Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading Lizzie's inquest and when she was asked about anyone she knew of who had a problem with her father, she told of a man who had come round about two weeks prior to the murders insisting on Andrew Borden renting him a store for his business. She describes how the man had an argument with her father, even insulting him by saying, "I thought with your reputation for liking money, you would let your store for anything!" And her father replied, "You are mistaken!" and then showedh im the door.

Knowlton asks, "Have you had any efforts made to find him?" to which Lizzie replies, "We have had a detective; that is all I know."

I've been thinking about this. Why would the Borden hire a detective to find a man who had a fight with her father about renting a store front? And if such a detective was hired, wouldn't the detective have come forward to the police two weeks later when Borden is found brutally murdered in his home? I know that the Fall River police investigating the Borden murders couldn't know the name of the man because Lizzie doesn't know it and Andrew Borden is dead...but would there have been some effort to find the detective that Lizzie speaks of to get more information about this man who had a fight with her father?

Is this a bold lie that Lizzie told? Did they really hire a detective? Perhaps the incident with the potential tenant did take place and Lizzie is throwing it out there as a ruse. Perhaps she lies only about hiring a detective.

Or perhaps she is confusing hiring a detective with the incident of the robbery where the house was broken into the year before. Perhaps in her morphine fogged mind, she's confusing the two and not technically lying.

As Lizzie herself would say, "This has always been a mystery."

The Borden sisters (but more likely Jennings) hired Orinton M. Hanscom. He was the head of the Pinkerton agency in Boston and joined the case the weekend after the murders.

Lizzie does not say that he was hired before the murders and what Hanscom actually looked into has been a mystery.

He did not stay on the case very long as the Fall River police deeply resented him. Undoubtedly he filed reports with Jennings (verbal or written?) but there is no record of them. This may be part of the material Phillips, Jennings' assistant, refers to as being kept confidential in case other charges were raised against their client, Lizzie.

I wrote an article on Hanscom in the June/July 2004 Hatchet, Spotlight on Orinton M. Hansom.

Thanks Harry. OK, it makes sense now. My reading of the inquest was that they hired a detective BEFORE the murders to find the man who had words with Andrew and that didn't make any sense to me. If the sisters hired the detective AFTER the murders and had him follow up on the lead, that would make sense.

It shows how very simple statements can be misread very easily.

It also shows that the girls had no confidence in the Fall River police - including putting out a notice of a reward so soon after the crime- on Friday!

guess they didn't have any confidence in the police if they put up fliers and offered reward money!

snokkums @ Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:06 pm wrote:guess they didn't have any confidence in the police if they put up fliers and offered reward money!

I think this is another example of backwards reasoning. It was much more common decades ago to offer a reward in the hope that someone would squeal (no honor among thieves).
One problem with this: it can generate too many false leads for the police to handle, and delay the investigation. Then there is the case of creating a suspect for the reward.

Read Curt Gentry's "Frame-Up" for an example where every prosecution witness committed perjury for the reward!

Kat @ Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:36 am wrote:It also shows that the girls had no confidence in the Fall River police - including putting out a notice of a reward so soon after the crime- on Friday!

It can also be a case of favorable publicity to show the maiden orphans are doing everything to catch the murderer(s). $5,000 was the equivalent of about ten years salary for the average laborer.

There would be no need to hire a detective BEFORE the murders, they would only have to ask Andy.
Didn't Arthur Phillips' book say this was to prevent the planting of evidence by the police? That's one way to solve a mysterious murder.

Aside from the planted evidence, the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson could not be solved. "Perry Mason" says that "murders by organized crime are rarely solved by the police". A murderer can wear gloves to hide fingerprints, but can't hide a motive.

A reward is one way to get the associates of a criminal to come forward voluntarily. IMO.

Apparently Hanscom was hired Saturday, Aug. 6th.
There were stories he was sent to Iowa to check out Morse. There is a story in Radin that Hanscom did file several reports which imply Hanscom worked for the girls far longer than people thought. Radin says this is in one of the Jenning's notebooks from the Hip-bath Collection.

Richard @ Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:46 am wrote:I was reading Lizzie's inquest and when she was asked about anyone she knew of who had a problem with her father, she told of a man who had come round about two weeks prior to the murders insisting on Andrew Borden renting him a store for his business. She describes how the man had an argument with her father, even insulting him by saying, "I thought with your reputation for liking money, you would let your store for anything!" And her father replied, "You are mistaken!" and then showedh im the door.

Knowlton asks, "Have you had any efforts made to find him?" to which Lizzie replies, "We have had a detective; that is all I know."

I've been thinking about this. Why would the Borden hire a detective to find a man who had a fight with her father about renting a store front? And if such a detective was hired, wouldn't the detective have come forward to the police two weeks later when Borden is found brutally murdered in his home? I know that the Fall River police investigating the Borden murders couldn't know the name of the man because Lizzie doesn't know it and Andrew Borden is dead...but would there have been some effort to find the detective that Lizzie speaks of to get more information about this man who had a fight with her father?

Is this a bold lie that Lizzie told? Did they really hire a detective? Perhaps the incident with the potential tenant did take place and Lizzie is throwing it out there as a ruse. Perhaps she lies only about hiring a detective.

Or perhaps she is confusing hiring a detective with the incident of the robbery where the house was broken into the year before. Perhaps in her morphine fogged mind, she's confusing the two and not technically lying.

As Lizzie herself would say, "This has always been a mystery."

Lizzie could have been lying abaout hiring a dective, or Andrew told her he was hiring one to calm her nerves. Because I think you are right, if there was a hired detective, then why wouldn't he come forward after the murders. He could at least say there was an argument between Andrew and the man.

Snokkums, if you read over the remarks here after Richard, starting with Harry, you will understand that the detective was hired after the murders on Saturday and I believe he first showed up Sunday.
Richard says he mistook what he read- after Harry explained.