as an accomplice
+ 1050-1105am: Bridget cleans herself up (Bridget mentions in the trial that she slept on her bed for a nap. For some reason she mentions without changing clothes. Why does she mention that when she is not asked to specify)

+Rest of it is well documented.

I agree with Debbie that the only reason the women involved kept their mouth shut because it would have brought a lot of humiliation to each one of them. Maybe the day Debbie decides to publish her theory; she can borrow the title "Private Disgrace" ;).

[debbiediablo]

Hi again everyone!

It is an interesting new theory. However, after reading the trial and a few books, I believe it is an insider job. Lizzie definitely was involved, and so was Emma. If one was to believe this was all planned, it does explain Emma's rare outdoor excursion to Fairhaven as she was the one to inherit all of the wealth. I can't see Bridget not being involved in any of it. Of course we can't trust the newspaper articles, but if one had to believe that her reported behavior after the murders were true; followed by her tight lipped answers at the trial, I want to believe she was an accomplice. Uncle John was really weird in his behavior. If anything, he would have helped them plan it; without a known motivation. The only motivation I can think of for Uncle John would be a business benefit in case Andrew and him were competing in again businesses they operated.

I am sold to Debbie's theory about a possible sexual intimacy with "Many Maggies" to this story. However, I would then wonder why would she approach Lizzie to kill Andrew assuming she had a high regard for Abby. I wonder if Debbie would entertain the possibility of Andrew having sexual intimacy with his daughters. If that was true, the story falls right in place.

+ Emma was old, and probably Andrew lost interest in her.
+ Abby knew of everything Andrew does with the maids. She now has a way to get things from Andrew by keeping his secret. It is surprising for a couple who were paranoid about someone killing them, to have a maid, who was an outsider, living in the same part of the house as them.

+ Lizzie recognizes how Abby gets it her way. Her father's taboo is too shameful to be disclosed and too dangerous to be allowed to continue.
+ Emma too, recognizes that Abby has to go, or else Andrew won't leave much for them. She recognizes she has to go as she would be the heiress if both of them had to die.
+ Emma plans the murder and creates her Alibi. She summons Lizzie and Bridget to execute it. Her cost of execution maybe a minor sum to Bridget and half share of the estate for Lizzie.
+ Bridget sees this as an opportunity to give back all the shame and humiliation she faced and make some money. However, for Andrew to be killed, she has to agree to be an accomplice in Abby's murder.

Now, this is where I get a bit confused. If it was a planned murder, the planners would have picked a day to execute it. I ponder what was so different or special about the Thursday of August 4, 1892 for the murders to have taken place. Was it the presence of Uncle Morse? If that was the case, he should have been an accomplice in some way. Maybe he bought the hatchet in the house.

Also, I don't want to trust Bridget or Lizzie on their testimonies. I am not even sure if Abby told Bridget to clean the windows. To me, it seems to be the best way to keep an eye on the world while Lizzie kills Abby.

+ 900-930am: Lizzie kills Abby.
+ 930-1030am: Lizzie cleans herself very well after the murder.
+ 1030-1040am: Bridget comes in the house
+ 1040-1045am: Andrew comes in
+ 1045-1050am: Bridget kills Andrew with a hatchet with Lizzie as an accomplice
+ 1050-1105am: Bridget cleans herself up (Bridget mentions in the trial that she slept on her bed for a nap. For some reason she mentions without changing clothes. Why does she mention that when she is not asked to specify)

+Rest of it is well documented.

I agree with Debbie that the only reason the women involved kept their mouth shut because it would have brought a lot of humiliation to each one of them. Maybe the day Debbie decides to publish her theory; she can borrow the title "Private Disgrace" ;).

I'm in the middle of moving part of my father-in-law's estate and also working today, so I'll respond further in a few days. But yes, I do think there's a high probability of an inappropriate relationship between Andrew and his daughters. We have scant evidence to prove it, but much of what you say I agree with other than I don't think Uncle John had anything to do with it other than he knew damn well what was going on and who the killer had to be. More later.

[Angel]

Was there any inquiry into Lizzie and Emma's bank account to see if there had been any big sum of money taken out recently to pay a hired assassin?

I do believe that if this had been a planned thing, no one in his right mind would have chosen a busy morning with people all about both inside and outside the house.

[Curryong]

No, Angel, far better that, if there was a conspiracy to murder (which I don't believe: too many difficulties) it would have been better done during the hours of darkness, using the 'staged burglary' scenario. As far as money is concerned the Borden sisters had a couple of thousand in the bank each. Their lawyer, Mr Jennings, probably presented his bills after probate had been granted and some waited until after the trial. It would be an extremely patient hired killer that would have done the same.

[debbiediablo]

Hi again everyone!

