Lizzie Borden Society Forum

1904 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and an arrest report for William Baker.

1905 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information about the directory.

1906 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information about the 1906-7 directory.

1907:

1908 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information for the 1909 Directory.

1909 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould.

1910 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould.

1911 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and marriage announcement of Mary Ellen Bould.

1912 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information about Mary Bould filing for divorce.

1913 Fall River City Directory listing for the spellings of Bould and more details about Mary Bould's divorce proceedings.

1914 Fall River Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information about the 1915 directory.

1915 Fall River Directory listings for the spellings of Bould.

1916 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould and information about the 1917 directory.

1917 Fall River City directory listings for the spellings of Bould.

1918 Fall River Directory listings for the spelling of Bould and Caroline (Bould) Baker pressing charges against her husband William.

1919 Fall River Directory listings for the spellings of Bould.

The 1919 directory was available in December of 1918.

1920 Fall River City Directory listings for the spellings of Bould, information about the directory, and death notice for Annie (Cunningham) Whittaker.

1921 Fall River City Directory pages for the spellings of Bould.

1922 Fall River Directory pages for the spellings of Bould.

Obituaries.

William "Billy" Bould and Benjamin Cordingly were well known to the police and many about town.

KG - this is a massive piece of research. Thanks for sharing.

On a 'non-Thomas Bould/Bowles' note, one thing your information has taught me is that a city directory really reflects who lived where in November of the prior year. For example, if someone moves in December of 1890, they will be listed as living in their 1890 residence in the 1891 city directory since the canvassing was conducted in November '90. Folks are encouraged to inform the city if the November '90 canvassing info changes before publication....but that would only correct the directory for changes in Dec '90 and maybe January '91 since the publication is distributed in late January or early February '91.

camgarsky4 wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:53 am KG - this is a massive piece of research. Thanks for sharing.

On a 'non-Thomas Bould/Bowles' note, one thing your information has taught me is that a city directory really reflects who lived where in November of the prior year. For example, if someone moves in December of 1890, they will be listed as living in their 1890 residence in the 1891 city directory since the canvassing was conducted in November '90. Folks are encouraged to inform the city if the November '90 canvassing info changes before publication....but that would only correct the directory for changes in Dec '90 and maybe January '91 since the publication is distributed in late January or early February '91.

That's true that the information for one year was usually gathered late the previous year. That's not true for every year, but for most. For example, we definitely know Thomas Bould was living at Mrs. Churchill's in 1892. But, in 1892 Thomas W. Bould, gardener, is living at 19 Plain with his brother Robert Bould. We don't see Thomas W. Bould, gardener, at 90 Second until 1893 and Robert is still at 19 Plain (which I believe changed to 79 Plain in 1896). That's why death notices would sometimes appear in the directory the following year. When you follow the directories from one year to the next you still get an accurate picture of where the families were living each year. You do just have to remind yourself that the information for that directory was probably gathered late the previous year.

1892
The 1892 directory was available by February 1st. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
Robert Bould, spinner, house 19 Plain. (Directory).
Thomas W. Bould, Gardner, boards 19 Plain. (Directory).
Thomas Boulds, laborer, house 8 York. (Directory).
Henry Boulds, laborer, house 8 York. (Directory).
William E. (Caroline) Baker, insurance agent, house 47 Hartwell. (Directory).
Elizabeth Cunningham, widow, house 5 End. (Directory).
William Bould arrested for disturbing the peace February 20th, fined. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
William Bould and Benjamin Cordingly were convicted for selling a saw they’d “borrowed” from Thomas J. Eddy on April 5th, fined. Both men were away for a time prior to this working at different jobs. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
The canvassing for the 1893 directory had been completed by November 10th. (Fall River Daily Evening News).

1893
The 1893 directory was available by January 19st. (Fall River Daily Herald).
Robert Bould, spinner, house 19 Plain. (Directory)
Thomas W. Bould, Gardner, boards 90 Second. (Directory).
Thomas Boulds, laborer, house 8 York. (Directory)
Henry Boulds, laborer, house 8 York.
William E. (Caroline) Baker, insurance agent, house 47 Hartwell. (Directory).
George Williams, hostler, 44 Borden, house 47 Hartwell. (Directory).
Elizabeth Cunningham, widow, house 14 Davis. (Directory).
Thomas Bould married Mary O’Brien on August 15th, occupation hostler. (Marriage record).
William E. Baker arraigned for assault and battery on his neighbor Mary Williams and her husband George on February 13th. (Fall River Daily Herald).
He was fined $2.90 on February 20th. (Fall River Daily Herald & Fall River Daily Evening News).
William Bould was found sleeping in an unoccupied attic at 188 Pleasant Street. He was ill and taken to the poorhouse May 10th. A search was made for his “Regular companion” Benjamin Cordingly. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
It was announced that the canvassing for the new 1894 directory had begun by October 5th. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
It had been completed by November 15th. (Fall River Daily Evening News & Fall River Daily Herald).


Any vital records, even newspapers, are still the best source for getting an address for the given year. But, after comparing the addresses on the vital records and placing that into the timeline with the information from the directories the addresses stayed pretty on point with where the families were living. Like if one of the children got married or died and a different address was listed I'd usually find the family living there when the directory for the new year came out. One interesting trait about this family is that all of the Bould men had listed their occupation as "gardener" at one time or another. Henry Bould was a "gardener" for a good chunk of his life. Henry Jr. ended up being the Superintendent of Parks and Cemeteries after having taken care of Oak Grove Cemetery for many years.

