Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hi Kat

Alfred may have indeed concocted his story for the reasons you state. However, he’s very specific about his movements on August 4 and his story could be easily verified, especially about selling the hatched to Thomas J. Connors.

The notation of "C. Hammond" may have been made by one of the questioners at Alfred's interview. Alfred may have remembered the "C. Hammond" etching on the hatchet, and one of the questioners jotted it down.

If the notation was made by Knowlton, then Knowlton may have taken the statement seriously enough to investigate. Knowlton may have conferred with Connors about purchasing a hatchet from Alfred. If Connors recalled that he did indeed purchase a hatchet, he may have also recalled that it was manufactured by “C. Hammond." It’s also possible that Knowlton either debunked the statement because Connors denied Alfred’s claim, or the evidence was inconclusive.

This is all supposition, of course. But with the exception of known, verified facts, most of the theories regarding the Borden case are based on supposition.

Just to say, Kat, I am quite enjoying your recent turns of phrase: “That Smith delinquent…” and “Bridget’s odd obfuscating utterances.” I’m imagining your smirk as you write these!

What follows is a partial post of CagneyBT, from this thread, above:

CagneyBT wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2023 1:46 pm …
This is all supposition, of course. But with the exception of known, verified facts, most of the theories regarding the Borden case are based on supposition.

Cagney, well-said and you are quite right. Your postings are most well-written — logical, clear, analytically sharp, reasoned — and your research new to me, so fascinating. Thanks for contributing to this forum

About ( to quote Kat) “That Smith delinquent,” I have some doubts. Principally, I think Lizzie acted alone (I’ll explain why in a following post to this thread), so do not think any accomplice deposited the gloves and hatchet outside the house. Logically, I cannot see how depositing these there would have helped Lizzie or even any accomplice:
—someone could have seen this depositing
—even if no one witnessed anyone leaving the house and then dropping the hatchet and bloody gloves, the sight of those objects would have aroused suspicion as soon as they were seen (so potentially shortening getaway (for accomplice)/clean-up time (for Lizzie).

So, if dropped, this must have been done in an unreasoning, (panicked?) state.

It is, of course, possible these WERE dropped in a panic, but I don’t see Lizzie’s emotions or actions as panicked: she had to clean up fast after she murdered her father, so I think she was pretty efficient, which implies mental organization.

Later, I’ll explain why I think Lizzie acted alone…

To continue my post above, here’s a brief explanation of why I think Lizzie acted alone, written by a former poster, “Debbie Diablo,” whose observations I found valuable reading:



Re: Uncle John’s motive: a conjecture
Post by debbiediablo » Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:21 am

“…Somewhere John Watson says Lizzie was a psychopath who would want no help with the crime. He is right. IF Lizzie is the murderer then she was a psychopath who would act unilaterally. She would be so convinced of her own superiority so as to burn a dress in front of her sister and the neighbor and then be amazed when this behavior was viewed as suspicious. Even if she burned the murder dress itself! No matter how smart or dumb or lucky, a psychopath always thinks they are smarter than everyone.”

hi Reasonwhy!

Thank you so much for your kind words. I've also enjoyed your posts which are always so thoughtful and insightful.

I've always thought that Lizzie acted alone. Now, I'm not so sure. The timeline is a hurdle for me, as well as the huge discrepancies in Bridget and Lizzie's statements.

Knowlton Papers. Page 147 – 153.
Extracted from the initial paragraph from the typewritten report (HK142) of Alfred Smith’s statement. “…..made the following statement to me, in the presence of Deputy Superintendent Charles Hart.”

The primary interviewer, “Me”, is never clearly identified, but I believe it was Marshal Hilliard.

The statement, HK 142, provides several indicators that point towards the Marshal:
1) The interrogator must have been a person of authority in law enforcement to take questioning ‘lead’ over the facilities Deputy
Superintendent.

2) Halfway down page 153 is a telling Q&A.
Question: Why didn’t you tell me when you was in the lock up in Fall River?
Answer: Because I was afraid to. I was going to tell my father, when he came to see me in the lock-up, but he only stayed a minute or
two and I did not have time to tell him.

The question makes it clear that the interviewer was from the Fall River city jailhouse. Also, take a look at this Q&A. There is strange spacing at this point in Arthur’s typewritten statement…as if something was redacted.

3) The interview included displaying photographs of the Borden and surrounding homes to Alfred. That is information the reformatory facility staff would not have had in their possession.

