Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I found this in the book "Lizzie Borden-- The Legend the Truth the Final Chapter", and thought it was interesting.

From the Globe:

August 17, 1892
VERY IMPORTANT MOTIVE IN THE
UNMADE WILL


Developments of a most startling nature are promised for the preliminary trial.

The state will, THE GLOBE is informed on very good authority, prove that Andrew J. Borden did and was making preparations for the drawing of his will. It may be shown that he talked to several persons interested and also to some of his personal friends about the will which he intended to make.

The making of that will could not possibley affect anyone except Lizzie and Emma Borden and othere persons connected by blood relationship.When all the evidence is in it wil be seen that to some of those with whom he talked about the making of this will . Mr. Borden said that his second wife Abbie had been a faithful and devoted wife and a loving and careful mother to Lizzie and Emma.

A better mother than they had had before and a woman who was as such entitled to more recognition in the will than that of a widow's dower. That Mr. Borden was devoted to his second wife there are none who will deny.

When the trial is called and Miss Emma Borden takes the stand she may be asked some pointed questions as to what she knows about the family talk previous to the arrangements for making the will. She will be required to tell about her prolonged visit to friends in Dartmouth and Fairhaven and her conversation with John V. Morse relative to the matter of the will.

From reliable authority it is stated that the State will prove that Mr. Borden expressed his desire to make a favorable will to his second wife and that the daughters did not approve of this method of disposing of the property. The evidence for a long period of time previous to the murders.

And that explains the theory of a will (probably not a bad reason). But Lawyer Jennings says he knew of no will. (Was he Andy's sole lawyer?)
Remember, somebody like Andy could start a conversation to draw out other people for whatever reason. Better than talking about the weather?

When you read newspaper reports, always remember to ask When, What Time, and Who. To separate gossip and rumor from facts.
Was that after the inquest and Lizzie's arrest? Pardon my memory.

I believe about the same time of the inquest. But I found it interesting that what we read in papers and hear in the new on radio and tv can really influence us on whether or not a person in quilty or innocent. Guess it was like that back then too.

Yes, that's a very interesting piece! I think we should try to find out if the Globe could have had a source that could have told them about the details of a possible future will.
Snokkums, is that a literal quote from Brown? Does Brown say whether he gave the exact wording of the newspaper article or a summary? When you say "Globe", do you mean the Fall River Daily Globe or the Boston Globe?

Airmid.

Fall River Daily Herald, date probably August 9th (correction: date probably August 10th) from the Sourcebook page 44:

MR. BORDEN'S ESTATE.
A story was printed in the New York papers today which attributed to a business associate of Andrew J. Borden the statement that not only had Mr. Borden begun to take an inventory of his property for the sake of preparing a will, but he had even gone farther and made known certain provisions. Among his property were a small block of Union national bank stock and a larger one of the B.M.C. Durfee Safe Deposit and Trust company. This was to go to Mrs. Borden's heirs, it was claimed, in the proportion of ten shares to the wife and one to the daughters. The "business associate" is quoted further as saying that this proportion was to be followed with the rest of the estate. The story is not given much credit by other business associates of Mr. Borden, who say that it was not the man's custom to discuss his private personal affairs with anybody. They think it extremely doubtful that Andrew Borden told anybody about his will even if it was true that he was engaged in preparing one.

Airmid.

Airmid @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:33 pm wrote:Fall River Daily Herald, date probably August 9th from the Sourcebook page 44:

MR. BORDEN'S ESTATE.
A story was printed in the New York papers today which attributed to a business associate of Andrew J. Borden the statement that not only had Mr. Borden begun to take an inventory of his property for the sake of preparing a will, but he had even gone farther and made known certain provisions. Among his property were a small block of Union national bank stock and a larger one of the B.M.C. Durfee Safe Deposit and Trust company. This was to go to Mrs. Borden's heirs, it was claimed, in the proportion of ten shares to the wife and one to the daughters. The "business associate" is quoted further as saying that this proportion was to be followed with the rest of the estate. The story is not given much credit by other business associates of Mr. Borden, who say that it was not the man's custom to discuss his private personal affairs with anybody. They think it extremely doubtful that Andrew Borden told anybody about his will even if it was true that he was engaged in preparing one.

Airmid.

Yes, this is most unlikely for tight-fisted and lipped Andy.
But people do spread rumors, that which they would like to believe.

snokkums @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:29 am wrote:I believe about the same time of the inquest. But I found it interesting that what we read in papers and hear in the new on radio and tv can really influence us on whether or not a person in quilty or innocent. Guess it was like that back then too.

There is a quote that if the facts get in the way of a good story, drop the facts and go with the story.

How many here made up their minds in June 1994 about the guilty party for the slaying of Nicole and Ron?
How many here also decided that Patsy Ramsey was guilty?

RayS @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:18 pm wrote:

snokkums @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:29 am wrote:I believe about the same time of the inquest. But I found it interesting that what we read in papers and hear in the new on radio and tv can really influence us on whether or not a person in quilty or innocent. Guess it was like that back then too.

There is a quote that if the facts get in the way of a good story, drop the facts and go with the story.

How many here made up their minds in June 1994 about the guilty party for the slaying of Nicole and Ron?
How many here also decided that Patsy Ramsey was guilty?

I see what you are saying. I am one of those people that still thinks Patsy Ramsey did it and OJ killed Nicole and Ron.

snokkums @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:18 am wrote:...
I see what you are saying. I am one of those people that still thinks Patsy Ramsey did it and OJ killed Nicole and Ron.