1894
New directory available by February 19th. (Fall River Daily Globe).
Thomas Boulds, laborer, house 19 Plain. (Directory).
Robert Boulds, spinner, house 19 Plain. (Directory).
Henry Boulds, laborer, house 107 Tecumseh. (Directory).
William E. (Caroline) Baker, insurance agent, house rear 11 Plain. (Directory).
Elizabeth Cunningham, widow, house rear 21 Plain. (Directory).
Canvassing for the 1895 directory began by October 2nd. (Fall River Daily Evening News).
Canvassing had ended by November 10th. (Fall River Daily Evening News).

I'm making an edit to the 1894 information on the timeline because I had not added

Thomas Bold, upholsterer, 29 Green
Jane O’Brien, widow, 29 Green

KGDevil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:22 pm Here are the newspaper articles I found that detail Thomas Bould being charged and convicted of raping his daughter.

Strange, KG, given the meal you're making of it, you don't mention my alerting you to this story.

I thought I discovered it.
Apparently I did, according to Private Messages.
This news-story set me wanting to establish which Bould lived next door to the Bordens - 'Depraved' Thomas or his brother-in-law. You now know as well as I do it wasn't Bould the rapist so your title is somewhat misleading.

I find that a lot of our Bould research is still saved here in Private Messages:

Thomas Boulds conviction
InterestedReader
Sent: 02 Jun 2017 14:24
by InterestedReader

KG, are you subscribed to newspapers.com?

There's some shocker of a story about Thomas Boulds' murderous assault on his 15 year old daughter - It's in The Burlington Free Press of May 11 1887 - Page 1.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/197835 ... s%2BBoulds

It must be 'Gardener' Thomas Boulds. Harriet's husband and 'our' Thomas' brother-in-law. He's about 40, wife Harriet has been dead a year, and the children are the right age.

But I can only see bits because I'm not subscribed! I'm trying to find the story on Chronicling America....

There's something about Boulds feeding his children scavenged scraps, being watched for some time by the authorities and now his arrest for assaulting his daughter.
Can you read the rest of it?

...Harriet was having a lot of children - then she died at 32 of heart failure...

Here's my next message:

Thomas Bould and Thomas Bould
Sent: 02 Jun 2017 17:15
From: InterestedReader
Recipient: KGDevil

How are they really related? The gardener born in England in 1843 and 'our' Thomas born in Troy New York in 1852.
It's something more than brothers-in-law...

The problem is, we never see the parents' names for Gardener Thomas.

I haven't yet found any record of the marriage between Harriet and Gardener Thomas.
She's living with her family in the 1870 Census, with her parents William and Ann Bould:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MDS2-TZW

Then the first of her children I've found is born in 1872:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FXZB-SXM

Can't find the marriage, so I don't know the parents of Thomas the Gardener.

The next year William Bould dies - William the father of Harriet and 'our' Thomas.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FH3K-M97

We see that Harriet's grandparents back in England are Thomas and Matilda Bould. The grandparents of 'our' Thomas. Now, Harriet herself was born in 1851 -

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MFFD-VLH

while her husband Gardener Thomas was significantly older -

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MH63-2G5

He's said to be born 1843-1845. But that' s back in England. And when he dies no-one knows his parentage so again, we can't say who his parents were:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWQC-DDW

Father William Bould and Gardener Thomas Bould must be related... These English immigrant families in Fall River were tightly intermarrying. Have you seen who Gardener Thomas Bould's parents were?

...I hope Harriet didn't marry her own uncle
I just feel there's something murky about this family.

I'm looking at the British Boulds to try and work this out. Being familiar with the geography makes a nice change.

And here's where I find Bould was charged with rape:

'A Shocking State of Depravity'
Sent: 03 Jun 2017 12:44
From: InterestedReader
Recipient: KGDevil

OK, I've found a report from a few days later.
Thomas Bould was charged with rape against his fifteen-year-old daughter:

Burlington Weekly Free Press., May 13, 1887, Page 8, Image 8
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-8/

I hope you can read it via this attachment below.

Is it 'Gardener' Thomas Bould?
I think yes. His wife Harriet did die the year before.
The 'Marie' must be the first-born Annie.
image.jpg

These are Harriet's children I've picked up so far:

Annie 1872
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FXZB-SXM

A Harriet b. about 1875 is in the 1880 Census:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MH63-2GY

Thomas 1876
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FX8W-Q3C

William 1877
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FX8Z-TGK

Joseph 1879
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FX8N-T14

Sarah also 1879 - must be twins:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FX8N-BF8
Etc etc

InterestedReader,

If you want to claim finding whatever it is you want to claim finding, be my guest. I have the same emails saved as well as the DM's that were exchanged. I could go through and post information showing who found what and when but I won't because it's not that important to me. But, you couldn't find anything without information I provided because you admitted you were at a total dead end. Yes, you found a single newspaper clipping about the rape in an out of town newspaper. It was a lead you couldn't follow up. But, yes, you found one newspaper article about the rape in an out of town paper. Thank you for providing that initial article which is the only one you found. The Fall River newspapers weren't available until after we had stopped corresponding. I pieced together all of the directory information for Thomas and everyone else which you couldn't do because you never had subscriptions to access any of it. I shared it with you along with all of the research that I had done. The same way I post my information on the forum so that everyone else has the same information. Whatever it is you want to say you found...hey, you did. I honestly don't care. I hope that makes you a happier person. I will not answer anymore of your posts after this one, just like I said I wouldn't answer anymore of your emails, so if you want to continue on this path you will do it on your own.