4) But the ‘coupe de grace’ is on page 153.
Question: (by Mr. Holliard) Now Alfred all that you have told us is the truth? Answer: Yes sir.

The typist inadvertently typed a ‘o’ instead of a ‘I’.

For me, it is conclusive that Marshall Hilliard took the time to personally interview Alfred. Which means the lead was taken seriously and must have been followed up and investigated upon. Hilliard Papers where are you!!??

This is the full article that Cagney quotes from earlier in this thread. As you read the article, notice that it seems Marshall Hilliard personally interceded in the treatment of Alfred. Limiting his charges to a single charge vs. the multiple that could have been thrown at him. This interaction gives Hilliard's question in the Alfred statement, "Why didn't you tell me when you was in the lock up in Fall RIver", must better context. He and the boy had actually communicated before the interview at the Reformatory.

And that would explain why it was not written in “delinquent-ese”…

Partial post by CagneyBT:

CagneyBT wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:21 pm …
I've always thought that Lizzie acted alone. Now, I'm not so sure. The timeline is a hurdle for me, as well as the huge discrepancies in Bridget and Lizzie's statements.

To clarify, even Ms. Diablo wavered in her forum posts through the years as to whether or not Lizzie was a sociopath or psychopath, and whether or not Lizzie acted alone. I do, at times, entertain my own doubts on those issues. And I agree, Lizzie’s and Bridget’s accounts vary enough to cause me discomfort, in some instances. (We should start a thread posting on those variations!)

Additionally, none of us can accurately diagnose Lizzie’s mental health, although it is riveting to read each other’s attempts. But I do feel confident that Lizzie had a haughty belief in her own abilities (as per the egg contest at the jail, and her enthusiastic offer to chop the wood for the young ladies at Marion, for example). Additionally I agree with the following recent article, that an individual’s degree of sociopathy/psychopathy exists on a continuum:

https://apple.news/A5-Ma06HZTMmq6PxnzZt05g

To me, Lizzie leaned toward the “dark triad” side of the spectrum

Psychopaths are also very manipulative. I wonder if an accomplice was somehow coerced by Lizzie, maybe by blackmail. And if there was an accomplice, it may have been someone who also had something to gain by murdering the Bordens.

I agree that Lizzie was manipulative, and I’ve written about that in the past here on the forum. Prima facie evidence of that was Lizzie’s trip to Alice’s Wed. night to plant the suspicion that ‘father has an enemy…’

I don’t see Lizzie as morally beyond blackmail. And that would help to insure secrecy.

Camagarsky, I agree with your post about Alfred's statement. I also think Marshall Hilliard was conducting the interview (great catch!)
Alfred's father, Robert Smith, was known and well-respected in Fall River. I posted his obituary in this thread. That may explain why Hilliard lessened the charges against him.

Re: the notation at the end of Alfred's statement: "1 C Hammond, Phila, Cast Steel." This may refer to model #1 of the hatchet. Here's a link to it:
https://picclick.com/Hatchet-Axe-Vintag ... 64524.html

Here are links to other Hammond hatchets of the period:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -478267115
https://www.georgesbasement.com/galoots ... ndhalf.htm
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... -167065047

I found this rather interesting relating to Henry Palmer, whether relevant or not.

In her Last Will & Testament, Lizzie designated Charles C. Cook as executor of her estate. Her second designee, in the event of Cook's demise, was Frederick E. Beemis, cashier of the Fall River National Bank.
Beemis and Palmer worked together at the bank during the same time period. Beemis was employed as a clerk and Palmer was the teller. A few days before Palmer surrended in April 1893, Beemis was promoted to second teller. Probably just series of coincidences

Two articles reporting the exploits of young Henry B. Palmer, Jr.:
Looks like young Henry embezzled from his father, the embezzler

This was reported in the Providence News, January 11, 1893:
According to the article, Hilliard left New Bedford on Friday, January 6. Alfred A. Smith was questioned, we believe by Hilliard, on January 9. Was the mystery related to Alfred's alleged discovery of the bloody hatchet and gloves?

The Boston Globe, January 13, 1893:


Was the supposed "compromise" towards Lizzie's defense team the offer of a possible plea deal? If Alfred's story had any validity, maybe the prosecution was considering charging Lizzie as an accessory?

Just my opinion, but I don't think there can be much doubt that the Arthur Smith claims are what stirred up the hornets nest (law enforcement) in early January. He obviously had verbalized his claims at the reformatory and the leadership at the reformatory had likely called Hilliard and given him a verbal download. That might be what sparked Hilliard's visit to New Bedford to talk to Knowlton. Then Knowlton sent him up to get a written statement.