It is an interesting new theory. However, after reading the trial and a few books, I believe it is an insider job. Lizzie definitely was involved, and so was Emma. If one was to believe this was all planned, it does explain Emma's rare outdoor excursion to Fairhaven as she was the one to inherit all of the wealth. I can't see Bridget not being involved in any of it. Of course we can't trust the newspaper articles, but if one had to believe that her reported behavior after the murders were true; followed by her tight lipped answers at the trial, I want to believe she was an accomplice. Uncle John was really weird in his behavior. If anything, he would have helped them plan it; without a known motivation. The only motivation I can think of for Uncle John would be a business benefit in case Andrew and him were competing in again businesses they operated.

I am sold to Debbie's theory about a possible sexual intimacy with "Many Maggies" to this story. However, I would then wonder why would she approach Lizzie to kill Andrew assuming she had a high regard for Abby. I wonder if Debbie would entertain the possibility of Andrew having sexual intimacy with his daughters. If that was true, the story falls right in place.

+ Emma was old, and probably Andrew lost interest in her.
+ Abby knew of everything Andrew does with the maids. She now has a way to get things from Andrew by keeping his secret. It is surprising for a couple who were paranoid about someone killing them, to have a maid, who was an outsider, living in the same part of the house as them.

+ Lizzie recognizes how Abby gets it her way. Her father's taboo is too shameful to be disclosed and too dangerous to be allowed to continue.
+ Emma too, recognizes that Abby has to go, or else Andrew won't leave much for them. She recognizes she has to go as she would be the heiress if both of them had to die.
+ Emma plans the murder and creates her Alibi. She summons Lizzie and Bridget to execute it. Her cost of execution maybe a minor sum to Bridget and half share of the estate for Lizzie.
+ Bridget sees this as an opportunity to give back all the shame and humiliation she faced and make some money. However, for Andrew to be killed, she has to agree to be an accomplice in Abby's murder.

Now, this is where I get a bit confused. If it was a planned murder, the planners would have picked a day to execute it. I ponder what was so different or special about the Thursday of August 4, 1892 for the murders to have taken place. Was it the presence of Uncle Morse? If that was the case, he should have been an accomplice in some way. Maybe he bought the hatchet in the house.

Also, I don't want to trust Bridget or Lizzie on their testimonies. I am not even sure if Abby told Bridget to clean the windows. To me, it seems to be the best way to keep an eye on the world while Lizzie kills Abby.

+ 900-930am: Lizzie kills Abby.
+ 930-1030am: Lizzie cleans herself very well after the murder.
+ 1030-1040am: Bridget comes in the house
+ 1040-1045am: Andrew comes in
+ 1045-1050am: Bridget kills Andrew with a hatchet with Lizzie as an accomplice
+ 1050-1105am: Bridget cleans herself up (Bridget mentions in the trial that she slept on her bed for a nap. For some reason she mentions without changing clothes. Why does she mention that when she is not asked to specify)

+Rest of it is well documented.

I agree with Debbie that the only reason the women involved kept their mouth shut because it would have brought a lot of humiliation to each one of them. Maybe the day Debbie decides to publish her theory; she can borrow the title "Private Disgrace" ;).

Good point. The best way to keep track of the world would be from the window washing advantage. Although I see Lizzie hinting at Abby about the dirty windows knowing that Abby will send Bridget to wash them, thus getting her out of the way. Sort of the same way Lizzie hinted about the fabric sale. My personal take, some of it not supported by evidence but perhaps by modern-day forensic profiling, involves almost everything you say, Curious. I think Uncle John's presence forced the issue, that he had nothing to do with the crime other than necessitating a schedule change. And that Bridget went along with it because of Andrew's over-over-the-line behaviors with the maids once he lost interest in the daughters. I'm more along the line of Lizzie saying to her, after the fact, "It's awful about Father, but I suppose you're relieved in a way, knowing what I know about how he behaved with you. Don't worry. I won't tell anyone what went on between you two. I know you must have hated him but I know you couldn't have killed him." Bridget knows then and there that one word from Lizzie will put her neck in a noose. Anytime something like this takes place, the spouse is complicit if she knows, no matter how much she may hate what's happening. I also think the original plan was to burn down the house but Lizzie couldn't bring herself to burn Bridget.

[Curryong]

Sorry everyone, but where is there any evidence that (a) Andrew assaulted and/or impregnated the maids and/or (B) was involved in an incestuous relationship with his daughters? It may be the best theory going, but unless there are some verifiable facts to back the whole thing up, it is as unsubstantial as a spider's web.

[debbiediablo]

Sorry everyone, but where is there any evidence that (a) Andrew assaulted and/or impregnated the maids and/or (B) was involved in an incestuous relationship with his daughters? It may be the best theory going, but unless there are some verifiable facts to back the whole thing up, it is as unsubstantial as a spider's web.