By sheer chance I'd saved on this Forum all our Bould interchanges, showing I instigated this research and fuelled it as with much else research we did. Anyone is welcome to see it so I should think you wouldn't want to reply further.

Dead ends? Lack of ideas? You have a bizarre mirroring mendacity which transfers your own problems onto someone else. Along with your abuse and hysteria that was one reason I ceased corresponding with you all those years ago.

You're lucky, I don't want any of this for a book. And I can't imagine why you're still treading out your completist lists of addresses 5 years on - it was plain in a fortnight this criminalised little family of my fellow Brits wouldn't solve the Borden murders. (Do you remember how I had to explain the geography of England to you in order to resolve their family structure?)

But claiming you made discoveries you didn't make and failing to acknowledge what you were given by others isn't just against etiquette, it's graceless and grubby. The theft of ideas - when it can be proven, as in this case - is also illegal.

I did put myself right in it, mistaking you for an honest person. So - I'll finish by adding a relevant line from your response then on the subject:

Re: Yes. Brother and Husband!
Sent: 03 Jun 2017 23:20
by KGDevil

I'm also inclined to think it's him. I've been trying to find out more about this story also. I haven't found much information in the papers that I have access to, but I'm still trying.

Well, I will share one last reply, thank you for showing the reason why I refused to keep corresponding with you. That was the kindest thing you've ever done for me actually.

InterestedReader wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:22 am By sheer chance I'd saved on this Forum all our Bould interchanges, showing I instigated this research and fuelled it as with much else research we did. Anyone is welcome to see it so I should think you wouldn't want to reply further.

Dead ends? Lack of ideas? You have a bizarre mirroring mendacity which transfers your own problems onto someone else. Along with your abuse and hysteria that was one reason I ceased corresponding with you all those years ago.

I said in that last email that I wouldn't reply to you again. I never did until now. The research aspect wasn’t important enough to get back into some High School type drama about it. It was bad enough in private emails when you blasted me because I wouldn't share info you wanted and accused me of stealing research and said I didn’t trust you then. I wanted to be done before that when you'd take things I'd sent and email it back like you'd found it. It takes a lot to get me angry. I’m prone to sarcasm, which rubs some people the wrong way, but I'm pretty easy going. They say no good deed goes unpunished. Altogether you've told me that I'm an incoherent, rambling, irrational, emotional, scathing, ungenerous, aggressive, abusive, hysterical, graceless, grubby, dishonest old curmudgeon who possibly suffers from mental issues and projects my problems onto other people while illegally stealing ideas. (Good thing you aren’t writing a book). Call me crazy (again) but I'd done nothing but supply info on whatever topic you asked using subscriptions to things you couldn’t access. Whatever I found I shared freely and without hesitation. Until I decided to stop. Then you got angry. The newspapers for Fall River were not available then. That’s why I couldn’t find anything. You did find the article in an out-of-town newspaper for which you provided the link. I found all the Fall River articles when they became available on newspapers.com after we had stopped corresponding. Those are the only articles I used. Take them, share them, do whatever you want with them. Wallpaper your bathroom. Write your book. Who cares? They’re public records that don’t belong to anyone, including me. If I really wanted to “keep them to myself”, I wouldn’t share them at all. Here’s an idea, subscribe and find the stuff yourself. Then no one could steal your publicly accessible records. You were at a dead end. You said Bould had disappeared after the trial and you couldn’t find him. You thought he went back to England. I said I'd look into him and find whatever I could starting with the directories. This located the family members and where they lived. When you find the family members it’s easy to readily find their vital records. I've been working on compiling the Bould family and have built a sizable family tree on Ancestry over the last couple of years. It’s handy when researching people to keep all of your information in their individual timelines. As I've said before, I like timelines. But I’m sure others had already found the same articles, same records, same geography of England…etc. (The geography of England was especially helpful when searching for records in the United States. Thanks.) If I can find it, so can everyone else. I didn't lie, and I don't believe that I'm any of those things. Which is the only reason I’d answer like this. I normally wouldn’t share private messages on a public forum. But you’ve broken that privacy barrier so I think you don’t mind the privacy issues.

InterestedReader wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:22 am

Re: Yes. Brother and Husband!
Sent: 03 Jun 2017 23:20
by KGDevil

I'm also inclined to think it's him. I've been trying to find out more about this story also. I haven't found much information in the papers that I have access to, but I'm still trying.

CagneyBT wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:43 pm hi KG

The Thomas Boulds who was born in Troy was married twice. The year of his first marriage is unknown, and your research revealed a second marriage in 1893. Yet, as a twice-married man, he was still boarding at Dr. Handy’s and Mrs. Churchill’s rather than living with his wife and establishing his own household. Does that make sense? It seems like the type of work situation that was more suitable for a single man.

Hello Joan. As to the first marriage did you not think the 1884 Rose Dennis marriage relevant?

