Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Kat, I'm surprised at the wealth of information you dug up on the daylight robbery. I don't think I've seen those things before. Thank you! So much typing!

I am glad you did not include anything from Trickey or McHenry.

It was all fascinating. Your posting how much in today's money what was taken then figured out to be was something I wondered about for a long time. Well, that's a lot of money. I'm surprised how much that was in today's currency.

I wish someone had written down who the people were who used the horse car tickets and interviewed them. If that was done by the cops, I wish we had that info. And I wish they would have let Bridget take the stand on the subect. She might have overheard Andrew when/if he found out it was Lizzie and what he might have screamed at her.

And Harry came thru finding the article about the other robberies! I never heard of it before. Very, very interesting. Good job, sleuths!

Kat, So the day of the week was a Wednesday. It's good to know. If Bridget's regular drying clothes day was stormy, she would postpone it, I think.

Kat, thanks for all the research and reportage. I agree that a lot of stories about Lizzie sprung up ex post facto-- I still find the one about the cat hard to swallow-- to paint her in an unflattering light.

Interesting that Bridget was perceived as someone who knows far more than she was telling. Uncle Morse, too.

Something that stood out to me-- was something taken, along with the cash, watch, tokens, and trinkets, that no ordinary thief would have removed? Was there something that Lizzie (or Emma-- I don't believe the Bordens would have covered for Bridget) would have removed, that had little intrinsic value?

Another mystery!

As Harry points out, it seems as if it would have been easy enough to trace the tokens, if any were used. I wonder whether the police discovered the truth. Seems if "the burglar with many keys" committed the Borden robbery, and the police could trace the tickets to him, then the news would have been given to Andrew.

Here's a theory: Lizzie was thinking about murder during that summer of 1891. The robbery was staged as a prelude, to send the message: "Look what's happened here, and during the daytime. These people are a target." Then, the murders would be staged to look like "the next step," that a thief had come in (perhaps one who had learned of the valuables in the Borden house?) but got caught at it, and killed the victims.
Then, Lizzie loses her nerve because of all the police attention and/or Emma advises her to drop it.

***As I recall, didn't Andrew have $80 in his wallet at the time of his death? If so, quite a coincidence-- and odd that he would carry around that much-- he did go up to his safe that a.m., and could have "deposited" it there.***

I thought of that, because the murders were not staged to look like a botched robbery. Someone came in to kill, and waited around another hour and a half to kill again, without taking anything, not even the considerable (as Kat points out) amount of cash in Mr. Borden's wallet, which would have been easy enough.
You know what would be really chilling? If Lizzie had been planning to commit murder the day that she robbed the upstairs room (if she did it)? What would she have done if she had been caught? Kill?

Yooper @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:15 pm wrote:Another rather obvious reason for Lizzie to stage a robbery, if she actually did, would be to induce Andrew to move from that neighborhood.

Wow! I never thought of that before! Suppose Lizzie WAS trying to make Andrew think the neighborhood was not safe anymore so he would buy a larger house in a better neighborhood!!!

If she did give the tickets away and they were traced back to her, I can imagine Andrew chewed Lizzie a new one when he found out! He probably had the case dropped then.

It would be odd, though, for her to mention the burglary to Alice the night before...but she did seem to be setting the stage for something to happen.

Now that you mention it, it does seem odd that nothing was said about the burglary to Alice by either Emma or Lizzie until the night before the murders. According to Alice, Lizzie told her that Andrew didn't want the family telling others of the robbery. Why then was she telling Alice about it against Andrew's wishes? Maybe she didn't think she would have to answer to Andrew for much longer. It might have seemed so to Alice after the murders, even if it wasn't true.

I wonder if knowledge of Lizzie as the culprit in the robbery might have been held over Lizzie's head by Abby in some way?