I have avoided this particular theory since starting on the forum simply because there are mere bits and pieces to support it. But my gut response tells me this on the mark for these reasons: • The neighbor says some people are worse than crazy. • The incredible overkill of both victims and the absolute depersonalization via facial battery of Andrew. Followed by the undoing by placing a folded coat under his head. • The paranoia within the household - locks, keys, clubs, triple locks, sections of the house shut off. • The social isolation Andrew maintains for all the females in the household, not the least being lack of a telephone but also lack of plumbing and electricity - not a place to invite friends home. • Lizzie giving Andrew a gold ring to wear on his left hand until the day he died; this is just one finger away from a wedding ring. • Lizzie's trip to Europe that Emma doesn't get. • Bridget wanting to leave what should have been one of the easiest jobs in Fall River. • Andrew overpaying (how out of character) the maid. • The absolute control he maintained over all the women in the household (to the point that he rudely sent Dr. Bowen packing when his wife complained of illness). • Andrew's attachment to his Church was more unto Caesar and less unto Christ, and when it required too much Caesar, he bailed. • Andrew's pragmatic choice of a second wife rather than choosing someone younger who could produce a male heir.

Forensic Red Flags

Do the injuries fit the crime? Forensic results that do not fit the crime should cause the investigator to think about staging. The presence of a personal-type assault using a weapon of opportunity when the initial motive for the offense appears to be for material gain should raise suspicion. This type of assault also includes manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (overkill). Generally, the more evidence there is of overkill, the closer the relationship is between the victim and the offender.

Sexual and domestic homicides demonstrate forensic findings of this type: a close-range, personalized assault. The victim (not money or goods) is the primary focus on the offender. This type of offender often attempts to stage a sexual or domestic homicide to appear motivated by criminal enterprise.

The crime scene of the well-planned domestic murder reflects a controlled, organized crime . The weapon, fingerprints, and other evidentiary items often are removed. The body is usually not concealed. It will still often involve the victim's or offender's residence, but locations of crime scenes outside the home also are possible.

An investigator who suspects a staged crime scene should look for other signs of close offender association with the victim, such as washing up or any other indications of undoing (moving the body from the death scene, and positioning it on a sofa or bed with the head on a pillow are all expressions of undoing). In addition, when an offender stages a domestic homicide, he frequently plans and maneuvers a third-party discovery of the victim.

EXAMPLE PROVIDED: Instead of going upstairs to check on his wife and daughter, the murderer called his brother, who lived across the street. The husband stayed downstairs in the kitchen while the brother ran upstairs and discovered the victim. Offenders often manipulate the victim's discovery by a neighbor or family member or will be conveniently elsewhere when the victim is discovered.

From: Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime. Wiley.

Interestingly an 1856 pamphlet Science of Reproduction and Reproductive Control suggests douching with tannin, iodine, strychnine, prussic acid, or powdered opium dissolved in water to destroy "animalcules", to kill sperm. Furthermore, An Historical and Practical Treatise on the Internal Use of HydroCyanic (Prussic) Acid, 1820, by AB Granville suggests the use of prussic acid to alleviate the pain, cramping and bleeding following an abortion. This is available for free as a Google ebook.

So, no, there is no overt evidence that incest took place in the Borden house, and maybe it didn't as such. Then again, this is Victorian America. I've dealt with enough incest cases in 20th and 21st century America to understand just how secretive these situations are. I do think Andrew and Lizzie engaged in an unusual father-daughter relationship that had some inexplicable and decidedly unhealthy oddities. He was a tyrant at home, controlling on all fronts. The place was locked tighter than Attica. The neighbors said some things are worse than crazy. Just exactly what is worse than crazy?!??!? A daughter doesn't smash in her father's face, destroy the power of his familiar identity, for the sake of money alone. Even if Andrew did write a will leaving everything to Abby, all that needed to happen to thwart her inheriting was for Abby to have a fatal accident on the cellar stairs. The underlying causes of these murders were far more long-term and serious than moving "up the hill' to electricity, plumbing and a telephone or Mrs. Borden being a b****.

EDIT: In reading the entire chapter on prussic acid as antidote to hemorrhages, painful menstruation and abortion, it seems possible that Sarah may have been treated with prussic acid for uterine congestion. Then again, if she was, it may have been the treatment and not the disease that killed her!!!

[Curryong]

Andrew may have been abusing the maids. He may have indulged in an incestuous relationship with Emma, Lizzie or both daughters. However, there is no evidence for it.

Posters on this forum have accused Andrew of incest since 2003/2004. However, in spite of all the research on the Bordens and the case undertaken by people on this forum and connected to it and to the Fall River Historical Society, absolutely nothing has come up in the way of proof, or even written allegations from Jennings or anyone else who knew the Bordens, one way or the other.