'Brutal' Thomas Bould (the newspapers called him 'Brutal') had married the 15 year old Harriet Bould in 1872, the Reverend Buck presiding. In 1884 Buck wed what is ostensibly the other Thomas Bould - Harriet's brother, Mrs Churchill's man, the Thomas Bould we know from the trial - to another girl of 15, Rose Dennis:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWYN-632

This record has Thomas 'Bolles' (mistranscribed as 'Poller') & the characteristic 'Troy N.Y.' birthplace plus William and Ann Jackson parentage. There's also a heap of untruths which suggest a clandestine marriage - Rose is 15 and gives 19, Troy-born Thomas would be almost 32 but says he's 22 and most signally Rose's parents' Christian names are wrong as if purposively - perhaps no-one asked their consent.

Rose Dennis then vanishes. How short-lived was the union? There are no discernible offspring. But which of the Thomas Boulds had she married? I really wondered. I think Brutal Thomas may have borrowed his brother-in-law's identity. Here are some points to ponder.

When Rose remarries much later down the line she doesn't say she's divorced from Bould, she says he's dead. In 1899 only Brutal Thomas is dead:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N4CX-CZD

If a man can force sex on a daughter of barely 15 he probably won't baulk at bigamy - selecting a girl likewise 15 at the time.

And the timeline is curious. There's the Rose Dennis marriage in June 1884. Harriet dies 1886 and Brutal Thomas is arrested less than a year later, his children now in want, their father being rarely at home. Rose Dennis is the only Mrs Thomas Bould who after marriage gives no further sign of being so - does she flee on discovering bigamy or does this particular liaison end with the conviction and prison sentence?

I absolutely agree with you that Troy-born Thomas' 1880s employment suggests a man leading a single life - it's improbable for a married man.

So did Brutal Thomas exploit his brother-in-law's same-name deets to marry a tractable teen?

Buck was anyway practicing quite the blind eye to the man wedding and bedding 15-year-old Rose. One Thomas Bould was almost 32, the other an official 36 but in reality pushing 40. Whichever Thomas Bould is standing there he won't look 22. (Here in the UK at the time 15 would be under the legal age for marriage although people did just lie to circumvent the law. Joan, would 15 be illegal in Massachusetts in 1884?)

Did Buck stop to look at faces? Would he recognise the same man 12 years later? Possibly not but if you were remarrying as a widower I bet you had to prove it. And in 1884 Brutal Thomas couldn't yet claim to be a widower - Harriet took precisely 2 more years to die.

He probably hadn't wanted to marry Harriet in the first place. She was very pregnant which indicates a reluctance - 6 months gone with Annie, the child he was later convicted for raping. Harriet had given her name as 'Bouly' to mitigate the same-name embarrassment. Heaven knows what Thomas was giving but the written record looks so unlike Bould it's transcribed as 'Booth':
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPHY-721X
Since Annie was conceived out of wedlock this might permit of doubt as to his assault on the child being incest in strict biological terms. However he and wife Harriet were blood-relations and the consanguinity sufficiently close to make the rape biologically incestuous even if Annie were Harriet's child only.

When Troy-born Thomas, Mrs Churchill's Thomas, turns up to be married in 1893 he's choosing an age-apprpriate woman who in reality is in her thirties (despite the fantasy ages Mary O'Brien Kelly offers at her marriages). The couple are both denizens of Fall River yet they marry up in Middleborough. It's the 15th July, Mrs Churchill's Thomas has just given his trial evidence - from New Bedford did they travel up to Middleborough? In any case the Mary O'Brien Kelly marriage does feel like it's Troy-born Thomas present.

Why did Mrs Churchill's Thomas take to using his mother's name of Jackson? In contradistinction to his sister's publically-shamed widower presumably - an incestuous rape isn't easily lived down. But was there another reason? I know from the work I did some 5 years ago - the Fall River Boulds may have been largely illiterate but they were highly-skilled in dissimulation, ducking-&-diving their way round official records. They gave false answers to the Census while their City Directory information is a mismatched mess.

I don't for a moment suppose the two Thomas Boulds were impersonating one another for employment purposes - we know Mrs Churchill's Thomas was highly recognisable & after the tragedy brought upon his sister, after his raped niece Annie was removed to foster care why would he have any inclination to help the former brother-in-law? The idea Adelaide Churchill took 'Brutal' Bould into her home after that conviction is ludicrous. But if English-born Thomas purloined his brother-in-law's identity to commit bigamy it might help explain the who-lives-with-whom Boulds puzzle in the City Directory.

Adelaide Churchill's Thomas was of course born in 'Troy' on records (actually Trenton New Jersey) but his parents were from the Wolverhampton, West Bromwich and Walsall areas of Staffordshire. These speech-patterns are hard to eradicate and even after years in the States Thomas Bould's parents must have been speaking unregenerate 'Brummie' (loosely, the Birmingham area).

Bould's voice at the trial is very consonant with Wolverhampton - which can sound just as distinctly raised in register and well... interrogative to Londoners and British southerners as it did to American trial reporters. It's long been a source of comedy until our enlightened present-day when Brits try not to laugh at vocal diversity (ahem). To put this in American terms although Wolverhampton is only some 100 miles from London the difference in speech-patterns is as extreme upon the ear as between Boston and South Carolina, say. Honestly, when Bould takes the stand as a Brit you just know trial reporters are describing Brummie or even Black Country - an even more pronounced regional dialect.