We seem to be discussing the daylight robbery as a matter of course, but does it strike anyone else as rather bizarre behavior? The fact that Andrew was apparently aware that Lizzie was behind it and the possibility that Lizzie was aware that Andrew knew? She continued living in that household, she was apparently not sent packing, nor did she volunteer to leave out of shame. It almost seems as though they were tolerating the Village Idiot. I'm not sure who was more at fault, Lizzie for perpetrating the robbery, or Andrew for allowing it.

Obviously, Lizzie had become a "problem child". Back then, you could not really throw them out or pack them off to the state hospital....you sort of tolerated it and tried to keep a lid on it as much as possible and not risk social embarrassment.

It has to be pretty obvious that Abby's room was plundered by a member of the household. I wonder what Lizzie did with the things she pilfered. I really don't think she was setting the stage for murder THEN...she was probably trying to get Andrew motivated to move...or just antagonizing Abby.

I'm sure Andrew was at the end of his rope wondering what to do with her!

Yes, I think it was a very strange situation to be in. The Borden house was bad enough just living in it, with no hallways and locked doors and the strain relations were under since 1885 (when Andrew gave Abby's half-sister part of the house and the 'girls' went ballistic).

There was one item I haven't noticed anyone mentioning that was taken. That was a "red Russian" pocketbook of Abby's. Abby's watch and some kind of gold chain of hers + some various trinkets of (probably costume) jewelry were taken. But the "red Russian" pocketbook was taken at that time. How many nice things did Abby have? I imagine nothing. I think these items meant a lot to her. The watch or the chain might have been heirlooms, or hold some other sentimental value. It was very cruel, if it was Lizzie, to take these specific things.

I think Abby spoke her mind. I think she stood up to Andrew, unlike all the things we have been led to believe. I would think she threw it up (no pun intended) to Lizzie, if she knew. Maybe Andrew did not tell Abby so there would be less discord in the house.

But if Lizzie were a kleptomaniac, and I think she was one, how could Andrew stop her when he did not know how? I think the robbery was done to see if something like that could work, and as a like dress rehearsal for the murders - and to establish a precedent for someone entering and committing a crime under the same circumstances the murders would take place.

When Andrew highly suspected Lizzie of the robbery, and he questioned her again and again, maybe she broke down (especially if he was told people were turning in those horse car tickets and saying Lizzie gave them to them). But maybe she blamed her kleptomania for it, when it was an out and out theft.

"Oh, yes, yes, Father! I did the robbery! But I could not help myself! I get strange feelings, Father, that make me want to take things. I didn't mean to do it!"

(in his nightcap) "I don't know what to do with you, Lizzie. If I take you to Taunton to the hospital there, they may do all sorts of things to you there, from stories I've been told. And people would know, and they would never stop their tongues from wagging. What is this - feeling you get that you speak of?"

"It is hard to explain, Father. It is almost as if I am not myself. I am suddenly obsessed with the thought of taking something, and I cannot think of anything else until I do it. Oh, Father, forgive me!"

"If this is an illness, then I cannot tell the police anything about it. I suppose you must go on living here, so that no one knows of this. But, Lizzie. I have one question."

"Anything, Father, now that you bought - believed what I said."

"This ring you gave me ..."

"Yes, Father. I picked it up at Gifford's. Surely you knew something was wrong. Why, I didn't even finish high school."

Yooper @ Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:01 pm wrote:We seem to be discussing the daylight robbery as a matter of course, but does it strike anyone else as rather bizarre behavior? The fact that Andrew was apparently aware that Lizzie was behind it and the possibility that Lizzie was aware that Andrew knew? She continued living in that household, she was apparently not sent packing, nor did she volunteer to leave out of shame. It almost seems as though they were tolerating the Village Idiot. I'm not sure who was more at fault, Lizzie for perpetrating the robbery, or Andrew for allowing it.

Assuming that Lizzie was the perpetrator, and assuming that Andrew knew it was Lizzie, then Andrew was an enabler for Lizzie's behavior by making it possible for her to avoid the consequences of her unacceptable behavior. When there are no consequences for unacceptable behavior, then one becomes more comfortable in repeating the acceptable behavior.

