Lizzie Borden Society Forum

What are your views on the illness the family (and Bridget?) were suffering from? Was this a co-incidence Lizzie tried to weave into her cover story or something more sinister?

Also I note that Lizzie told Alice Russell that Abby thought they had been poisoned, is there any independent information to show that Abby did think this?

In my opinion, Abby visited Dr. Bowen based upon a case of food poisoning. This was only a pretense to convey the real message that she believed her life was in danger. She was clumsy in her attempt and allowed Bowen to minimize the message.

Abby was 64 years old, she knew what food poisoning was. She had eaten a breakfast, including pork steak, before visiting the doctor. She was afraid someone was trying to poison her. She saw the doctor apparently against Andrew's wishes, which possibly made her a loose cannon.

Later the same day, Eli Bence refused to sell Lizzie prussic acid. That evening Lizzie visits Alice Russell with a story about how 'we' think that 'we' are being poisoned rather than 'Abby" thinks 'Abby' is being poisoned.

Dr. Bowen correctly diagnosed food poisoning and prescribed accordingly. He became aware of the gravity of the real message the next day when he saw Abby murdered. She clearly had reason to fear for her life.

I think they had food poisoning, but Abby thought she had been poisoned. And Lizzie did try to buy prussic acid from the the pharmist.

And welcome to the forum Ian. Where are you in the UK? I vactioned in London when I was in the service. I had a blast.

I don't think it was food poisoning- that is, tainted food from bacteria or whatever. I think Lizzie had been putting something into the food to slowly make them sick. I think Abby was really scared and suspicious of Lizzie, and that's why she went to see Bowen. We don't know what their conversation really was- we only have what Bowen told about it later. Abby may have told him about her suspicions and Bowen, being a family friend, probably knew about emotional problems Lizzie had. I have no proof of this. It's just a gut feeling.

snokkums @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:52 pm wrote:I think they had food poisoning, but Abby thought she had been poisoned.

And welcome to the forum Ian. Where are you in the UK? I vactioned in London when I was in the service. I had a blast.

Thanks for the help and the welcome. I've now seen Dr Bowen's comments. I'm in Norwich, which is about 100 miles to the north east of London.

Angel @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:33 am wrote:I don't think it was food poisoning- that is, tainted food from bacteria or whatever. I think Lizzie had been putting something into the food to slowly make them sick. I think Abby was really scared and suspicious of Lizzie, and that's why she went to see Bowen. We don't know what their conversation really was- we only have what Bowen told about it later. Abby may have told him about her suspicions and Bowen, being a family friend, probably knew about emotional problems Lizzie had. I have no proof of this. It's just a gut feeling.

You haven't included any citations as proof!
We know no poisons were found in the stomachs of Abby or Andy, hence any charge of poisoning is a figment of a fevered imagination, or some personal bent. Spoiled food was quite common before electric "iceboxes", as some old-timers used to call them.

We also know there were two others in the house. As Detective Sam Spade might have said: "If you can hang the murders on Bridget go right ahead".

click

Angel @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:48 pm wrote:click

I suggest you need to take a deep breath and relax.
Whatever either of us posts here has no effect on that 1892 crime.

If we all agreed, there would be little need for this site. This applies to many others.

Better to not get upset, and strain your heart needlessly. I hope you agree.

So just what is that "click" comment? Do you mean "clique"?

If you see the word "click" and your "Report" button is gone, she has reported you.

I've just recently figured this out. I was wondering the same thing.

Kat @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:53 pm wrote:If you see the word "click" and your "Report" button is gone, she has reported you.

I've just recently figured this out. I was wondering the same thing.

I wrote this back in January:

Angel @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:10 pm wrote:Instead of reacting to bad manners and insults made on this forum, I find it a lot more satisfying to click on the "report" button. Nothing may be done with this, but it gives me some satisfaction that the powers that be will see how offensive things can get and how destructive it is to the forum. Others may want to follow suit.

Possibly Kat,...but it's not always true.

It is my understanding that if f anyone wants to report anyone for what they feel is offensive or unacceptable posting, they should feel free to do so, as there are few to nearly no restrictions for posting. "Click" seems to be a very appropriate and civilized manner of protesting compared to what some posts invite and/or deserve.