Oh - I've gone with 'Bould' throughout because these are all members of the English-origin family and here in the UK the family do and did historically spell their name 'Bould'. The central question of how one Thomas Bould related to the other Thomas Bould was answered here in the UK thanks to British documents and family members.

Joan, I have some Rose Dennis records if they would be any use to you.
Sorry, I had to write this quickly. Please ask if anything needs clarifying,

God KG, I did the work in June 2017. Those are May's DMs you're sharing.

CagneyBT wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:43 pm

The Thomas Boulds who was born in Troy was married twice. The year of his first marriage is unknown, and your research revealed a second marriage in 1893. Yet, as a twice-married man, he was still boarding at Dr. Handy’s and Mrs. Churchill’s rather than living with his wife and establishing his own household. Does that make sense? It seems like the type of work situation that was more suitable for a single man.

Hello Joan. As to the first marriage did you not think the 1884 Rose Dennis marriage relevant?

'Brutal' Thomas Bould (the newspapers called him 'Brutal') had married the 15 year old Harriet Bould in 1872, the Reverend Buck presiding. In 1884 Buck wed what is ostensibly the other Thomas Bould - Harriet's brother, Mrs Churchill's man, the Thomas Bould we know from the trial - to another girl of 15, Rose Dennis:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWYN-632

This record has Thomas 'Bolles' (mistranscribed as 'Poller') & the characteristic 'Troy N.Y.' birthplace plus William and Ann Jackson parentage. There's also a heap of untruths which suggest a clandestine marriage - Rose is 15 and gives 19, Troy-born Thomas would be almost 32 but says he's 22 and most signally Rose's parents' Christian names are wrong as if purposively - perhaps no-one asked their consent.

Rose Dennis then vanishes. How short-lived was the union? There are no discernible offspring. But which of the Thomas Boulds had she married? I really wondered. I think Brutal Thomas may have borrowed his brother-in-law's identity. Here are some points to ponder.

When Rose remarries much later down the line she doesn't say she's divorced from Bould, she says he's dead. In 1899 only Brutal Thomas is dead:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N4CX-CZD

If a man can force sex on a daughter of barely 15 he probably won't baulk at bigamy - selecting a girl likewise 15 at the time.

And the timeline is curious. There's the Rose Dennis marriage in June 1884, Harriet dies 1886 and Brutal Thomas is arrested less than a year later, his children now in want, their father being rarely at home. Rose Dennis is the only Mrs Thomas Bould who after marriage gives no further sign of being so - does she flee on discovering bigamy or does this particular liaison end with the conviction and prison sentence?

I absolutely agree with you that Troy-born Thomas' 1880s employment suggests a man leading a single life - it's improbable for a married man.

So did Brutal Thomas exploit his brother-in-law's same-name deets to marry a tractable teen?

Buck was anyway practicing quite the blind eye to the man wedding and bedding 15-year-old Rose. One Thomas Bould was almost 32, the other an official 36 but in reality pushing 40. Whichever Thomas Bould is standing there he won't look 22. (Here in the UK at the time 15 would be under the legal age for marriage although people did just lie to circumvent the law. Joan, would 15 be illegal in Massachusetts in 1884?)

Did Buck stop to look at faces? Would he recognise the same man 12 years later? Possibly not but if you were remarrying as a widower I bet you had to prove it. And in 1884 Brutal Thomas couldn't yet claim to be a widower - Harriet took precisely 2 more years to die.

He probably hadn't wanted to marry Harriet in the first place. She was very pregnant which indicates a reluctance - 6 months gone with Annie, the child he was later convicted for raping. Harriet had given her name as 'Bouly' to mitigate the same-name embarrassment. Heaven knows what Thomas was giving but the written record looks so unlike Bould it's transcribed as 'Booth':
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPHY-721X
Since Annie was conceived out of wedlock this might permit of doubt as to his assault on the child constituting incest in strict biological terms. However he and wife Harriet were blood-relations and the consanguinity sufficiently close to make the rape biologically incestuous even if Annie were Harriet's child only.

When Troy-born Thomas, Mrs Churchill's Thomas, turns up to be married in 1893 he's choosing an age-appropriate woman who in reality is in her thirties (despite the fantasy ages Mary O'Brien Kelly offers at her marriages). The couple are both denizens of Fall River yet they marry up in Middleborough. It's the 15th July, Thomas has just given his trial evidence - from New Bedford did they travel up to Middleborough? In any case the Mary O'Brien Kelly marriage does feel like it's Troy-born Thomas present.

Why did Mrs Churchill's Thomas take to using his mother's name of Jackson? In contradistinction to the publically-shamed Bould presumably - an incestuous rape isn't easily lived down. But was there another reason? I know from the work I did some 5 years ago - the Fall River Boulds may have been largely illiterate but they were highly-skilled in dissimulation, ducking-&-diving their way round official records. They gave false answers to the Census while their City Directory information is a mismatched mess.

I don't for a moment suppose the two Thomas Boulds were impersonating one another for employment purposes - we know Mrs Churchill's Thomas was highly recognisable & after the tragedy brought upon his sister who died exhausted barely 29, after his raped niece Annie was removed to foster care, why would he have any inclination to help the former brother-in-law? The idea Adelaide Churchill took 'Brutal' Bould into her home after that conviction is ludicrous. But if English-born Thomas purloined his brother-in-law's identity to commit bigamy it might help explain the who-lives-with-whom Boulds puzzle in the City Directory.