I imagine that the women in that household were next to impossible to live with, at times; the tension within the walls of that house was most likely unbearable. I have to wonder why Andrew didn't put his foot down, and let the women within that household know that he was not going to tolerate their morally unacceptable behaviors.

Here's something that could put a real twist on this, if it's true, and we'll just never know, for sure.
Perhaps Lizzie held something over Andrew's head? No telling what? And, that she committed the robbery (possibly) to get back at him, for some feelings of perhaps long-held ill will?
Some years ago, I casually mentioned the Borden case to a born-and-bred Bostonian lady-- born while Lizzie was still living. Immediately, she commented with one word: "Incest."
If that were true, and Dr. Bowen had perhaps performed an abortion on Lizzie, can you imagine how sympathetic he would be? How sympathetic Uncle John would be, if he knew?
A lot of "motivation" puzzle pieces would fall into place, as to why certain people aided, protected, and perhaps even conspired with Lizzie.

That's always been my suspicion too.

DJ @ Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:17 pm wrote:Here's something that could put a real twist on this, if it's true, and we'll just never know, for sure.
Perhaps Lizzie held something over Andrew's head? No telling what? And, that she committed the robbery (possibly) to get back at him, for some feelings of perhaps long-held ill will?
Some years ago, I casually mentioned the Borden case to a born-and-bred Bostonian lady-- born while Lizzie was still living. Immediately, she commented with one word: "Incest."
If that were true, and Dr. Bowen had perhaps performed an abortion on Lizzie, can you imagine how sympathetic he would be? How sympathetic Uncle John would be, if he knew?
A lot of "motivation" puzzle pieces would fall into place, as to why certain people aided, protected, and perhaps even conspired with.

I think that is probably what the reasoning was for Lizzie killing Andrew: incest. Maybe thats why Dr. bowen was protecting her on the day of the murder. Making sure she was sedated and everything.

Probably killed Abby to keep her mouth shut.
Oppes letting my imagingation run away with me.

Was Second Street considered a safe neighborhood in the 1890s? Was it a custom for anyone in that neighborhood to keep most doors locked for fear a thief may enter and rob them blind. It is possible that the Borden's neighborhood was considered unsafe the way many neighborhoods are today. My grandparents told me they never locked their doors when they were young which would have been in the early 1900s. They told me they even slept with doors unlocked. Andrew could have just been using common sense by keeping doors locked. It may have had nothing to do with the goings on in the house. It would be convenient to keep a bedroom door key out in the open safe on the mantle. I keep my car keys on my mantle so I don't have to go searching for them. Just some of my thoughts.

If we can assume that Andrew might have had Lizzie confined as an option if things got too far out of hand, then the fear of this may well have provided a motivation for murder. If Abby had gone to Dr. Bowen with a fear that Lizzie had been trying to poison her, maybe Lizzie feared an escalation of sorts. Abby was no longer to be counted on to keep her mouth shut about the goings on in the Borden household, so she needed to be silenced. It could be that Abby had tired of Andrew covering for Lizzie rather than risk embarrassment, especially if she thought her life was at stake.

I agree, Yooper. Abby seemed very frightened when she ran to Dr. Bowen's on August 3. I wonder if she did tell him that maybe Lizzie did it. He could have easily left that out of his re-tellings of her visit.

I think Abby did not tell others about how bad or indifferent the 'girls' treated her at home. I think she told her half-sister, Sarah "Bertie" Whitehead, very little.

In my opinion, Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen was completely understated. I believe he had ample reason to minimize the gravity of the visit, his reputation was at stake.

We have no way of knowing what the tension level was in the Borden household before the murders. Andrew may have tried to sweep quite a bit under the carpet over the years. If Emma had been at odds with Abby right from the start, then there was always a degree of animosity present within the household, and Andrew perhaps became accustomed to it. Maybe it got to the point where he found the squabbles tiresome and only gave them cursory attention. His ignoring the robbery fits this behavior pattern, he was tired of the bickering and didn't really care any more, as long as everyone shut up and behaved when he was home. Maybe he thought both sides were overstating the situation and tended to minimize events based upon that. It's hard to say for certain, but if that's true, it was a sorry state of affairs.