People in Fall River generally didn't know a lot about about the family. Calling people 'ugly' (tempered) or making vague remarks that the family were a bit strange means nothing really, unless it's based on hard fact or at least some link, ie that they were close long-term family friends.

I do wish the Grein family would allow us to peruse the letters in their possession so we would know a little about the earlier domestic life of the Borden family and whether there was anything to Andrew's alleged improper relationships with the family servants. However, we don't have those letters or other documents and so the subject remains purely speculative. We do know that an elderly woman turned up at Abby and Andrew's funeral who may have been an old servant of the Bordens. She was extremely upset.

We know little about the inner dynamics of the Borden family. It is clear that in many ways Andrew was akin to a domestic tyrant. In other ways he seems to have been puzzled by the bitter enmity his daughters held towards his wife Abby. He did try and make things right with his daughters in the only way he knew how, by money/giving them a rental property.
Bridget got homesick sometimes and would talk of Ireland and going home. Abby, lonely and with few friends, would say "I'll miss you" and persuade her to stay. Abby gave her a pay rise in order that she stayed. Yes, Bridget's work was quite easy but people sometimes do get restless and want to move on to pastures new. Bridget was still quite a young woman. She may have wanted to try a different kind of job, she may have wished to see other parts of the US. She might have become tired of the very strained atmosphere between 'the girls ' and Abby. None of that has to do with Andrew possibly forcing himself on her, sexually.

We don't know what made Andrew choose Abby; the fact that she would make a good wife perhaps, that she didn't mind his rough-hewn rather dour ways, that she was thrifty and a good housekeeper, there may even have been some fondness between them. We know so little about their courting days or their marital relationship, really.

I think there have been long discussions on this forum about the exact meaning of Andrew's facial wounds. You have always held, as is your perfect right, that Andrew's wounds were part of a depersonalisation process. Others have stated that Andrew's wounds corresponded with the part of his head convenient to the hatchet. I think both views have merit.

However, to me, it is clear that the killer (whom I believe to be Lizzie) showed enormous anger towards both victims. That anger, however, can of course, encompass an enormous number of things in the killer's mind. For Lizzie, who had a deep sense of entitlement, there could have been any number of smallish restrictions and humiliations which had built up in her mind over the years into one seething mountain of festering resentment without incest coming into the picture.

I realise that you have an enormous amount of experience, deb, in working with damaged families, sexual assault victims, incest victims etc., and I honour you for it. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like something besides theory in the case of Lizzie and her father and Andrew and the maids! Please!

[irina]

I'm going to have to re-research prussic acid. What I have read says it is so deadly that the scientists who discovered it were amazed. I can't imagine using it for the reason stated. It has been used in veterinary medicine in very small amounts for bovine digestive issues. I have wondered if there isn't another chemical with a similar name but I can't find it. It seems that if Lizzie had a personal medical need for prussic acid compounded properly, that Dr.Bowen could have obtained it for her.

I know it has been said that Lizzie had an abortion but there is absolutely NO proof, though it would fit certain things that happened around that time. It could even explain murder. Something was written about her not coming straight home from Marion but staying in a hotel for a night and that she had an abortion there. I figure there is no way to get any proof so it's one of those things to keep in mind as we do research.

[Curryong]

Do you mean the Poole residence in New Bedford, Irina? Mrs Poole was the mother of Augusta Tripp who gave evidence for the defence at Lizzie's trial. Augusta and Lizzie were school-mates. Mrs Poole was a widow who had a tubercular daughter Carrie living at home.

Like Mrs Churchill in Second St, Fall River, Mrs Poole eked out her income by providing food and lodgings in her house, for respectable persons of course, and was far too genteel to regard her establishment as a boarding house per se, even though it was!

Lizzie stayed there for about three days as she was feeling down, then went to Marion to her friends for one day. While at the Pooles, Lizzie visited with them on a day jaunt to the Tripps nearby, and also went out alone to purchase a dress pattern and materials which were later found in a box in the attic. The police appeared suspicious of this purchase as they may have regarded it as some sort of abortive attempt to closely copy the paint-stained garment (which of course Lizzie ended up burning) in case the authorities wanted clothing she wore on the murder day. A bit of premeditation! (The pattern and cloth apparently resembled the Bedford cord dress.)

Prussic acid is indeed one heck of a poison. It would certainly kill bugs in a cape and everyone else in close proximity I would imagine!

[debbiediablo]

I'm going to have to re-research prussic acid. What I have read says it is so deadly that the scientists who discovered it were amazed. I can't imagine using it for the reason stated. It has been used in veterinary medicine in very small amounts for bovine digestive issues. I have wondered if there isn't another chemical with a similar name but I can't find it. It seems that if Lizzie had a personal medical need for prussic acid compounded properly, that Dr.Bowen could have obtained it for her.