Proof of the advance call and conversations is that Hilliard brought photos of the homes around the Borden home, clearly with the intent to pin down that his story did involve the Borden house and not Churchill's or Kelly's.

Nothing about Arthur's statement would get Lizzie 'off the hook', so to say. He saw a woman (implication lizzie) unwrapping something that had a handle and then a bit later finds a bloody hatchet in the front yard and sees the same woman at the side door. All of that would have been highly prejudicial for Lizzie, if Lizzie was the person he claimed to have seen.

This further supports the supposition that the police thoroughly checked out Arthurs claims and they weren't able to validate anything. If any of his claims had been corroborated, its a safe bet that the next step would have been asking him to identify Lizzie herself....either via photograph or a 'line up'.

This is excellent work Cagney! This set of information creates such a clear storyline....piecing this together barely feels like speculation.

By the way, regarding Palmer & Bemis.....we have all heard of the concept of "6 degrees of separation". I think Fall River and the Borden cast of characters lived in a world of "1" degree of separation! As you know, it seems like everyone is intertwined with everyone at some point in time.

One of my favorite '1 degree' examples is that, per Fall River city directories, Alice Russell boarded with the Caleb Potter family on Third Street in the years after the murders. As we all know, Caleb's son Arthur found the hatchet on top of the Crowe barn. What are the odds that Alice Russell and Arthur Potter lived under the same roof for several years? Did they ever discuss the case? A conspiracy theorist could have a hay day with all these coincidences and '1 degree' relationships.

Lastly on Bemis and Palmer (I so wanted to type Bevis and butthead ), it would have taken an auditor or a co-worker to have caught Palmer in his skullduggery, so i would bet a dollar that Bemis got suspicious and informed on Palmer. His reward was to get Palmer's job.

Speaking of raw material for conspiracy theorists.....not sure if they had something like 'white out' back in those days.
Page 151 Knowlton Papers

Beemis & Butthead (Beemis and Palmer)! Thanks for the chuckle, Camgarsky! They're the Lizzie Borden version of the game, "Six Degrees From Kevin Bacon", for sure

Until the Hilliard papers are released, we'll never know if Alfred's tale checked out. But the dates of the news articles coinciding with his statement suggest that his claims were investigated.

In the Knowlton Papers (pgs. 94-95), there was correspondence between Pillsbury & Knowlton about including an accessory charge (accessory before & after the fact). This was before Alfred's statement came to light. I wonder if any subsequent information convinced them that a plea deal was possible. Perhaps this was "the compromise" to the defense that was rumored about in the article.

However, IF the investigation into Alfred's claims had indeed uncovered "the smoking gun," Knowlton's best evidence would have been for naught, considering that he had the worst witness to present it...namely, Alfred himself. The defense would have made mincemeat out of young Alfred. Would the jury have put any credence into the testimony of a convicted juvenile hoodlum over the word of a well-respected, gentile, socially prominent, Christian lady? Considering the risk, Knowlton may have decided not to pursue that avenue and plowed ahead with prosecuting Lizzie as the sole perpetrator.

Now I'm curious about what the heck that yellow mark is in the Knowlton Papers.

I put the yellow mark there to call out the strange blank space in that answer to Hilliard's question. Sorry for confusing. Why in the world would the typist randomly type her notes that way?

If Alfred's claim about selling the hatchet and storing a glove in his drawer had proved out, that would have made his testimony more palatable for a jury. Did you mention that one of the authors mentioned that the glove wasn't found in the drawer? I usually ignore all of the non-sourced author stuff, but that is interesting.

Hi Camgarsky

We don’t know what model of typewriter was used. It’s possible the typist used a “blind” typewriter, like this one:

"The Sholes & Glidden, like many early typewriters, is an understroke or "blind" writer: the typebars are arranged in a circular basket under the platen (the printing surface) and type on the bottom of the platen. This means that the typist (confusingly called a "typewriter" herself in the early days) has to lift up the carriage to see her work."  (From: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriter ... story.html)

The gap could have been a formatting issue, caused by the typist lifting & resetting the carriage.

David Kent, in Forty Whacks, is the author who stated, without a cited source, that no glove was found in the bureau draw. He also described Alfred in an addendum at the end of the book as “a crank who confessed.” As we know, Alfred’s statement was not a confession.