Adelaide Churchill's Thomas was of course born in 'Troy' on records (actually Trenton New Jersey) but his parents were from the Wolverhampton, West Bromwich and Walsall areas of Staffordshire. These speech-patterns are hard to eradicate and even after years in the States Thomas Bould's parents must have been speaking unregenerate 'Brummie' (loosely, the Birmingham area).

Bould's voice at the trial is very consonant with Wolverhampton - which can sound just as distinctly raised in register and well... interrogative to Londoners and British southerners as it did to American trial reporters. It's long been a source of comedy until our enlightened present-day when Brits try not to laugh at vocal diversity (ahem). To put this in American terms although Wolverhampton is only some 100 miles from London the difference in speech-patterns is as extreme upon the ear as between Boston and South Carolina, say. Honestly, when Bould takes the stand as a Brit you just know trial reporters are describing Brummie or even Black Country - an even more pronounced regional dialect.

Oh - I've gone with 'Bould' throughout because these are all members of the English-origin family and here in the UK the family do and did historically spell their name 'Bould'. The central question of how one Thomas Bould related to the other Thomas Bould was answered here in the UK thanks to British documents and family members.

Joan, I have some Rose Dennis records if they would be any use to you.
Sorry, I had to write this quickly. Please ask if anything needs clarifying.

Hi Wendy

Thank you for your comments! And a special thanks for a British perspective on Thomas' accent. Much appreciated!

Unfortunately, I can’t identify the Thomas who married Rose Dennis, and I’m not even going to try. I was aware of the 1884 marriage, but the ages and surnames raised more questions than answers.

The name can be read as either “Boller” or “Bolles.” The record doesn’t note his mother’s surname as “Jackson;” His parentage is recorded as “William and Ann_________.”

Speculating is fun. I’ve occasionally indulged in it. It’s very tempting to make suppositions and apply nefarious motives, but, speaking from experience, it often leads the researcher down a slew of rabbit holes, and the results are usually futile or inconclusive.

That being said, I did some research on Rose and her family. This is a chronological timeline based on records and newspaper accounts. I don’t know if it’ll answer any questions for you, but I hope you'll find it interesting.

Rose F. Dennis was born in Tiverton on Aug. 18, 1868, and the family resided in Fall River. Her father was Raymond P. Dennis & her mother was Mary W. Smith. Raymond was a fisherman. It was reported that “he was known in Fall River as a pedlar of clams which he toted through the streets in a wheelbarrow.”

It was also reported that the house was “one of bad repute for some time. A few years ago, a terrible stabbing affray was committed there, and in March 1881, a woman said to be the wife of two men, both of whom were living in the same house, died suddenly, as was alleged at the time, from delirium tremens.” The house was located in Jennings Block on Almond St, west of the Linen Mill

Around midnight on Dec. 7, 1881, three young men identified as Michael Sharkey, John Calden, and John C. Sullivan, went to the Dennis house, looking for a woman named Rose A. (Rosa) Johnson.

Sharkey and Rose Johnson had been in a tumultuous relationship. According to the 1880 census, Michael and Rose were boarding with the Dennis family and were enumerated as husband & wife. (Rose was enumerated as “Rosey Sharkey”). In Aug. 1880, Sharkey was charged with brutally assaulting her. In Nov. 1880, Sharkey was convicted for assaulting his own sister, Margaret, and jailed for six months. That same month, Rose Johnson had been convicted of being “a common drunkard” and sentenced to a year in prison. By December 1881, she had just been released and was again living in the Dennis household. It’s likely Sharkey went to the Dennis house to reestablish contact with her.

The three men stood outside the Dennis house calling out Rose’s name. Raymond Dennis opened a window from inside and yelled at them to leave, stating that Rose wasn’t there. In response, Sharkey called him a liar, and the men began throwing stones at the windows.
,
Dennis grabbed a shotgun, went outside and approached the men. A scuffle ensued over the gun and Raymond was shot in the head. “The shot took the top of his head off on a line above the eyes.” He died instantly. He was sixty-two.

Rose Dennis, then age 14, later testified that she saw the three men kicking her father, heard the gun go off, and saw the men running away. She knew both Michael Sharkey and John C. Sullivan and witnessed Sullivan pull the trigger. James H. Dennis, 16, was Rose’s brother. According to his testimony, they shared the same bed and from his vantage point on the bed, he could see the men.

Despite the Dennis’ eyewitness testimony, John C. Sullivan was able to convince authorities he was not there when the murder occurred, and the charges against him were dropped. Michael Sharkey agreed to turn state’s evidence, but he died in jail in January 1882 before he could testify, presumably against John Calden. Calden had fled to Chicago and remained at large until 1884, when he was arrested for burglary. He was never charged with murdering Raymond Dennis; since Sharkey had died and Sullivan was cleared, there was no evidence to convict him.

June 7, 1884, Fall River Daily Evening News: “Married in this city 2d. By Rev. E.A. Buck, Thomas Boller to Rose Dennis, both of this city.”