I know it has been said that Lizzie had an abortion but there is absolutely NO proof, though it would fit certain things that happened around that time. It could even explain murder. Something was written about her not coming straight home from Marion but staying in a hotel for a night and that she had an abortion there. I figure there is no way to get any proof so it's one of those things to keep in mind as we do research.

Yes, the use of prussic acid for medicinal purposes sounds dangerous given that the name we would recognize is hydrogen cyanide aka Zyklon B in Nazi Germany. I used an ebook available from Google which can be browsed more quickly. This one below turns the pages....s...l....o....w....l....y.... My understanding is the chemist could've given the prussic acid to Lizzie had Bowen provided a script. AB Granville is speaking of very dilute prussic acid but the same prussic acid Lizzie attempted to purchase. Another interesting fact is that soils high in nitrogen and low in phosphorous tend to cause naturally occurring prussic acid in sorghum forage which kills the animals grazing it. Fresh cut hay can also be dangerous for a short while. Here's a link to that book:

https://archive.org/stream/historicalpr ... 8/mode/2up

[twinsrwe]

Debbie, thanks for the link! Love how the pages turn; I found out that by right clicking on the pages, they turn quickly!

[debbiediablo]

Debbie, thanks for the link! Love how the pages turn; I found out that by right clicking on the pages, they turn quickly!

Thanks for the tip. Page 329 is where the use for feminine maladies starts. Right after where he uses it for asthma.

[Curryong]

Gee, debbie, some very interesting avatars lately! I like the black cat, green eyes motif!

[debbiediablo]

From the Formulary for the Employment of Many New Medicines by F. Majendie and John D. Baxter, MD, 1828. This is the chapter on prussic acid.

1.png

2.png

3.png

[debbiediablo]

Andrew may have been abusing the maids. He may have indulged in an incestuous relationship with Emma, Lizzie or both daughters. However, there is no evidence for it.

Posters on this forum have accused Andrew of incest since 2003/2004. However, in spite of all the research on the Bordens and the case undertaken by people on this forum and connected to it and to the Fall River Historical Society, absolutely nothing has come up in the way of proof, or even written allegations from Jennings or anyone else who knew the Bordens, one way or the other.

People in Fall River generally didn't know a lot about about the family. Calling people 'ugly' (tempered) or making vague remarks that the family were a bit strange means nothing really, unless it's based on hard fact or at least some link, ie that they were close long-term family friends.

I do wish the Grein family would allow us to peruse the letters in their possession so we would know a little about the earlier domestic life of the Borden family and whether there was anything to Andrew's alleged improper relationships with the family servants. However, we don't have those letters or other documents and so the subject remains purely speculative. We do know that an elderly woman turned up at Abby and Andrew's funeral who may have been an old servant of the Bordens. She was extremely upset.

We know little about the inner dynamics of the Borden family. It is clear that in many ways Andrew was akin to a domestic tyrant. In other ways he seems to have been puzzled by the bitter enmity his daughters held towards his wife Abby. He did try and make things right with his daughters in the only way he knew how, by money/giving them a rental property.
Bridget got homesick sometimes and would talk of Ireland and going home. Abby, lonely and with few friends, would say "I'll miss you" and persuade her to stay. Abby gave her a pay rise in order that she stayed. Yes, Bridget's work was quite easy but people sometimes do get restless and want to move on to pastures new. Bridget was still quite a young woman. She may have wanted to try a different kind of job, she may have wished to see other parts of the US. She might have become tired of the very strained atmosphere between 'the girls ' and Abby. None of that has to do with Andrew possibly forcing himself on her, sexually.

We don't know what made Andrew choose Abby; the fact that she would make a good wife perhaps, that she didn't mind his rough-hewn rather dour ways, that she was thrifty and a good housekeeper, there may even have been some fondness between them. We know so little about their courting days or their marital relationship, really.

I think there have been long discussions on this forum about the exact meaning of Andrew's facial wounds. You have always held, as is your perfect right, that Andrew's wounds were part of a depersonalisation process. Others have stated that Andrew's wounds corresponded with the part of his head convenient to the hatchet. I think both views have merit.

However, to me, it is clear that the killer (whom I believe to be Lizzie) showed enormous anger towards both victims. That anger, however, can of course, encompass an enormous number of things in the killer's mind. For Lizzie, who had a deep sense of entitlement, there could have been any number of smallish restrictions and humiliations which had built up in her mind over the years into one seething mountain of festering resentment without incest coming into the picture.

I realise that you have an enormous amount of experience, deb, in working with damaged families, sexual assault victims, incest victims etc., and I honour you for it. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like something besides theory in the case of Lizzie and her father and Andrew and the maids! Please!