In a letter from Pillsbury to Knowlton (pg. 61 of the Knowlton Papers), Pillsbury addressed the theory floating around that the murders were the result of a botched burglary. Alfred was a convicted burglar which would have made his presumed testimony even more problematic.

However, there’s this interesting blurb in a letter sent from Knowlton to Pillsbury in April, 1893. “Nothing has developed since which satisfies either of us that she is innocent, neither of us can escape the conclusion that she must have had some knowledge of the occurrence.”

So if nothing new had developed since Alfred’s gave his statement in January 1893, did this mean that his story was completely debunked or that it simply couldn’t be verified?

Nonetheless, Alffred would have been a terrible witness if his facts had indeed checked out. Whether verified or not, Pillsbury and Knowlton were still convinced Lizzie was either the sole guilty party or was an accessory to the crime.

So if nothing new had developed since Alfred’s gave his statement in January 1893, did this mean that his story was completely debunked or that it simply couldn’t be verified?
Nonetheless, Alffred would have been a terrible witness if his facts had indeed checked out. Whether verified or not, Pillsbury and Knowlton were still convinced Lizzie was either the sole guilty party or was an accessory to the crime.— partial, Cagney.

Yes, I do agree with this as a very reasonable assessment.
It may sound simplistic at this point, after all the fab and interesting research and discussion you all have been involved with (and very cool), but if Jennings and his investigator Phillips did not include any notation on this issue, chances are there was not much to it, or not enough to worry them, maybe??
Wouldn’t we have something from the defense?
And still a $5,000 reward: wouldn’t our larcenous little reprobate just love to get in on that action?
That’s a lot of candy!

[Before the grand jury sat in November and December there was a lot of misinformation being printed in the papers and they really were vying for a story, some ready to print anything.
This case was the beginnings of yellow journalism, and sensationalism was becoming rampant -think National Enquirer…I remember wondering how a grand jury could even be picked.
When I earlier mentioned the Tricky/ McHenry sad debacle, Tricky was about to be indicted by this same grand jury for witness tampering (Bridget) and they would hear Alice Russell’s statement about the dress burning incident (which resulted in Lizzie’s indictment) and Tricky fled town and died soon after. (I’m sure you all already know this. Just reminding the readers and adding context.)]

Kat -- I've been curious since first buying Jennings, what the time frame for the JJ notes and articles might have been. The vast majority were clearly gathered in the initial weeks after the murders. So far I have identified only a handful of updated notations from learnings post-October, 1892. Example is the reference to Alice Russell being aggressively interviewed by Medley when Alice was ill in the days just prior to the trial. However, such updates seem to be the exception vs. the norm.

An example that the journals were not kept thoroughly updated involves Alice once again. Nowhere in JJ does it include information about Alice's grand jury testimony about Lizzie burning the dress. That is perhaps the single biggest discovery after September, '92 and up to the trial itself. Yet that story is nowhere to be found in Jennings Journals. I'm not a legal expert, but (after watching hundreds of Law & Order episodes) the process of 'discovery' would have required the prosecution to share the evidence they had with the defense and visa versa. There is a fair chance I have something about evidence sharing wrong.

My guess on where the majority of the more updated notes by Jennings might be if not in his own journals?
I suspect that once Governor Robinson got involved, he may have required that all information compiled after his involvement be collected and stored with his law firm and we all know that information is locked up until someone figures out how to get legal access. My instincts tell me that is also where 'we' will someday find a copy of Bridget's inquest testimony.
This is just a guess that is hopefully fairly logical.

Cagney - here is another article regarding Marshal Hilliard's travels on January 9, the day the Arthur statement was dated. Lowell, Ma is 15 miles north of the Concord Reformatory. So he went north, but final destination appears to be a bit past Concord. But nothing to say if he did or did not stop over in Concord.

hi Kat!

Great point about the $5,000 reward. Heck, Alfred could've bought the whole candy store for that amount of money!

I agree as well that it's important to keep the McHenry-Trickey affair in our minds when referencing leads or sources. That's why I always try to verify my research and not rely solely on newspaper accounts or books spouting theories about the case.

Interesting article, Camagarsky...now I'm curious about what business Hilliard had in Lowell.

Charles Clarke Cook. I don't recall seeing a pic of him before. Looks pretty much like I've imagined.

Given our current discussion, this may be a good thread to look at. Resurfacing.

A lot of fascinating research and discussion. Happy to revisit any of this you guys are interested in.