Yooper @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:12 am wrote:In my opinion, Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen was completely understated. I believe he had ample reason to minimize the gravity of the visit, his reputation was at stake.

I definitely think Dr. Bowen knew a lot more than he told. Whether it was his involvement in an abortion, his knowledge of the family dysfunction over the years, or the fact that he felt guilty for minimizing Abby's reaction to Lizzie the day before the murders, I'm sure he was feeling pretty nervous that people could blame him for not doing more in preventing what happened to Abby and Andrew.

I was thinking about this some more. We have Emma, a shy, cloistered, neurotic older sister who probably has very little going on in her life. She loses her mother ( a mother we've read had a mercurial temper, so that's another whole story- we have no idea how she acted towards her children) at an early age and has a little girl thrust upon her to take care of who is even younger than she is. The father is a tightlipped, frugal, cold man who constricts his whole household by locking evrything up tighter than a drum. He has a not- so- great reputation in town (I remember reading that someone remarked he wasn't surprised that somebody had done him in, or some such thing). Then he brings in a stranger to care for his kids that evokes a hostile reaction from Emma. Lizzie grows up to be what people in town call "odd". We don't exactly know what that means, but we do know she was withdrawn at school and sullen at times. (sort of reminds me of the girl in the movie "Heavenly Creatures" who eventually clubs her mother to death with another friend). Lizzie becomes a spinster in her 30's, with no real social life of her own and no real future other than continuing to live in the oppressive atmosphere forever. She has all this time on her hands to obsess about her problems. The doctor across the street has seen her grow up in this environment and probably feels sorry for her. Maybe he has seen bouts of hysteria, depression or rebellion over the years and has had to treat her. He has to have picked up on the fact that there is something seriously wrong in this household, and maybe even abusive. Over the years he may have felt helpless to do anything, but he does feel slightly protective of her. Maybe that's why he took her to church that time when the parents were away. All of a sudden the murders take place and, as horrified as he feels, he also sees why Lizzie could have snapped under all the years of craziness. So he quietly goes about trying to help her get through this nightmare because he understands what she's had to endure all her life and because he feels guilty for not having done more over time to help her.

That's good theorizing, Angel, and it's applicable to possible motivations by other parties.
When the possibility of Morse being involved, too, is raised, the question is always raised: Motivation?
You give a good answer. Maybe the man felt sorry for Lizzie and Emma.

Lizzie may have been the product of a power struggle between Emma and Abby. She may have been a pawn up to a point. What better way for a young teenage girl to get under her stepmother's skin than to alienate the daughter she never had? Emma was beyond hope to become Abby's daughter, but there was definitely a chance with Lizzie. Abby wound up with her sister as her surrogate daughter.

Maybe sooner or later Lizzie found out how to play both sides to get what she wanted. She may have been a perpetual child in a lot of ways. Some of her reactions were almost child-like. It seems like a good proving ground for a schizoid personality.

Abuse didn't have to come from from Andrew, and it didn't have to be physical. It might have been far more subtle and covert, and it may have come from the women in the household, in an unintentional manner. Andrew may have only dealt with the manifestations of the abuse, not the root problem. He may have felt a need to be overly protective of a daughter who was a perpetual child.

Just some further conjecture:

If Emma's intention was to keep Abby childless, then Abby's younger sister was a problem. Abby had won a minor victory if a game was being played. Resentment for Abby might well include Abby's sister, especially when Abby's sister gave her child the middle name "Borden". That fact alone may have turned the lights on for Lizzie and Emma as to the expectations of the Whitehead family.

The only hope for relief from the oppression was when Andrew and Abby were gone. There may have been a problem here, if Andrew was the first to go, some of his estate might have gone to Abby. Abby's family would have benefited from it. By playing the "daughter" game, the die had been cast. Lizzie and Emma would have to do without anything Abby was able to finagle from Andrew while he was alive, and whatever Abby would have received when he died, no matter how much or how little. The fuss over Andrew purchasing a share in the Whitehead residence for Abby's benefit bears this out. Lizzie and Emma were not placated by an equal-value gift, that was not the point. The point was that Abby received something of relatively great value from Andrew, and Borden property should only go to Bordens.

