Fact or fiction??

[camgarsky4]

Below are some key aspects of the case that are periodically discussed as if they are facts, but I can find zero supporting documentation.
Is anyone familiar with solid reasons to believe that the statements below are true?

Or are these fabrications to support random theories?

1) The Emery's DID have a phone at their home.
2) Andrew was considering selling the Swansea farm to Morse and then reneged.
3) There was a family argument before the sisters left for New Bedford/Fairhaven.

Thanks!

[mbhenty]

Ok

You opened up a can of beetles here, CG4. But that is why this forum exists.

So, on your first question.

Why so much concern about whether the Emerys had a phone?

Well, it speaks to whether Morse received a call about the murders while he was visiting family on Weybosset Street in Fall River.

Supposedly, there are conflicting newspaper accounts on what Morse said when he arrived at the Borden's on the day of the murders. One paper said that he mentioned receiving a phone call but Morse denied that such a call was ever made. It was Edwin Porter who first mentioned in the Globe that Morse received a call informing him of the murders. But from what I remember it said that he received a call but not on "who's phone", if in fact that was really true. Interesting to note that there is no talk in Porter's book about the Emerys having a phone or a call being made. Hmmm Since Morse was at the Emery home it would be assumed that Dan Emery had a phone. Of course this speaks to conspiracy theories.

Why is it important that we know whether the Emerys had a phone??

That Morse was in on the murders and received a call to inform him that the deed was done. Conspiracy Theories and unproven that it ever happened.... and unlikely.

William Spencer, in his book The Case Against Lizzie Borden did not speak to whether the Emerys had a phone because he could not prove it. He made calls and tried to find an early 1890s directory of the period but could not find one. Despite countless mentions here and there that Emery had a phone, he could not prove it. He even called a Telephone Museum in AZ but they could not find any listing for the Emerys. So he left that information out of his book. I highly recommend William Spencer's book. He was one writer who stuck with the facts..... facts that he uncovered and made certain were correct. Or else it did not go into the his book.

You must remember that Telephones were an exclusive medium in the 1890s. I have seen a National Phone directory, the earliest I have ever seen, dating back to 1895 and the earliest directory on record at the telephone museum in AZ. "National", meaning the nation's telephone grid. Fall River is listed in it. Almost every phone number in it is for a business, with the exception of a doctor or two. I don't think there was one private citizen. People did not have phones.

At the beginning of telecommunications, phones were not a necessity and very expensive. It is highly unlikely that the Emerys had a phone. Emery was a foreman at the place where he worked. A grunt. He would probably not have money or the need for a phone. Just another employee. The listings in the 1895 phone book were mostly factories, mills, and the people who owned them. As a matter of fact Doctor Bowen, who supposedly had a phone, was not listed in the 1895 directory. And just because Bowen mentions receiving a phone call does not mean he had a phone. He could have received a call via a local business. And if phones were new, directories were even newer. How did you get your name in a directory? Did you have to apply, give permission, Pay? Questions one needs to consider.

So, did Daniel Emery have a phone? I would say most definitely not. All that's out there is misinformation and grape vine rumor.

And by coincidence..... I will mention that I worked for New England Telephone, Bell Atlantic, and Verizon for over Thirty years... and that there is any specified or related relevance here may be minuscule, you understand.

And there you have it. Remember CG4. You asked for it.

[camgarsky4]

Love it! I knew you'd come thru with this type of insight. Where you landed is what I was assuming.....the Emery's don't seem like they fit the demographic to have something that was new, costly and exotic, like a phone. At that point in time, it was a luxury and unnecessary to function in society.

For some reason, many try to label Morse as a potential murderer and to me it is just doesn't fit. One of the forum guests from 2012 or so (I think Possum pie), cracked me up when he responded to Franz that he could connect the dots and make a case for Churchill's guilt. And he did it and it sounded just as plausible as Morse doing it (to me anyone). I have done the same little game with a few other folks and it is true....if you are willing to be creative with filling in the gaps, a case against almost anyone in this case could be made. But at some point, reasonable common sense needs to play a part. Whoever did it, had a real and powerful personal motive and there is zero solid proof that Morse had such a motive.

Agree on "case against lizzie borden". I have read and reread a majority of Spencer's book....he does a great job of pulling the various legitimate sources together into a easy to read format. It is validating to hear that Spencer put specific effort into confirming a Emery phone and could come up with nothing. My take away.......the Emery's did not have a phone and I don't think Morse got a phone call.

If John was the brains behind the murders (but not actual hatchet man), and was concerned about establishing an alibi, he would have just NOT visited Aug 3/4 and stayed in South Dartmouth and avoided even being suspected. The only reason for his visit if he was involved would have been to let someone in the house post 10pm Aug 3 or pre-6am Aug 4. But I haven't heard that specific angle to the Morse did it theories.

I've decided to limit my research collection to Spencer's book, Knowlton Papers, Rebello Past 'n Present, Parallel Lives and, of course, the source documents on this site. I feel like they provide the breadth, depth and unbiased information necessary to form educated opinions on this case.

My goal with this little hobby is to not only form my opinion of who, how and why the murders were done, but to answer for myself all the other oddities of the case. I'm really enjoying the process.

[mbhenty]

Yes, camgarsky4

Conspiracy theories makes great fodder for fictional accounts and the writing of novels.

I certainly entertained and climbed down the rabbit hole of Morse being a bad guy in my novel Lizzie Borden The Girl with the Pansy Pin. where he is portrayed as shady and somewhat knavish.

Of course I don't believe it for a minute. If Morse was guilty of anything it was probably knowing a lot more than he ever told. Just think of John Banner as Sergeant Shultz on Hogan's Heroes and his defense of what he knew.

With the Pansy Pin I was writing fiction, or as it's known today 'alternate facts'. Though it is about the most factual novel one can read on the Borden murders, using real people, places, events, etc., there is just about as much, if not more, fictional characters, imaginative schemes, scenarios, and fabricated events— including the outcome and killer. Heck, Lizzie even meets and debates Oscar Wilde and meets Edwin Booth, John Wilkes brother.

[camgarsky4]

Ok...I've held off buying any of the speculative or fictional telling's of the story....but now you've got my curiousity. I'll get the Girl w/ Pansy Pin and give fictional Lizzie a try!

[Steveads2004]

Good Points Its so easy to get wrapped up in the myth while you are trying to find the facts. I acepted the phone call story about Uncle John. Also the argument theory leading to the sisters absence from the house. I still give stock to that. I dont know where the farm sale idea comes from originally but it shows up in a lot of places. Great idea for this thread.

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- do you know of any specific documentation or additional info on the pre-trip family argument? I've seen randomly tossed out, but never seen anything actually in documentation. I do think Andrew paying the sisters $5000 for buying back a house he sold for free in July (just before the trip) someone has something to do with the trip and the events of early August. Maybe that money was given to smooth things out.....clearly didn't work. :(

The farm sale idea was a theme in one of the 'who dun it' books.....I think that is part of the issue....an author creates a piece of the story to connect known facts to support their theory and then it seems to become pseudo fact.