OK...back to the topic at hand:

(Bowen - Prelim)---

Q. What was it she complained of?
A. She came to my door and rang the bell, and said she was frightened. She said she was afraid
that she had been poisoned. I asked her into my office, and she sat down. I questioned her on
what she had been eating, and what her sickness consisted of, in what way; and told her what to
do. I told her I guessed it would not be anything serious. At the time, during the time, she very
nearly vomited, so much so, that I was getting something ready for her. Whether she did in her handkerchief, or not,
I could not say; but she seemed to be sick all at once.
Q. Go on.
A. That is all of that. I told her what to do.
Q. Did she say the same things had happened to Mr. Borden during the night?
A. She said that Mr. Borden and herself were sick sometime between nine and twelve, that they
were both vomiting, and that Lizzie, Miss Lizzie, was sick later. That she either went into the
room, or heard them, and that about 12 she was vomiting-, had been vomiting Wednesday night.
Q. What time in the morning was this that she was in there?
A. In the office?
Q. Yes.
(Mr. Adams) All this is directed to Wednesday?
(Mr. Knowlton) Yes.
A. It was between seven and eight, before my breakfast sometime.
Q. Did her appearance seem to bear out what she said to you?
A. Yes, she acted sick.
Q. You went over to the house after breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You were not called?
A. I went of my own accord.
Q. From the symptoms she had described, you felt somewhat alarmed?
A. Yes Sir, so many of them; not because they sent for me.





Tracy...

Are you saying that sometimes when the word "click" is posted, a report has not been made?
If so, I think I noticed that one time.
I'm just trying to figure things out, is all. I was not in on what that "click" meant.

Thank you for posting testimony!

Kat @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 pm wrote:Are you saying that sometimes when the word "click" is posted, a report has not been made?
If so, I think I noticed that one time.
I'm just trying to figure things out, is all. I was not in on what that "click" meant.

Yes...so far there is only one time that I can find.





Tracy...

Kat @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:56 am wrote:Are you saying that sometimes when the word "click" is posted, a report has not been made?
If so, I think I noticed that one time.
I'm just trying to figure things out, is all. I was not in on what that "click" meant.

Please read my previous post above again. Every "click" is a report.

The problem with the report button is that you can't document what you want to report.
Then it is all in the mind of the clicker, like truth and beauty.

Whatever.

i think the poison was definately part of the lead up to the murders. it's classic in terms of criminal profiling to see an escalating pattern of violence/violation that eventually leads to murder. look at domestic violence cases, for example.

i am certain that the "poisoning" of Abby, Andrew - and seemingly Bridget - was not a coincidence, but was in fact part of such a pattern. taken out of context, yes it would be easy to believe that it may have been a case of simple food poisoning - but taken as part of the big picture, it is clearly another step in a pattern of escalating domestic "terrorism" directed at Andrew and Abby which IMO eventually led to their deaths.

however the rapidity with which the circumstances went from poisoning to murder (a matter of 24-72 hours?) raises interesting questions, such as: was the poison meant to be the killing agent and why was it abandoned so quickly (i.e., what changed that required the Bordens had to die that day and no later?) - or - was the poison originally intended to be another scare tactic in a sadistic game simply meant to terrorize Andrew and Abby (and if so, again why did the murders take place so soon afterwards?) - or - was the poison merely a means of weakening the victims to aid in the murders?

i cannot answer those questions, but personally i am convinced that the person(s) involved in "poisoning" the Bordens was the same person(s) who were responsible for their deaths.

What do you think of the change of weapons?
Are you including in what you stated as the possibilty that the "person involved in 'poisoning' the Bordens" might be one person in a conspiracy whereby the more violent act committed with a bladed weapon might be someone different? Or are you of the belief they were one and the same?