Still reading the thread. I bought Masterson's book on Palmer. Here are the jpgs of the Carpenter article. I have all the PDFs that are available for the Lizzie Borden Quarterly, but in case someone just wants the article in questions, I attached it.

For completeness, here are the rest of the sources.

This was a very interesting thread and Palmer and Alfred were both new to me. I bought the Masterson book to have another addition to the Lizzie is innocent arguments. The Alfred testimony should have presented and the remaining glove and the hatchet should have been tracked down. I didn't read anything in this thread, unless I missed it, that those items were actually tracked down. I can see the glove being lost even if he thought he still had it in a drawer, but a hatchet seems like it would likely still be around, even if it was re-sharpened and useless forensically, I'd still want it to show the handle and head to everyone who had interacted with it, assuming it was a Borden hatchet. Johnson the Swansea farm employee is who I'd want to ask first about it - he'd almost certainly know if it was a Borden hatchet.

I'm pretty confident everything to do with Palmer and Alfred are on this thread. But of course, confidence does not equal 'for sure'.

Alfred's story, fascinating as it might be, just doesn't jibe for me. The killer took the murder 'tools' outside and laid on ground near the front fence? And did this BEFORE Andrew was killed? That said, the authorities did appear to try and track down this claim by Alfred, so my presumption is that whatever checking was possible months after the murders, they attempted to do.

Re-reading what I wrote, that was not what I meant to get across, it was worded poorly. I don't believe Alfred either, but I think it should have been tracked down and documented, so there would be no questions later. Perhaps it was, and it will be in the Hilliard papers, if they are ever released. Specifically, what happened to that hatchet? I'd want Johnson to testify about it one way or the other.

If Alfred really did lie about it, in a double-murder, for me that is severe consequences for him, but I think some of it is so widespread and expected (cranks sending in false tips) that lying in a media-sensationalized murder case is just tolerated for practical purposes - like with all the Jack the Ripper letters. Technically, each one of them is interfering in a murder case, but they were mostly just never followed up on and prosecuted for deterrence due to police resources and practicality.

Hello everyone!

It's been a while since I've posted here. I've been researching a new suspect and created a blog called "Seeing Double: Lizzie Borden and the Richmond Suspect." If you're interested, check it out. I also posted the link in the "Links" section of the board.

https://woodtwinslizzie.blogspot.com/

My goodness gracious!! Once again seeing 'CagneyBT' on my screen gives me a huge smile. Kat and I were just 'talking' about you a few days ago. I told her I hadn't heard from you in a couple years.... I'll give her the good news.

Lorcan, Inspector, other viewers...you can know that if Cagney writes something it has been researched and crossed checked to the 'nth' degree.

I'll go check out your blog now!

Cagney -- this entry is on the Witness page on the Blog. This is new info for me, but couldn't figure out the source in your index.
Thx

9:00 a.m. - Marshal Fleet notes: Aug. 10, 1892 (notation “Hilliard” at top of page): “Stewart C. Hall, 20 Borden St., wrote letter about seeing a man sitting on Bordens steps at about 9:00, was very savage looking man looks as if he would murder anyone. Lost the letter and was found by Edward B. Sprague on Borden street, rm. 55 Richardson House and handed to John McCarthy. Letter given to Marshal."

Hello Cam!!!!

Thank you so much for the warm welcome and the kind words!. It's much appreciated!

The information in the Fleet notes came from an article in "The Hatchet" by Stefani Koorey.. I'll update my sources on the blog accordingly. I'm still doing minor editing to it.

Here's the link:

https://lizzieandrewborden.com/hatcheto ... ets-notes/

Well, what do you know.... I've been digging into this case for over 6 years and when you think you had read everything there was to read, up pops something new. No idea how I had never heard of or read the rough drafts of Fleet's witness statements. Definitely demonstrates that we shouldn't take anything in the witness statement as 'word by word' gospels.

Couple things on 'Maggie' that caught my eye. 1) Lizzie confirms she is called that because the former servant had been Maggie. That is what many (not including me) had thought, but this confirms it. 2) Lizzie told Fleet Bridget's name in a fairly non-confident manner....as if she wasn't positive, she knew what it was. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but WOW.

Only made it 1/3 thru your blog, but fascinating and very well written and constructed. Will get thru it all before day is over.

Finished the blog BT , thanks for the research and very interesting theory .
Your work held quite a few ideas to ponder, besides your theory.
One was Lizzie’s comment about the cemetery, and your addressing it to Abby’s death.
Another was Bridget’s comments to the officer she was walking with, as I’d only associated that conversation with Nellie McHenry.
Then there’s the story about Abby telling Phoebe Bowen “they” had taken her key.
If true, it presents all sorts of implications and ideas.