Yes, Curryong (does Curryong mean something in Australia?) I, too, would like more than my gut instincts and the fact that the Borden family fits one pattern of my experience dealing with homes where abuse of some sort often has taken place. All my concerns taken piecemeal have little meaning; taken as a whole there's a red flag. The thing is most families that throw up red flags have some pretty serious problems, but these problems do not extend into incestuous behavior.

Personal experience has brought me into contact with two types of families. One, the parent (usually the father) is blatantly abusive to the spouse and children, often has a substance abuse problem and is in trouble with the law on the multiple fronts (i.e. chased his wife into the local court house waving a gun). Come to find out he had been sexually violating the seven year-old daughter for three years. Another involved a tweaker who raped a two-year-old because her parents were neglectful enough to send him upstairs to her bedroom to sleep it off. There was no mistake about this: she needed reconstructive surgery plus he bit off part of her ear.

A different pattern looks a lot like the Borden's. The wife and children are kept socially isolated by a rigid and domineering male. They live well but secretively. Instead of fearing starvation, being locked in closets or physically beaten by the perpetrator, the children are confused in that the father couples patriarchal affection with sexual love. The mother or step-mother is wounded herself, often a submissive personality and often selected precisely for this submissive personality, and is incapable of taking the children and making an escape. This was much more the case in the 1890s when women had no careers to fall back on. As for the victims, it's much easier to mostly love someone or mostly hate someone than to equally love and hate someone at the same time.

Too often this kind of love has a feel good side to it no matter what people might like to think. When it's withdrawn or redirected is often when all hell breaks lose, (i.e. the victims grow older). I know this has been discussed on the forum (and everywhere else Lizzie is examined) and we likely will never know the truth unless it's in the Robinson Law Office or somewhere in a Fall River or Montana or Irish attic. I do wonder if this was the topic of discussion between Emma and Jennings where Lizzie later accuses her sister of betrayal. I also wonder whether this is why Dr. Bowen was evasive in his defense of the sisters.

I would ❤ to know even a little bit of what the Grein family has to offer. Having been a librarian in a previous career and having helped research several books for professor friends who are historians, the need to set the records straight is so incredibly important. It's not about writing books or being right or wrong or famous or published or humiliated or whatever; it's about finding the truth. For this reason I have been hesitant to bring up this theory in the forum; and for this reason I also decided it might be necessary to examine the evidence, or lack thereof, in the forum even though it is like whipping a dead horse.

None of which has anything to do with psychics saying, "Eww, what happened here is 'icky'," while on national television....

Perhaps a better way reframe is to examine to aberrant behavior of the Borden family and how that might have contributed to the murders.

[Curryong]

This is what Alice Russell thought of the make-up of the Borden household, in an interview she gave during the Inquest. Rebello page 27.

'The father was the head of the house; they had to do as he thought. Mrs Borden did not control the house; the whole summing up of it was that. ...Mr Borden was a plain living man with rigid ideas and very set. ...He earned his money, and did not care for the things young women in their position naturally would. ...Everyone knew what Andrew Borden's ideas were...he did not care for anything different.....They had quite refined ideas, and they would like to have been cultured girls, and would like to have had different advantages, and it would be natural for the girls to express themselves that way. It would have been unnatural if they had not.'

It seems that Andrew either ignored or sneered at his daughters' cultural and social pretensions. Of course, as he was a skinflint, there weren't too many books, trips or theatre visits that could be eked out of $4.00 a week allowance.

Curryong is a tiny but busy little creek near 'the mighty Murray', debbie. Australia is an exceptionally dry continent and the Murray is a main river. There's also a creamy little white flower of the same name, that grows wild in the paddocks up near the river, but it's the creek I named myself after. Ooh, sorry, gone off topic again!

[irina]

I too think the important thing is to tell the story. I sincerely doubt any of us or the countless writers and journalists who have worked on the story are anywhere near the truth. Too many things don't add up from any perspective. I have always felt that Lizzie was innocent and history has been unkind and that is a story to tell. If she was guilty I think her reason would go a long way toward mitigation.

A number of Victorian families ran similar to the Borden home because of religious and cultural mores of the time. Incest happened then as it does now, but that structure with the man being lord and master in his home, with everyone subject to him, was more common at that time even when nothing nasty was happening.

We also have the famous words of Freud: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Curryong]

Yes, irina 'Honour thy father and thy Mother' meant a great deal in 19th century society, and fathers often did rule the roost. I'm reminded of the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, whose extremely shy and anti-social father actively discouraged her from any sort of social life outside the home. He emphasised her poor health to reinforce this, even when she was in her thirties and earning money from her poetry. He behaved in exactly the same way with her sisters and his grown sons. That sort of domestic tyranny was so much more common then, when women had little financial independence.