That's another good observation. Lizzie may well have become Emma's "living doll" in some respects.
Emma may have "trained" Lizzie in the gumption to do and say things (to Abby and Andrew) that Emma lacked the nerve to say and do (right up to committing murder, one wonders?).
When Lizzie stated, "She is not my Mother," the night of the murders, I believe she was parroting something she had often heard from Emma, or that Emma had "taught" her.
(I can picture Lizzie, as a child, telling Abby, "You are not my Mother," when Abby tried to discipline her.)
It seems entirely probable Lizzie was caught in a power struggle between Abby and Emma. The sisters may well have been trying to drive her crazy, intentionally or no. It's small wonder that Abby weighed over 200 lbs.
Then you factor in Andrew and his control over the pursestrings-- Abby having to use her allowance for household goods-- and his control over gosh knows what else.
If I'd been Abby, darned if I wouldn't have robbed the safe myself and headed off into the sunset, tossing tokens out the horsecar windows as I went.

Yes, "Borden property should only go to Bordens"--
When Lizzie and Emma learned that Mr. Borden was planning to will the Swansea farm to the Old Ladies' Home (and possibly "give away" other property and money), I believe it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
I believe the Misses Borden had no intention of walking around Fall River and its environs and seeing property that they thought should be theirs in the hands of others, including those who benefited from a charitable concern.
Not during their lifetimes.
After their deaths, and their having no direct heirs-- fine. Then they could become the Borden benefactors.
But, not Andrew.

I agree with you, DJ. I think Lizzie was Emma's pawn. Emma was the shyer of the two, and Lizzie never knew her mother. She was only going one what Emma told her. I still think that Emma had been more invovled with the murders than was ever discovered.

To clear 2 things up:
It was asked about the red pocketbook-- question posted Oct. 8. It is listed in Desmond's report of the robbery on an earlier page here:
a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much, and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never will."--that was taken down as Abbie's sentiments.

Also it was posted that the Fourth St house deal was in 1885, which is probably a mis-type, as it is known it was 1887.

Here is the Abbie Borden and Jane Gray deal, 1887, from the UMASS dot edu site

I have a couple of other comments, but they will have to wait.
Sorry I am late posting to this topic but I am caught up!

About the robbery: Desmond says he checked with- and names -the neighbors, but Alice Russell doesn't give a hint that she ever knew about the robbery. I can't figure this out? Was she already moved from the next door house? If so, did the robbery wait until she left? Maybe something in her moving released the hidden urge in someone for some reason? Maybe with new neighbors it was felt there would be less friendly eyes on the Borden property- less notice taken, I guess I mean- by new neighbors (the Kellys)?

Also, we should remember that Abbie and Andrew were in Swansea when it happened. When we read Desmond's report they are there as complaintants. It's possible that the investigation might not have started right away, but was reported after the elder Borden's arrived home? Maybe the theft was not noticed until they returned?

Was the robbery brought up at the trial by either side's lawyers and used? It was mentioned here that the felony might have been done to "establish a precedent for someone entering and committing a crime..." so I'm wondering if it did, and was useful?

Kat,
As usual, you are "The Font"-- I wondered how Lizzie would've committed the robbery, given the chance that Abby or Andrew could've walked in, from just being "around town."
This inside information on A & A's whereabouts makes Lizzie (and Emma and Bridget) look all the more suspect. That, along with the fact that Abby's "sentimental treasures" were taken.
I still think that key went on the mantel as a "dare" to those in the house, and Lizzie in particular.
*************************************************************
During June 1892, didn't Andrew "buy back" the property he had given Lizzie and Emma-- on which they had drawn rental income and allowed to deteriorate-- for $5,000? Each of the daughters was therefore $1,000 ahead of what Abby received via her property.
I wonder if he originally intended for them to move out, or hoped they would. That's the unsubtle message-- he could have just given each $1,500 and said, "Even Stevens."
Another theory: That Lizzie and Emma weren't so much trapped in
no. 92, as they *chose* to stick close by, up in Andrew's business, so they could keep tabs on what was going on, so they would know if Abby were making out better than they. Also, too, I think they feared (however unjustly) Abby taking advantage of Andrew in his dotage.