I’ve read most of the archives and have always enjoyed your research, and sleuthing talent.
Thanks again!

Per Jennings Journals, Mrs. Bowen told Phillips/Jennings the Abby/Key story. So, besides no other corroborating evidence, no reason not to think it's true. Right or wrong, I've viewed 'they' as Andrew and the sisters and this story as an indicator of the toxicity in the household. Not necessarily about someone taking her key, but that she then calls them 'they' instead of their names. It feels a bit dismissive and a 'me vs. them' mentality.

Hi Inspector!

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my blog and for your feedback. It's very much appreciated!

Hi Cam!

Mrs. Bowen also said she saw "someone" leaving the Borden house as she and Abby approached. She doesn't identify the stranger or even if the "someone" was male or female.

It was my pleasure to read BT!

I recently came to the conclusion there was no accomplice, and no evidence of one, but respect those like yourself, Cam, and others who’s diligent research has made it possible for myself to see what I consider a clearer picture, and learn about many characters associated with the terrible day.

I suppose I’ll always suspect Morse’s involvement for whatever reasons, but have dismissed him for the same as all others, and that (no evidence.)

I hope I don’t come across as a negative Ned, and in no way mean to discourage those who are looking for an accomplice, because I am certainly not the expert as you and others.
I’ve wanted Lizzie to be innocent, but of course an accomplice wouldn’t bring that about as the judge pointed out, unless she’s completely innocent.

Unknown to me , in relation to your theory, is why I’ve always felt the story Lizzie (supposedly) told her nurse about her boyfriend being the killer, has sounded a bit truthful.
Of course the boyfriend story also has its problems, and the crimes couldn’t have occurred at one time, as the story goes.

I reckon it was the lack of blood and Lizzie’s composure that makes the boyfriend story somewhat believable. Your morphine addiction information was historically fascinating and could contribute to her demeanor if she had the problem.
This would certainly mean that Lizzie would know where the drug stores were located.

I appreciate that you gave detailed thoroughness of the getaway
with your theory, and didn’t leave it incomplete.
The Crowe hatchet was interesting and made sense in your telling.

I found it odd there are no known photos of the Hahr’s, considering all their mischief, and public going’s on, but the AI work you did made the story come alive.
You got me thinking about the “boyfriend” possibility again and interestingly you used the parlor, but also made it clear that Lizzie wouldn’t be ignorant of the entire affair.

Welcome back, Cagney. That is a very interesting and thoroughly researched theory. Do you think there is any more out there that would pin down dates and locations for the brothers?

Hi Inspector!

Until two years ago, I had never seriously considered that Lizzie had an accomplice. I never thought she was innocent, and I believed she acted alone. But the timeline between Andrew's murder and Lizzie raising the alarm raised a lot of doubt.

Regarding other suspects, I respect all the theories put forward, even if I don't agree. Nobody can conclusively prove what did and didn't happen on August 4. We'd all love to solve that puzzle. All we can do is speculate, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When I first found the article about "John Wood," the peanut vendor, my first thought was, "What a ridiculous story…a peanut vendor and Lizzie Borden? Really?"

But curiosity got the better of me, and I wanted to know more about this guy. Then something clicked when I read the witness statement about Dr.Handy and "Henrick Wood." I was convinced that it was too coincidental…that it was possible "Henrick" and "Henry" were one and the same person. I just continued to research.from there. As I perused newspaper articles about the twins and cross-referenced them with the official documents on the Borden case, some pieces of the puzzle seem to fall into place. I began to see what might have happened leading up to the murders if the twins and Lizzie were in fact complicit.

You are not a "negative Ned" at all. Your insights are just as valuable to understanding this enigmatic case as mine or anyone else's.

I'm no expert…far from it! Just another armchair detective with her own insights to share. For all I know, I may have tumbled down a large rabbit hole of speculation, but I also felt it was a story worth sharing.

And thank you so much for your kind comments about the blog. I'm so glad you enjoyed it! I had hoped that it would be as entertaining as it was informative. I would have loved to have found actual photos of the twins, and hope I was successful in bringing the story more to life with the AI images.

Thanks for the discussion, Inspector! I'm looking forward to seeing more of your posts.

Hi Lorcan!

Thank you so much for the nice welcome, and thank you for the feedback. It's much appreciated!