The actual marriage record records his parents as William & Ann; birthplace Troy, New York; laborer, age 22. Rose is recorded as 19 years old, dressmaker, born in Tiverton, R.I., parents: John & Ann. If this Rose was actually the daughter of Raymond and Mary and she was only 16, she wouldn’t need parental approval to wed. The legal age of consent in Massachusetts in 1880 was 12.

There were a few newspaper items related to the Dennis family, including this from Sept. 22,, 1885;the daughter is not identified:

“Mrs Mary W. Dennis whose husband was killed some years ago by an accident at the Linen Mill made some comment yesterday upon Beecher as the author of " Paradise Lost" and was corrected by her daughter who fired the book at her mother's head. Mrs. Dennis replied with a poker which she happened to have about her clothes. Miss Dennis resigned the position of instructress and had the old lady arrested for occupying too strong a position in the argument. Fined with the usual extras.”

In July of 1886, Rose’s brother, James Dennis, was charged with assaulting “a China man.”

In Sept. 1892 it was reported that Edward Mahoney was charged with assault of Rose Dennis. Rosa F. Dennis, who was described as “a forgiving sweetheart," dropped the charges against Mahoney for “assaulting her while in a passion.”

in Jan.1896, it was reported that the home of Sewell P. Ellis at 157 Pocasset St. had been raided as a house of ill repute, and Rose Dennis and Minnie Giroux were arrested for being common night walkers. Government witnesses testified that Dennis (and the other women charged) were in the habit of being on the street at all hours of the night and accosting men and taking them to the Ellis place. Rose was sentenced to one year in Sherborn prison.

Sherborn Prison in Framingham, MA was a women’s reformatory that was quite progressive in its day. The women were free to roam the building and around the grounds and were trained in domestic duties. Many of the women were placed in domestic service upon their release.

When widow Rose Dennis Boyd married the twice-divorced William Freelove on Nov. 11, 1899, her occupation is given as “domestic.” Her parents are noted as Raymond & Mary.

“Rosey” and William Freelove, a teamster, are next located in the 1900 census living in Providence at 17 Dorrance St. A discrepancy in that record gives her birth year as 1878. In 1901, William appears in the Providence city directory at 10 Winsor.

In 1910, a Rosa Dennis, lodger, age 42, single, b. Rhode Island, is located in the census living at 75 Sabin St. in Providence. She’s working as a dishwasher at a restaurant.

Rose’s mother, Mary W. Dennis, died in Westport on October 9, 1916. The informant was her son, Raymond F. Dennis, address Adamsville, R.I.

The Evening Herald, June 29, 1922: “Adamsville- Miss Rose Dennis has returned home, having spent several weeks with her brother, James Dennis and family at Nantucket.” Adamsville is in Rhode Island, near Little Compton. The brother mentioned is James H. Dennis, a fisherman. He was lost at sea in 1934.

Rose Dennis died on Jan. 20, 1927, age 58, in Nantucket and is buried in Centerville/Westport, MA. The informant was her brother Raymond F. Dennis.

William A. Freelove died in 1944 in Freetown, MA.

There has already been so much informaton posted in this thread, that there's nothing more I can add. I hope this has been helpful

Hi Wendy

Thank you for your comments! And a special thanks for a British perspective on Thomas' accent. Much appreciated!

Unfortunately, I can’t identify the Thomas who married Rose Dennis, and I’m not even going to try. I was aware of the 1884 marriage, but the ages and surnames raised more questions than answers.

The name can be read as either “Boller” or “Bolles.” The record doesn’t note his mother’s surname as “Jackson;” His parentage is recorded as “William and Ann_________.”

Speculating is fun. I’ve occasionally indulged in it. It’s very tempting to make suppositions and apply nefarious motives, but, speaking from experience, it often leads the researcher down a slew of rabbit holes, and the results are usually futile or inconclusive.

That being said, I did some research on Rose and her family. This is a chronological timeline based on records and newspaper accounts. I don’t know if it’ll answer any questions for you, but I hope you'll find it interesting.

Rose F. Dennis was born in Tiverton on Aug. 18, 1868, and the family resided in Fall River. Her father was Raymond P. Dennis & her mother was Mary W. Smith. Raymond was a fisherman. It was reported that “he was known in Fall River as a pedlar of clams which he toted through the streets in a wheelbarrow.”

It was also reported that the house was “one of bad repute for some time. A few years ago, a terrible stabbing affray was committed there, and in March 1881, a woman said to be the wife of two men, both of whom were living in the same house, died suddenly, as was alleged at the time, from delirium tremens.” The house was located in Jennings Block on Almond St, west of the Linen Mill

Around midnight on Dec. 7, 1881, three young men identified as Michael Sharkey, John Calden, and John C. Sullivan, went to the Dennis house, looking for a woman named Rose A. (Rosa) Johnson.

Sharkey and Rose Johnson had been in a tumultuous relationship. According to the 1880 census, Michael and Rose were boarding with the Dennis family and were enumerated as husband & wife. (Rose was enumerated as “Rosey Sharkey”). In Aug. 1880, Sharkey was charged with brutally assaulting her. In Nov. 1880, Sharkey was convicted for assaulting his own sister, Margaret, and jailed for six months. That same month, Rose Johnson had been convicted of being “a common drunkard” and sentenced to a year in prison. By December 1881, she had just been released and was again living in the Dennis household. It’s likely Sharkey went to the Dennis house to reestablish contact with her.