[debbiediablo]

OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC! OFF TOPIC!

Is Currawong the same as Curryong? Indeed the creek is beautiful. I live close to Mossy Glen which has a falls similar to this - beautiful, remote, and said to be haunted by at least three people who were murdered there starting in the 1850s.

[Curryong]

No, different, it's so small I don't think it's marked on any map! I spent a caravan holiday with my children near there a couple of times. Currawong creek falls are very pretty though, and I've also visited them. They're near a ski resort.

How interesting that you live near a multiple murder locale! Did it draw your interest? Australia has some interesting ghost spots connected with murder victims too, including the legend of Fisher's ghost who kept appearing sitting on a rural gate and pointing to a spot on the ground where his body had been secretly buried! Eventually people dug him up and his murderer confessed.

[debbiediablo]

This is taken from The Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society @ http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Incest.html to help understand why incest, when it existed, wasn't the issue that it is today. Nor is the definition entirely clear except where children are involved. Marriage between cousins is legal in Massachusetts and a number of other states, illegal where I live, yet is viewed as a criminal offense in five other states. Until the early 1900s the age of consent in most states was 10. This may not be so much Freud saying sometimes a cigar is a cigar as asking the views of Groucho Marx, Bill Clinton and Fidel Castro.

Incest

The taboo surrounding incest has existed for thousands of years, but its social impact has shifted over time, reflecting changing notions of children, law, SEXUALITY, and the family. The historian must exercise caution in interpreting the role of incest in the United States because rhetoric does not always reflect reality. People rarely spoke about child sexual abuse prior to the 1970s; nevertheless incest clearly occurred. Society's responses to allegations of incest reflect the changing and often ambiguous role of children in society and are shaped by notions of gender, race, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity.

Colonial America through the Nineteenth Century

In the colonial period, children were economic assets to the family and essentially under paternal control. Their economic function was eclipsed as Victorian concepts of middle-class domesticity emerged in the nineteenth century. Children were recast as innately innocent and malleable, and mothers replaced fathers as the moral guardians of the home. This image of innocence underscored the perception of childhood vulnerability. During the Progressive Era, CHILD-SAVING professionals increasingly intervened in the family, subtly challenging parental authority and implying that faulty and inadequate PARENTING could harm children. The twentieth century saw the emergence of CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, often at the expense of parental authority.

Although rarely mentioned, there is mounting evidence that child sexual abuse occurred frequently throughout the last two centuries. Laws about statutory rape and incest reflect awareness that child sexual abuse existed, but their erratic enforcement suggests ambiguity about sexual abuse and society's role in child protection. Between the 1880s and 1900, for example, most states increased the AGE OF CONSENT from ten to at least sixteen, reflecting a common concern of the social purity movement that girls were vulnerable to sexual harm. Although almost every state outlawed incest, sexual acts between parent and child outside of intercourse fell under less stringent legal statutes.

Historians have argued that cultural practices may have facilitated sexual abuse in the home. Sleeping arrangements that placed adults in the same bed with children–such as occurred in the crowded conditions of nineteenth-century tenements, or the limited bed space in colonial and frontier homes–gave adults easy access to children, enabled children to witness carnal acts between adults, and may have facilitated incest. Myths about VENEREAL DISEASE transmission may have contributed to sexual abuse by reshaping taboos against incest into acts of desperation. According to one myth, which still occasionally surfaces as an excuse, intercourse with a virgin will cure a man suffering from a venereal disease. During the nineteenth century, men who invoked this explanation for sexual relations with minors were considered less predatory and legally culpable.

Late Nineteen and Early Twentieth Century

During the Progressive Era the profession of social work was born; with it came increased scrutiny of the private lives of American families. When early social workers uncovered cases of incest, they frequently described the girls as seducers rather than victims. Considered sexually deviant, these girls risked incarceration in institutions for delinquent girls. Conversely, fathers who were named as perpetrators were rarely prosecuted; a promise to reform was considered sufficient. By the 1920s, children were often imbued with paradoxical qualities of being at once erotic and innocent, a tension epitomized in Nabokov's 1958 novel LOLITA.

Commonly held beliefs may have deflected suspicion away from parents. Victorian domestic literature frequently warned mothers to beware of salacious domestic workers caring for children. Accused of calming young charges by masturbating them and introducing sexual activity prematurely, domestic employees were often the first household members to be implicated when sexual abuse was suspected. Little evidence supports these accusations against nursery maids; yet the frequency with which the concern was raised reflects a simmering fear that sexual abuse could perturb the seemingly calm Victorian home. Similarly, when a child contracted gonorrhea and a parent was found to have the disease as well, infected sheets and toilet seats were blamed instead of the parent. The mistaken belief that children could catch gonorrhea from objects led sexual abuse to go unrecognized as late as the 1970s.