I've located all the newspaper articles I could find on the twins. I used those reports and census records to track dates as to their whereabouts. The majority of their crimes were committed in New York, New Jersey, and Baltimore. Charles had been sought for forgery in Springfield, MA, date unknown. Unfortunately, I think I've pretty much exhausted all those sources, which are all included at the end of my blog.

Cagney -

You have definitely nailed down the fact that the twins possessed the 'propensity' to use violence and deceit in their pursuit of financial gain. From my perspective, that is a key element to identifying a plausible accomplice for these crimes.

In addition to no specific strong motive for Morse or Bridget, to date, we have not demonstrated either had the propensity for violence (against humans).

I find the possibility of Bridget having a relative living on John Street to be fascinating. Would love to learn more about that aspect.

Agree with you that the coincidence of "Henrick Wood" is pretty hard to dismiss. On that topic, I have always found it startling how they 'identified' potential matches to Handy's description even though it seems like it fit a large portion of the male population. It would imply that the Boston police already had their eye on Mr. Wood and Handy's descriptions were close enough for them to point him out to the Fall River police.

Regarding the likelihood that Lizzie did attempt to purchase Prussic Acid at D.R. Smith pharmacy, I view the evidence as indicating the visit did occur. We can't know definitively if she visited the store, but in the world of 'educated' guesses, for me, the evidence is convincing. Three eyewitnesses willing to testify in a capital case is compelling to me, particularly because her alibi is tenuous and uncorroborated and the attempt fits naturally into the flow of events that week...bracketed by the illnesses the prior day and their deaths the following day (not to mention clues to similar New Bedford activity).

Rest assured I have saved the blog link and will be revisiting it multiple times over the coming days. Please stay active on the forum!!

Hi Cam!

I just found this curious article about Lizzie and prussic acid that describes a case of mistaken identity.

The Fall River Herald, Oct. 5, 1892:
A special to the Boston Post says: Lizzie A. Borden has a double. Her friends who know it are at work upon the story, feeling that it may go far to show that the identification of the prisoner as the woman who attempted to buy prussic acid at Smith's drug store on Ang. 3 was a grave erтоr.

This is the story: In the building in which Andrew J. Jennings has his office there is a real estate office where loans are often negotiated on valuable personal property for persons who do not care to visit the ordinary pawnbroker. The proprietor of this office has been a resident of Fall River for years and knew the Bordens well. About 7:30 one evening in the spring he was surprised to see a woman who, he felt sure, was Lizzje Borden,
enter his office. Her social standing, the reputed wealth of her father and the unusual hour of the visit excited his surprise. With an eye to business he asked the lady what she wished. She wanted $250 on some ornaments. He asked if theу were diamonds. She replied in the negative. He then told her that he loaned money on diamonds only. She seemed bitterly disappointed and went away.

It was not until he escorted her to the door that he discovered his mistake. It was not Lizzle Borden, but a young married woman whose face and figure were so like those of Andrew Borden's daughter that he had been deceived. His curiosity was so greatly excited at the peculiar visit and the urgency of the request that he scrutinized his visitor very closely. But for that she would have passed for Lizzie Borden, and his story, had it been made public before, would have served as another evidence of the premeditation which marked the crime laid at the prison's door.

Lizzie's double is а woman of good standing, whose relatives would be greatly shocked at the knowledge of her attempted loan, but it is thought that the story will be told on the witness stand before the strange case is finished.

The importance of such an occurrence is evident. That a man who had been familiar with the prisoner from her youth could be so thoroughly deceived by the appearance of her double will illustrate the possibility of errors in identification.

Two of the witnesses who identified Lizzie as the woman they saw in Smith's pharmacy within 24 hours of the murder were not familiar with her appearance.The third witness knew the prisoner by sight, but did not see her often.

So Lizzie's double is important.

Mills & Harrison was a respected real estate and insurance business located on the Granite Block where Jennings had his office. This could be the business the article refers to.

If Lizzie did try to purchase prussic acid, it may have been "for an innocent purpose," as claimed by one of Lizzie's lawyers, Arthur Phillips. Prussic acid was commonly used as an insecticide.

In November 1893, two siblings, Michael and Stephen Toole, stood trial for murder. They had been accused of poisoning their mother and sister by dosing a bottle of porter. They were ultimately acquitted.

The Fall River Globe made the following comparison to the Borden case:

Is It A Legal Ground For Suspicion?
It is said that one of the Toole boys bought cyanide of potassium (the poisonous substance found in the porter which killed the mother and sister) at a drug store some time ago. This is regarded as a suspicious circumstance by the police.

