Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Thumbing through Masterton's book Lizzie Didn't Do It! I ran across the lines below on page 118. Although he is talking about the small white package that Mrs. Kelly saw Mr. Borden with on the morning of the 4th I can see these lines from another angle

"Wills and deeds come in two shapes. Today they are usually printed on a few sheets of 8-1/2 by11 paper. A century ago they were often inscribed on cylindrical scrolls."

The cylindrical shape is obviously not what Mrs. Kelly saw but it is the shape of the object that Officer Harrington saw in the stove.

From the Trial, p567:

"Q. Go on and state what you did and what you observed.
A. I noticed the fire box. The fire was very near extinguished. On the south end there was a small fire which I judged was a coal fire. The embers were about dying. It was about as large as the palm of my hand. There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.
Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well, I should say it was about that long. (Indicating) Twelve inches, I should say.
Q. And how large in diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches. (A recess of five minutes was taken.)"

Could Andrew have had a will or deed in a cylindrical scroll and was that what was burned in the stove?

The burn't object appears to be paper and not wood. After the recess was over Harrington is asked this (p569)

"Q. You had finished your description of the size of the burnt paper. Could you tell anything about what sort of paper it was from the embers? If you can, say so.
A. I can tell the impression I have.
Q. I don't think I will ask for that. What did you then do, Mr. Harrington?" ...

One of those frustrating questions not allowed to be answered. Drat!

I would love to see what one of those century-old cylindrical scrolls looked like.

Hi Harry,

Your messare re. "What was burning in the stove?" raises several interesting questions.

In Moody's opening remarks to the trial, (p.78) he has this to say:

'The prisoner has said and it is important to consider, and we shall prove that she has said - that the reason she left her ironing because she found the fire was low, that she took a stick of wood, put in on top of the embers of the fire, and went out to the barn to await its kindling; that when she went out it was smoking and smouldering, as if it were going to catch; that when she came back the stick of wood was there and the fire had all gone out. It will appear - and it was pure accident that the observation was made - that soon after the alarm an officer of Fall River was attracted by something that Dr. Bowen was doing to the stove - I do not mean to suggest anything, but the fact that he was tearing up a note and was going to put it into the stove; and he looked in and saw what appared to be burnt paper."

What was in the fire? The missing note that Lizzie said Abby had received?
There was no reason to burn that since it supported Lizzie's alibi.
An unfavorable (to Lizxzie) copy of the will? I'm sure another copy would be in Andrew Borden's Attorney's file.

Perhaps - just a stick of wood and some harmless papers Dr. Bowen was trying to discard?

Hi Harry,

Your messare re. "What was burning in the stove?" raises several interesting questions.

In Moody's opening remarks to the trial, (p.78) he has this to say:

'The prisoner has said and it is important to consider, and we shall prove that she has said - that the reason she left her ironing because she found the fire was low, that she took a stick of wood, put in on top of the embers of the fire, and went out to the barn to await its kindling; that when she went out it was smoking and smouldering, as if it were going to catch; that when she came back the stick of wood was there and the fire had all gone out. It will appear - and it was pure accident that the observation was made - that soon after the alarm an office of Fall River was attracted by something that Dr. Bowen was doing to the stove - I do not mean to suggest anything, but the fact that he was tearing up a note and was going to put it into the stove; and he looked in and saw what appared to be burnt paper."

What was in the fire? The missing note that Lizzie said Abby had received?
There was no reason to burn that since it supported Lizzie's alibi.
An unfavorable (to Lizxzie) copy of the will? I'm sure another copy would be in Andrew Borden's Attorney's file.

Perhaps - just a stick of wood and some harmless papers Dr. Bowen was trying to discard?

william @ Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:26 am wrote:What was in the fire? The missing note that Lizzie said Abby had received?
There was no reason to burn that since it supported Lizzie's alibi.
An unfavorable (to Lizxzie) copy of the will? I'm sure another copy would be in Andrew Borden's Attorney's file.Perhaps - just a stick of wood and some harmless papers Dr. Bowen was trying to discard?

That makes so much sense. What would be the point in burning the Abby note if it supported what Lizzie said. And, of course, the lawyer would have a copy of any legal document that Andrew could have brought home, so there would be no point in burning that either.