I believe that Lizzie intended to poison her parents, either as a scare tactic or as a method for slow murder, but then I think she either overheard something the night before, or she found out something was going to happen that morning to cause her to attack Abby. I think something triggered her to panic and escalate. I feel that after she hacked Abby she was past the point of no return and when Andrew came home early she kept going to protect herself.

sguthmann @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:38 am wrote:i think the poison was definately part of the lead up to the murders. it's classic in terms of criminal profiling to see an escalating pattern of violence/violation that eventually leads to murder. look at domestic violence cases, for example.

i am certain that the "poisoning" of Abby, Andrew - and seemingly Bridget - was not a coincidence, but was in fact part of such a pattern. taken out of context, yes it would be easy to believe that it may have been a case of simple food poisoning - but taken as part of the big picture, it is clearly another step in a pattern of escalating domestic "terrorism" directed at Andrew and Abby which IMO eventually led to their deaths.

however the rapidity with which the circumstances went from poisoning to murder (a matter of 24-72 hours?) raises interesting questions, such as: was the poison meant to be the killing agent and why was it abandoned so quickly (i.e., what changed that required the Bordens had to die that day and no later?) - or - was the poison originally intended to be another scare tactic in a sadistic game simply meant to terrorize Andrew and Abby (and if so, again why did the murders take place so soon afterwards?) - or - was the poison merely a means of weakening the victims to aid in the murders?

i cannot answer those questions, but personally i am convinced that the person(s) involved in "poisoning" the Bordens was the same person(s) who were responsible for their deaths.

Its been over 40 years since I read Pearson's book on this case. As I remember it, Pearson did not think of poison, merely trying to keep fish or meat too long. They can go bad even in a modern electric refrigerator.

Angel @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:50 am wrote:I believe that Lizzie intended to poison her parents, either as a scare tactic or as a method for slow murder, but then I think she either overheard something the night before, or she found out something was going to happen that morning to cause her to attack Abby. I think something triggered her to panic and escalate. I feel that after she hacked Abby she was past the point of no return and when Andrew came home early she kept going to protect herself.

There you go again.
You are entitled to your opinion, but a common regard for others should include your citation.
If its only your opinion, then everyone has one like a bellybutton or whatever.

Click

Thank you, Angel.





Tracy...

sguthmann @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:38 am wrote:i think the poison was definately part of the lead up to the murders. it's classic in terms of criminal profiling to see an escalating pattern of violence/violation that eventually leads to murder. look at domestic violence cases, for example.

i am certain that the "poisoning" of Abby, Andrew - and seemingly Bridget - was not a coincidence, but was in fact part of such a pattern. taken out of context, yes it would be easy to believe that it may have been a case of simple food poisoning - but taken as part of the big picture, it is clearly another step in a pattern of escalating domestic "terrorism" directed at Andrew and Abby which IMO eventually led to their deaths.

however the rapidity with which the circumstances went from poisoning to murder (a matter of 24-72 hours?) raises interesting questions, such as: was the poison meant to be the killing agent and why was it abandoned so quickly (i.e., what changed that required the Bordens had to die that day and no later?) - or - was the poison originally intended to be another scare tactic in a sadistic game simply meant to terrorize Andrew and Abby (and if so, again why did the murders take place so soon afterwards?) - or - was the poison merely a means of weakening the victims to aid in the murders?

i cannot answer those questions, but personally i am convinced that the person(s) involved in "poisoning" the Bordens was the same person(s) who were responsible for their deaths.

So, if we hypothesize that Abby told Dr. Bowen about a fear for her life on Wednesday morning, demonstrating that she was capable of blowing the whistle, Lizzie found out about the exchange and attempted to buy poison that afternoon and failed, then perhaps a need to prevent Abby from going to the authorities or from telling anyone else makes some sense. Fear of being found out as an an attempted murderer might have lent some immediacy to the crime.

We have the testimony of Dr. Bowen stating that Abby DID talk to him about her fear of being poisoned, but I would like to find testimony where Lizzie states HOW she found out about Abby's visit with Dr. B. I have been looking, but so far I am having no luck. Maybe I am missing it right in front of my eyes ?





Tracy...

Try looking at Alice's testimony, I believe I read there that Lizzie had been humiliated by the way Andrew had teated Dr. Bowen that morning. So, maybe that's how she found out that Abby had gone over to see the Dr. earlier that morning.