The only problem is, if Andrew was aware that Lizzie committed the robbery, he really wasn't in a position to dare anyone. He had already shown that he would cover for her, so what was the threat?

There may be another perspective on why Andrew gave Lizzie and Emma a rental property. It was an acceptable way for middle or upper class women to make their own money, by owning and renting property. What did they do? They whined about it until he bought it back from them! I'm not convinced that Lizzie and Emma were oppressed in any important way!

Kat @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:35 am wrote:Was the robbery brought up at the trial by either side's lawyers and used? It was mentioned here that the felony might have been done to "establish a precedent for someone entering and committing a crime..." so I'm wondering if it did, and was useful?

I don't remember anything about the robbery being included in the trial. It would have done harm to either side. The prosecution would have to contend with the precedent of an intruder going unnoticed during daylight hours. The defense risked Lizzie being cast in a bad light if the particulars came out. Either way, it was a murder trial, not a robbery trial. Since the robbery was never resolved, it would have amounted to trying the robbery at the same time to get the facts straight, so I seriously doubt it would have been admissible.

Committing the robbery with the goal in mind of establishing a precedent for another daylight felony presumes the second felony was already in mind. In my opinion, that is a bit of a reach, although still possible. This implies the murders were being planned over a year earlier than they were committed. A more likely possibility is, assuming very few people knew about the robbery, the knowledge of it may have provided encouragement for whoever committed the murders. For instance, assuming Lizzie was responsible for both, and further assuming she was not aware that Andrew and the police suspected her, she would have been encouraged to put forth an intruder as the culprit. It had been done before successfully. I'm not sure that there is anything available to make us suspect that Lizzie was aware of Hilliard's suspicions or Andrew's awareness of them prior to the grand jury hearing.

The only way it would have been useful was for the trial jury to know about an unresolved daylight robbery at the Borden house. This might support the contention for an intruder entering and leaving unnoticed. It would have been helpful to the defense.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Abby's murder by itself was being contemplated at the time of the robbery. Again, assume Lizzie is responsible for both robbery and murders. Andrew covering for Lizzie, if Lizzie was aware of it, may have also encouraged her to a degree. If Lizzie was unaware that Andrew covered for her, it was still encouraging because she had gotten away with it in the robbery. Granted, robbing her stepmother was a far cry from killing her, but I don't know how infantile her mind might have been. I wish I knew more about what they meant by "odd".

Kat's post with the land record above reminded me of a question that has been nagging at me since I visited the house. Maybe someone can answer the riddle for me.

While our guide was bringing us through Andrew & Abby's room, I was still fascinated with Lizzie's room and the little bedroom that they've made of Andrew & Abby's small chamber, where I believe they kept the safe and the desk that were pilfered, so not paying quite as close attention as I might have.

I digress, so anyway, the guide was talking about the record on the wall in Andrew's room of the transfer of the property on Ferry St to Lizzie and Emma when he signed it over to them and I thought I heard her say that there was something in the record itself that referred to discord in the family. I did not catch enough to figure out what she meant by that. Or maybe she said something entirely different and my brain reconfigured the information? Lol, wouldn't be the first time that that's happened!

I've read and reread the record and I don't pick up on any reference in it to the discord between the inmates of 92 2nd St.

Was she referring to discord among Bordens or discord among Whiteheads? Maybe among both? I'm trying to conjure up the necessity for Andrew to buy a half interest in the Whitehead property. Who retained the other half interest? Abby didn't need the house, her sister did. If Abby was looking out for her sister, why was that necessary?