It may very well have been Lizzie's stick of wood (assuming she's telling the truth) but Harrington seems to think it was paper.

That's why that last question he wasn't given a chance to expand upon was important.

Maybe it was the dress that she said she burned. The burning of the note that Lizzie said came for Abby wouldn't make much sense. It would support what lizzie said. If there was a will then there would be a copy in the lawyers files, unless he is a lousy lawyer and brought the only copy over to Andrew and Lizzie saw it .

If Andrew had made a will, would it have been registered or recorded somewhere? Where they legally required to do that back then? Surely if he had a will, someone would have stepped forward and disclosed that information. Would Jennings have been required to provide that information if he had drawn up a will for Andrew? Seems like he was asked about a will and denied that it existed but then said, very curiously, if there was one he would not be able to disclose that information?
Why oh Why were they not questioned in more detail about that.......

Maybe it was just a draft for a will that Andrew had made out using a will form, not witnessed or recorded yet. That way it makes sense why nobody stepped forward to say they had witnessed it, or attorney had seen and filed it. But it may have shown an intent as to his wishes, and so had to be destroyed, especially if Abby and her family were mentioned specifically, or Lizzie and Emma were disinherited or their expectations compromised in any way.

And maybe Andrew had set upon an idea to ask John Morse to be a witness later that afternoon after lunch as he was handy. Maybe they had mentioned such a thing the night before but John did not like to say anything after the murder as it would look bad for Lizzie if he did. John never does give away too much information on what was talked about the entire time he was in the house, either at lunch, breakfast, the night before the murder, or early the morning of the 4th when he first came downstairs. Either he did not remember or the conversation was pretty dull- or dangerous to repeat!

First and foremost a person in those days would be able to tell the difference between a rolled-up paper and a stick. IMO Even today.

Based on my reflection of this even, I believe that it could have been a bond of indebtedness that was destroyed after the Secret Visitor wiped out his debt by wiping out his lender.

True Crime has stories about this often, or you could just read a tabloid newspaper from the NYC area. No, I don't have "documentary proof".

Lawyer Andrew Jennings said Andy made no will with him. If he was Andy's lawyer (on retainer), I doubt if Andy would pay for another.

A rolled up paper recalls the scrolls from classical time. A neat way to hold paper so the sheets don't blow away, etc. Fit into a smaller space too.

Can you think of other advantages? Some documents were printed on vellum that may resist folding but not rolling.

I believe the Boston Globe researched pretty thoroughly the subject of wills and inheritence.
It would only be a will of Abbie that would be at all important, and then since she had not much- it would only be worthwhile to her own kin- to the small degree of what she personally owned and had to leave.

Something closer to the fact might be that *inventory* we have read about- that supposedly was in the making. I believe something was mentioned in Abbie's handwriting?

I think a list of what Andrew owned would be more important than his will (due to the way the law of the Commonwealth read in those days. See that topic elsewhere).

Why I say a list of what he owned would be important is because there could be otherwise unaccounted-for cash hidden or a big debt owed him that he had not had officially signed - a verbal agreement maybe.

A person who knew about all of Andrew's assests and liabilities could burn that and maybe not even Jennings or Cook would then know everything.

Could the rolled up scroll have been a magazine? Lizzie did say she was reading a magazine in the kitchen while her father was out.

what about the newspaper, what size were they back then, I don't think they were the same size as the ones today are.

Maybe Andrew threw that sheaf of papers in the stove himself when he went upstairs. He took some papers into the diningroom to read by the light of the window when he came home. Maybe it was something he had gotten in the mail which was unimportant and he just threw them in the stove on his way upstairs. Once in a while things that later look suspiciious turn out to be totally innocent and simple.

That's a good point Shelley! It's the not knowing one way or the other that is so frustrating! but it's true sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.

Shelley @ Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:06 am wrote:Maybe Andrew threw that sheaf of papers in the stove himself when he went upstairs. He took some papers into the diningroom to read by the light of the window when he came home. Maybe it was something he had gotten in the mail which was unimportant and he just threw them in the stove on his way upstairs. Once in a while things that later look suspiciious turn out to be totally innocent and simple.

Good point! But it means that minor items are not worth discussing as relevant to this case.
Was there any testimony by anyone alive that they did it?
Then it could have been done by the Secret Visitor.