Historians have shown how twentieth-century rhetoric may have hidden more abuse than it exposed. The stranger-perpetrator, so threateningly portrayed in mid-twentieth-century media, diverted attention from more likely perpetrators in the home. Freud's notion of children's innate sexuality and his belief that memories of sexual abuse represented unconscious wishes stressed the erotic nature of children and caused many professionals to question the validity of memories of sexual abuse. Even as concern about sexual abuse grew throughout most of the twentieth century, most experts resisted the idea that incest might be common.

CHILD ABUSE burst into American social conscience in the last three decades of the twentieth century, but there were important antecedents, though initially they were focused on physical rather than sexual abuse. Organized social response to child abuse began in 1874 when a severely beaten girl was brought to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and thus led to the founding of analogous societies to protect abused children. Her case typified nineteenth-century stereotypes: abused children came from immigrant, impoverished, intemperate, and marginalized homes. These stereotypes buttressed middle-class values, reinforced notions of middle-class domestic tranquility, and persisted for over a hundred years.

Other social movements helped set the stage for the late-twentieth-century discovery of incest. Feminism empowered women to expose domestic abuse and encouraged society to protect other victims, like abused children. The social activism of the 1960s and 1970s created a sympathetic audience for abused children. Increased sexual freedom gave society a vocabulary to discuss sexual abuse. In the early 1960s pediatricians, inspired by social activism and responding to increased professional interest in developmental and behavioral issues, began to identify and protect physically abused children. By the 1970s this medicalization of child abuse had expanded to include child sexual abuse as well, and medical evaluations became standard features of child sexual abuse cases. As society increasingly felt obliged to protect abused children, the paternal hegemony that dominated early American families had eroded and a variety of professionals gained authority in policing and protecting the family.

[Curryong]

I've never understood the taboo against cousin marriage, perhaps because I've never lived in a country where it has been banned.

I can imagine in isolated rural homesteads and crowded slums that there would be some incest occurring because of circumstances. Of course, authorities didn't inquire too closely into the arrangements of middleclass households. (Wasn't Virginia Woolf interfered with as a small child by her half-brother?) Nevertheless, the patriarchial society prevalent in the West in the 19th century was so all-pervasive that, we just have to be a bit cautious to ascribe those sort of actions to people like Andrew Borden, especially when you consider his over-bearing persona. On my part that's not because of any sort of squeamishness but because there simply aren't any facts to back it up...Yet!

[irina]

Freud supposedly began his career interviewing "neurotic" young women in Vienna society. Many of them complained of incest. Freud was going to expose this finding but of course was strongly discouraged. Therefore he revamped his research to say the young women were imagining incest and sexual activity and we know where that led.

In cousin marriages there is a difference between first cousin and lesser degrees. In most if not all of our states first cousin marriage is illegal. It doesn't take much intermarrying to reinforce negative genes so I favor avoiding cousin marriages. Some bad genes express no matter what, such as the ones for migraine. I thank God I never had children as I would have passed on these terrible genes.

Whatever the mechanics of the Borden household a starting point is what happened the morning of August 4, 1892. Whether it was due to incest or something else, what tipped the balance that day~or since this scenario necessarily makes Lizzie guilty~what happened that week that she returned from vacation early, attempted to obtain poison, possibly made an attempt with something (arsenic?) earlier in the week, etc. Why was she noticeably depressed with her friends in Marion? How does any of this support or deny incest as an element in the tragedy?

[debbiediablo]

Cousin Marriage.png

No one was any more surprised by this than I was...from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_mar ... s_by_state. Below this diagram is a more explicit set of rules (i.e. Arizona and Wisconsin require first cousins to be sterilized before they can marry....)

[irina]

Amazing, especially since I lived a number of years in an area of Oregon where it was said family trees didn't branch. Actually if you diagram it such family trees go around in a circle.

[Curryong]

First cousins to be sterilised before marriage! Wow, that's pretty heavy stuff.

I agree about possible genetic complications, and it has been found in the Pakistani community in Britain (where for many generations inter-cousin marriage has been encouraged) that serious genetic complications have been seen to emerge. Of course, cousins must be careful about passing on any genetic condition. However, I believe the chances of doing so are only slightly above average.

[snokkums]

I don't think Uncle John was involved with murders, but maybe afterwords to protect Lizzie. AS for incest and abuse, there is no evidence but back then no one talked about stuff like that, what went on behind close doors was no one elses business. And the girls might have been to embarassed to say anything After all, Andrew was an upright outstanding citizen in the community. Who would believe them? As for Bridget -- well, enough said. She was the hired help, from another country.