Kat's record does refer to the transfer of property from Bordens to Whiteheads. The record that I am referring to, however, is the transfer of the Ferry St property that had belonged to Andrews father over to Lizzie and Emma in order to appease them because he'd deeded property over to the Whiteheads previously.

Well, really I think he gave it to Abby and she in turn gave it to her sister. I have read that she did that because otherwise the whole house was going to have to be sold and Abby's sister would then have no where to go.

Wouldn't it have been something if Abby and Andrew had been forced to take them into 92 2nd St? Now, there's a thought!

But, apparently that initial land transaction to Abby's family was the cause of the discord between Abby & Andrew and Emma & Lizzie, I think they would not have been pleased with it in any case, but Abby & Andrew attempted to keep the info from them and they found out about it through the grapevine, which just made it even worse.

Yooper @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:54 pm wrote: Who retained the other half interest? Abby didn't need the house, her sister did. If Abby was looking out for her sister, why was that necessary?

Missed this the first time I read your post. Others probably know more on this than I do, but I believe the sister already owned half the house and her mother owned the other half. For some reason the mother had to sell either her half or they would have to sell the entire house and Abby's sister and family would have to find someplace to live with proceeds from just half of the house. Probably not an ideal situation for the sister of someone of means as Abby was since marrying andrew.

I don't know why it was so imperative that the mother sell right then, maybe someone has that info?

I'm sorry, I had the transactions confused! I agree, two more Whiteheads in the Borden household would have really caused the fur to fly!

Lizzie and Emma were upset that Andrew had done something favoring Abby or Abby's family. The transfer of the Ferry Street house was done to appease Emma and Lizzie. This was about the time Lizzie stopped referring to Abby as "mother". Apparently an equal value gift was not enough to appease the Borden daughters. My guess is that the value was not the point, the fact that Borden money had been used to help the Whitehead family in general was the point, but that is just conjecture. Anyway, that might be the discord referred to.

In reading the deed, I'm getting the impression that Jane Gray owned the entire property rather than just half of it. The deed reads that it was willed to her by her husband without further division of interest. If Abby's sister owned the other half, I would think it would have shown up on Abby's deed.

Yooper @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:25 pm wrote:In reading the deed, I'm getting the impression that Jane Gray owned the entire property rather than just half of it. The deed reads that it was willed to her by her husband without further division of interest. If Abby's sister owned the other half, I would think it would have shown up on Abby's deed.

It does look that way. I can't remember where I'd read that Abby's sister owned half. If I come accross it again I'll reference it so we can see if there're more conflicting facts in there, though there are many of those conflicting stories all over this case!

No, I just re-read the deed and it does say 'one undivided half part...' so wouldn't that mean she did own just half the house?


This is where that patience I was talking about in the other thread hopefully kicks in!

That may refer to the part being sold to Abby. I'm not sure if it implies that her interest is limited to half, she may in fact own the entire property, but she is selling only half.

You're right, it can be confusing! I wonder, if her share was limited to half, if the deed would refer to "my" half interest rather than "one" half interest.

The deed seems to indicate the property was willed to Jane Gray in its entirety.

This has always been confusing, and so often is misunderstood/and/or misrepresented. So join the club!

When Oliver Gray died, 1878, there were supposedly 4 shares in the Fourth Street house: 1/4 share inherited by each of his 3 daughters and his wife. So at that time, Abbie had 1/4 share. By buying Jane's share in 1887, and putting that in Abbie's name, Abbie now has 1/2 the house. This 1/2 house was included in Abbie's property solely owned by her to be distributed upon her death. But guess who inherited Abbie's property? The Borden girls!

(Now, how Sarah & Priscilla divied up their 1/4 shares in order for Sarah to end up with 1/2 is another story-one which I don't understand.)