The three men stood outside the Dennis house calling out Rose’s name. Raymond Dennis opened a window from inside and yelled at them to leave, stating that Rose wasn’t there. In response, Sharkey called him a liar, and the men began throwing stones at the windows.
,
Dennis grabbed a shotgun, went outside and approached the men. A scuffle ensued over the gun and Raymond was shot in the head. “The shot took the top of his head off on a line above the eyes.” He died instantly. He was sixty-two.

Rose Dennis, then age 14, later testified that she saw the three men kicking her father, heard the gun go off, and saw the men running away. She knew both Michael Sharkey and John C. Sullivan and witnessed Sullivan pull the trigger. James H. Dennis, 16, was Rose’s brother. According to his testimony, they shared the same bed and from his vantage point on the bed, he could see the men.

Despite the Dennis’ eyewitness testimony, John C. Sullivan was able to convince authorities he was not there when the murder occurred, and the charges against him were dropped. Michael Sharkey agreed to turn state’s evidence, but he died in jail in January 1882 before he could testify, presumably against John Calden. Calden had fled to Chicago and remained at large until 1884, when he was arrested for burglary. He was never charged with murdering Raymond Dennis; since Sharkey had died and Sullivan was cleared, there was no evidence to convict him.

June 7, 1884, Fall River Daily Evening News: “Married in this city 2d. By Rev. E.A. Buck, Thomas Boller to Rose Dennis, both of this city.”

The actual marriage record records his parents as William & Ann; birthplace Troy, New York; laborer, age 22. Rose is recorded as 19 years old, dressmaker, born in Tiverton, R.I., parents: John & Ann. If this Rose was actually the daughter of Raymond and Mary and she was only 16, she wouldn’t need parental approval to wed. The legal age of consent in Massachusetts in 1880 was 12.

There were a few newspaper items related to the Dennis family, including this from Sept. 22,, 1885;the daughter is not identified:

“Mrs Mary W. Dennis whose husband was killed some years ago by an accident at the Linen Mill made some comment yesterday upon Beecher as the author of " Paradise Lost" and was corrected by her daughter who fired the book at her mother's head. Mrs. Dennis replied with a poker which she happened to have about her clothes. Miss Dennis resigned the position of instructress and had the old lady arrested for occupying too strong a position in the argument. Fined with the usual extras.”

In July of 1886, Rose’s brother, James Dennis, was charged with assaulting “a China man.”

In Sept. 1892 it was reported that Edward Mahoney was charged with assault of Rose Dennis. Rosa F. Dennis, who was described as “a forgiving sweetheart," dropped the charges against Mahoney for “assaulting her while in a passion.”

in Jan.1896, it was reported that the home of Sewell P. Ellis at 157 Pocasset St. had been raided as a house of ill repute, and Rose Dennis and Minnie Giroux were arrested for being common night walkers. Government witnesses testified that Dennis (and the other women charged) were in the habit of being on the street at all hours of the night and accosting men and taking them to the Ellis place. Rose was sentenced to one year in Sherborn prison.

Sherborn Prison in Framingham, MA was a women’s reformatory that was quite progressive in its day. The women were free to roam the building and around the grounds and were trained in domestic duties. Many of the women were placed in domestic service upon their release.

When widow Rose Dennis Boyd married the twice-divorced William Freelove on Nov. 11, 1899, her occupation is given as “domestic.” Her parents are noted as Raymond & Mary.

“Rosey” and William Freelove, a teamster, are next located in the 1900 census living in Providence at 17 Dorrance St. A discrepancy in that record gives her birth year as 1878. In 1901, William appears in the Providence city directory at 10 Winsor.

In 1910, a Rosa Dennis, lodger, age 42, single, b. Rhode Island, is located in the census living at 75 Sabin St. in Providence. She’s working as a dishwasher at a restaurant.

Rose’s mother, Mary W. Dennis, died in Westport on October 9, 1916. The informant was her son, Raymond F. Dennis, address Adamsville, R.I.

The Evening Herald, June 29, 1922: “Adamsville- Miss Rose Dennis has returned home, having spent several weeks with her brother, James Dennis and family at Nantucket.” Adamsville is in Rhode Island, near Little Compton. The brother mentioned is James H. Dennis, a fisherman. He was lost at sea in 1934.

Rose Dennis died on Jan. 20, 1927, age 58, in Nantucket and is buried in Centerville/Westport, MA. The informant was her brother Raymond F. Dennis.

William A. Freelove died in 1944 in Freetown, MA.

There has already been so much informaton posted in this thread, that there's nothing more I can add. I hope this has been helpful

Hi Joan -

That's all very colourful on Rose Dennis! So she was later reported to be a streetwalker - with a passion for Milton? I just had the records outlining her life and family, I didn't pursue her - or visualise her to be in quite so criminal a milieu. I must say the marriage record reads as 'Bolles' to my eyes with the 'Troy-William-Ann' conjunction suggesting the involvement of one of the brothers-in-law. Rose was certainly 15 if we compute from her birth record and wouldn't be 16 til August - 'dressmaker' was a 'respectable' occupation to give and thus, as you know, often a falsehood.

So interesting. You didn't find any offspring for Rose either?

Hi Wendy!....Nope, I didn't locate any offspring for a Rose Boller, Bolles, Boyd or Freelove.