The simple fact is that the limo driver (who arrived by 10:22 pm) picked up OJ and drove to the airport after 11pm. He saw no one leave or arrive from the compound.
The ME who did the autopsies on Nicole and Ron testified the evidence says they were killed after 11pm (earliest).
You can look it up, its not well publicized.
OJ was as innocent as Emma, far away from the scene of the crime.
No bloody clothes, socks, hoes, or knives found on OJ.
Stephen Singular's book tells how the glove was planted. This worn glove had limb hair from a white male. "All blood evidence was suspect."

Lawrence Schiller's book on "...Perfect Town" said the police had "probable cause" to arrest Patsy, but not enough evidence to convict so the DA did not allow an arrest. Yes, 3 out of 4 murders of a child in a home are due to parent(s) or boyfriend; you can find many examples in True Crime, or your local newspapers.

Well, this can't be an alibi if the time was in the morning:

"The simple fact is that the limo driver (who arrived by 10:22 pm) picked up OJ and drove to the airport after 11am. He saw no one leave or arrive from the compound."

--Ray

Seriously tho, the limo driver is one of the major reasons that OJ appears guilty. I'm not sure if your constant repetition of the *facts* of the timing of the limo driver is even correct.
Maybe you could re-look-it up?

Yes Rays, you have your timing wrong. And blood was found in OJ's car, socks, and bathtub drain - in his house. Also his blood was found at the murder scene. May want to re-think your recollection. And I never bought into anyone "planting" blood. Yes, OJ was found not guilty, but I know alot of people who agree with me that he was guilty.

Yes, the typing gremlin changed 11PM to 11am. I need a new keyboard?

Smudgeman @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:34 pm wrote:Yes Rays, you have your timing wrong. And blood was found in OJ's car, socks, and bathtub drain - in his house. Also his blood was found at the murder scene. May want to re-think your recollection. And I never bought into anyone "planting" blood. Yes, OJ was found not guilty, but I know alot of people who agree with me that he was guilty.

I never read anything about finding blood in a bathtub drain.
Can you please tell me what book you read that in?
Books are better than newspapers since they can last for decades. Who has kept any newspapers from June 1994?
Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception" tells how the glove was planted.
Freed & Briggs' "Killing Time" quotes the LA Times from June 1996 as to who went to the morgue to get samples of Nicole's and Ron's blood. "Highly unusual" they said. It is the function of criminalistics to gather evidence and process it, the detectives search for witnesses and then put it all together. IMO

This was found during the discovery phase of the case. The jury never heard about it. You can look it up.

Was it in a shower drain?

Actually I have saved news coverage of the OJ case. It just happens to be The Enquirer, Or The Globe, or the Star or the Examiner...

But I also have read about 5 or 6 books on the case.
I helped Missy a tiny bit with her school project. She got an "A" by the way!
Yay Missy!

Yes Kat, the shower and sink drain. Too bad OJ's dream team was able to argue this evidence not admissable in the trial.

Smudgeman @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:14 pm wrote:This was found during the discovery phase of the case. The jury never heard about it. You can look it up.

In what book?
A book is better than a rumor on talk radio or tabloid newspapers.

Kat @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:21 pm wrote:Was it in a shower drain?

Actually I have saved news coverage of the OJ case. It just happens to be The Enquirer, Or The Globe, or the Star or the Examiner...

But I also have read about 5 or 6 books on the case.
I helped Missy a tiny bit with her school project. She got an "A" by the way!
Yay Missy!

I read somewhere that the tabloid press usually scooped the establishment press in that case. Do you know how? Stephen Singular, in his book "Presumed Guilty", explains that the tabbies paid private investigators to dig up dirt or facts on the people involved.
You can read his or Lawrence Schiller's books on the unsolved Ramsey case.
When reading any press, its important to know the difference between a reported rumor and an established fact.
The many legends about Lizzie should remind us all. Once a person becomes a public event, there is less availability to the libel laws. Most jurors would be contaminated by the false news in the press. That is why a Judge will tell jurors to read nothing about the case. It's not necessarily the facts.

I think the Enquirer got an award of some kind for their OJ coverage.

Anyway, I don't see how all your wordage illuminates that case?

Neither of you have answered the question: what book has this "news"?
I don't have old issues of weeklies, and I doubt if my library does. But they do have books on this well-publicized case.

If you were really that interested, you could look it up yourself.

Smudgeman @ Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:24 pm wrote:If you were really that interested, you could look it up yourself.

Would that even be in the index?
A failure to respond suggests that there is no book with this rumor. Hence that "evidence" does not exist.
Is Lawrence Schiller's book the best on the subject? I can read that.

Personally, I don't see a point in looking it up because this is a casual conversation and in my experience you won't take a note and will be repeating the same thing about the limo driver in 2007. So sorry. Please excuse.

Smudgeman @ Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:24 pm wrote:If you were really that interested, you could look it up yourself.

But if anyone really knew what they were talking about, they could cite the book, if any.
It is one thing to say you "think something" and another thing to claim this really happened.
We should take care not to intermingle fantasy with reality. IMO

I said it once and I will say it again, since you were not paying attention. This was during the discovery phase of the trial. The jury never heard about it. Not fantasy Rays, now I am through with you...........

I intend to read Lawrence Schiller's book on this case. Will it be there?