There are other things going on chronologically, around this time, for context:
~Lil' Abbie was born in 1884
~Lizzie joined the Central Cong. Church in 1885
~Georgie Whitehead was born in March 1887
~The Fourth Street part-house changes hands from Jane Gray to Abbie May 1887
~Lizzie stops calling Abbie "Mother"

Now maybe Abbie wanted to make sure the newborn little 1/2 nephew Georgie Whitehead and her 1/2 niece Lil' Abbie (her namesake) had a whole house to live in without the need of a strange family moving in there by buying Jane Gray's portion. Actually, at that time, and in that area around Second Street, Third and Fourth, we find families and boarders. If a person needed money, I suppose they could sell their share to just about anyone. Abbie kept the house safe in the family. For a new family with young children, and to have such a rich relative, it would seem natural to do this. But the Whitehead family now has a whole house, like Abbie has a whole house. Maybe the girls resented the raising up of the Whiteheads in this way, to basically middle class? And maybe they resented Abbie's caring for her new little baby 1/2 nephew and the young 1/2 niece?

In October, 1887, Andrew gives the girls the Ferry Street house, and also that year Hiram Harrington & his sickly wife, Lurana (Borden) Harrington actually move out to Freetown.

It sounds like a lot of family rifts between the Bordens & Whiteheads and Harringtons.

Going back to the key on the mantel being a dare--
If the room were robbed again, there would have been three suspects (four if you include Abby, and, if she had been a devious person, she could have staged another robbery to bring the wrath down upon Lizzie, if she suspected her).
Or-- an "outside" thief would have lucked out, discovering the key, and having the opportunity to find the locked door, then being bold enough to take the time to rob the room, in virtually a trapped situation, unless he was willing to go out by an upstairs window, if cornered. And-- in the daylight, most probably. What were the chances of that? Slim to none, which is probably why A & A suspected an inside job, at the outset.
Also, if they were in Swansea during the robbery-- well, "How convenient," as the Church Lady used to say.
I believe the presence of that key on the mantel sent a message to Lizzie from her Father: "I know you did it. Fool me once, shame on me. There's no fooling me twice, unless you are a bigger fool than I imagine."
I think it annoyed the cripes out of her, in a highly passive-aggressive way.

It's my opinion that the key being placed on the mantle was simply due to convenience. If there had been only one key to the Borden bedroom, it might have been easier to put the key on the mantle so that both Bordens had access to it. Andrew wouldn't want to carry the key to their bedroom on his person, and possibly be out of the house on business, when Abby might have needed in the room. This would leave her pretty inconvenienced. And vice versa.

Kat, the problem lies in the deed itself, in the wording of it. It says that Jane Gray is selling to Abby Borden "one undivided half part" of the property. This presumes she owns at least the half part she is selling, or the deed is invalid. The previous transactions mentioned in the deed were a conveyance from Ezra Marble to Oliver Gray in 1857 and one from Oliver Gray to Jane Gray in his will, with no further conveyances or divisions listed. If the property had been further divided into fourths at some point previous to the sale to Abby, then there should have been a document referred to which recorded that transaction. Jane Gray would not have been able to sell a half interest unless she owned it, but that would then have required another document recording her acquisition of another fourth in addition to her own if the property was divided into fourths. Is there any record of the property being divided after Oliver Gray's death and prior to the sale to Abby?

Regarding the key on the mantel, there may be another possibility. If Abby and Andrew each had their own key prior to the robbery, and if "they" swiped Abby's keys at the time of the robbery, maybe the key was kept on the mantel only since the robbery. Remember Abby's conversation with Mrs. Bowen shortly before the murders where she told Mrs. Bowen that "they" had taken her front door key. She apparently didn't indicate when that occurred.

The bent nail being necessary to open the interior door only indicates that it was kept locked at the time of the robbery, it implies nothing about the number or whereabouts of the keys.

It seems that the mortgage was paid by, and sole ownership released to, Jane Gray on the same day as the sale to Abby of a half interest in the property.

http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/lizzie/images ... _269p3.jpg

It may be that the bank was threatening foreclosure and Abby's mother and sister would have been without a house. Andrew may have bought a half interest with money enough to satisfy the mortgage. This would have left the house unencumbered, with Abby and Jane each owning a half interest.