Perhaps it is, but it must be remembered that three wise judges of the superior court, in a recent memorable trial, threw out testimony of a similar nature offered by the government, on the ground that evidence of that nature was too remote and because prussic acid (of which cyanide of potassium is one form) might be innocently bought by anybody for the purpose of annihilating insects.

There is no doubt that prussic acid has become popular as a flea destroyer since its virtues in that direction received the endorsement of such erudite and distinguished authorities. Anybody ought to be able to buy it now without laying himself open to suspicion of wrong intention.

Article date is October 5. Just looking at the Herald archives, I couldn't find a follow up article. But admittedly, it was just a quick search.

This article is poor journalism. It would have taken little effort to have tracked down the woman and asked her if she shopped at Smith's. If no, drop it, if she said yes, more questions. But my guess is the editor that day didn't want to hold the story for even a day because it was about Lizzie!!

Since the newspapers were in a rabid competitive mode over the case, a hot lead like this wouldn't be forgotten. If the story never had a follow up, then it was most likely a dead end.

I also looked thru Jennings Journals and didn't find anything.

Oops..Cam, I just saw you posted the same article about the alleged Lizzie "double" last year. Mea culpa!

Whether it was Lizzie or not, the attempted purchase doesn't prove intent. Speaking for myself, the evidence is still inconclusive.

I wonder if that article was the reason for this testimony:

Q. And when did you make them with reference to testing the effect of prussic acid upon insect life?
A. Made them between last night and this morning.

Q. And that is as far as you have got up to this morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is, you took the common prussic acid, what you say is used in commerce, the two per cent solution, and tried that?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you try it on?
A. I tried it on ants.

Q. It killed the ants?
A. No difficulty about that; and various nondescript bugs. Unfortunately, I am not a naturalist. I cannot tell you what the various small insects I used were. I remember some spiders.

Q. When did you begin to experiment?
A. You mean on that?

Q. Last night.
A. I commenced about ten o'clock, sir.

Q. Have you been at it all night?
A. No, sir; I gave it up about twelve and commenced again early this morning.

Q. Well, now, the result of all your experiments is simply to tell us that the two per cent solution, taken just as it is, will kill flies and will kill moths and ants?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is all you can say about it, isn't it?
A. That is all I can say of my own knowledge from my own experiments.

Q. I don't care about anybody's else knowledge. And you cannot tell anything whether if reduced twice as much, four times as much, what the effect will be?
A. No, sir.

Q. And that is all the objection that you see to its use on a seal skin cape, isn't it?
A. What objection, sir?

Q. What you have stated. It will kill the insects. That is no objection, is it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Well, that is the two per cent solution?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now is there any other objection?
A. I think that the poisonous properties of its vapor constitute an important objection.

Q. And that degree of volatility will depend upon the strength of the solution, will it not?
A. On the strength of the solution and upon the temperature.

Q. Leave that element out. Suppose the person is careful in using it, as with the use of benzine, as you have said, and the use of chloroform and others, suppose the person is careful in the use of it you don't see any harm that it will do to the seal skin cape, do you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Not any?
A. No, sir.

Q. Then leave out the question of the effect it may have upon the person who is using it, the care to be taken by that person, there is nothing in prussic acid that makes it an unsuitable article to use to kill moths on furs?
A. Leaving out the effect on the person?

Q. Yes.
A. Or any other person present?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. None whatever, no objection whatever?
A. No objection under such circumstances.

Q. And you tell us that that effect upon the person using it will depend entirely, or very largely, upon the degree of strength of the fluid?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you tell us that you cannot say whether a reduction of the strength of the liquid will not accomplish the same results as the two per cent solution?
A. Yes, sir.

That article is not what I would consider journalism, but it is of historical interest so we get a clearer picture of the media environment around the case.

For me, it's not just the 3 people from D. R. Smiths, but the 2 other pharmacies on the prosecution witness list, but most of all it's Lizzie saying she did not know where D. R. Smith's was. 2/10ths of a mile from her front door, been in business for a decade, and at a major intersection of Main Street. I simply do not believe Lizzie didn't know where it was. If I were Knowlton, I would have gotten half a dozen witnesses who had seen Lizzie in that store at other times to prove she lied, but I don't know if that is a type of legal line of questioning that would be allowed in the time given, to track people down after the testimony was already underway in an inquest.