If Dr. Bowen had truly believed the diagnosis of food poisoning, what he prescribed for Abby would work for Andrew, too. I wonder what prompted the house call, especially if Abby was aware of Andrew's opposition to the visit.

Yooper @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:55 am wrote:In my opinion, Abby visited Dr. Bowen based upon a case of food poisoning. This was only a pretense to convey the real message that she believed her life was in danger. She was clumsy in her attempt and allowed Bowen to minimize the message.
Dr. Bowen correctly diagnosed food poisoning and prescribed accordingly. He became aware of the gravity of the real message the next day when he saw Abby murdered. She clearly had reason to fear for her life.

Maybe that's why he behaved so oddly right after the murders. He had no proof, but he was probably overwhelmed with worry that Lizzie was dangerous.

Nothing in Alice's testimony that clearly states how Lizzie found out that Abby had gone to Dr. Bowen's. I searched all of the source documents. I was hoping find a specific passage/testimony where Lizzie says:

"Mrs. Borden told me she had been to Dr. Bowen's about her and Father being sick...",

or

"I overheard Mrs. Borden and Father talking about her going to Dr. Bowen's, and Father said 'My money shan't pay for that !"

I want there to be something !





Tracy...

...perhaps a need to prevent Abby from going to the authorities or from telling anyone else makes some sense. Fear of being found out as an an attempted murderer might have lent some immediacy to the crime.

--Yooper

You think an *immediate* motive for the killing of Abbie by Lizzie may be to prevent Abbie from telling about an attempt of poisoning?
Hmmm...
I'm thinking about it.

theebmonique @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:33 am wrote:Nothing in Alice's testimony that clearly states how Lizzie found out that Abby had gone to Dr. Bowen's. I searched all of the source documents. I was hoping find a specific passage/testimony where Lizzie says:

"Mrs. Borden told me she had been to Dr. Bowen's about her and Father being sick...",

or

"I overheard Mrs. Borden and Father talking about her going to Dr. Bowen's, and Father said 'My money shan't pay for that !"

I want there to be something !









Tracy...

Thank you for looking, Tracy! I wish it was more than conjecture, too, but I'm afraid it will always remain so based upon what we have for evidence. I think Lizzie went to Alice Russell with a rather broad and general story about fear which included all of the household. Abby's fear was more specific, focused on herself. Lizzie might have been trying to eliminate herself as a suspect by turning Abby's 'I' into 'we'.

I agree, Angel, Dr. Bowen seemed to behave a bit oddly after Abby was found. A bit more conjecture; Dr. Bowen's statement that he was satisfied something was wrong because they had all been ill the previous day makes absolutely no sense at all, at least at face value. All of humanity, save Dr. Bowen, would be satisfied something was wrong because they had been murdered today! If we change the operative from 'ill' to 'wrong', perhaps Dr. Bowen had begun to let something slip out about Abby's visit the previous day. If Abby had told Dr. Bowen about a fear for her life, then the statement makes sense. He is now convinced Abby was justified in her fear, something is indeed 'wrong', and the reference to the illness is merely a time stamp for the message to the previous day.

Kat @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:46 pm wrote:What do you think of the change of weapons?
Are you including in what you stated as the possibilty that the "person involved in 'poisoning' the Bordens" might be one person in a conspiracy whereby the more violent act committed with a bladed weapon might be someone different? Or are you of the belief they were one and the same?

I believe that it may have been one person OR it may have been a conspiracy of two or three people...I'm not inclined to think it was any more than that, but that's just my impression at this point. Nothing factual I can base that on. Just gut feeling. I don't believe in any conspiracy involving "town fathers" or the Mellen House Gang or such...again just my opinion.

The pattern of violence in this case suggests to me that one person was responsible for both the poisoning AND killing of the Bordens - however, others may have known or suspected who the guilty party was and have kept quiet. Whether you consider them part of a conspiracy in the respect that they conspired to cover up the truth, I guess is an individual judgement?

RayS @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:42 pm wrote: Its been over 40 years since I read Pearson's book on this case. As I remember it, Pearson did not think of poison, merely trying to keep fish or meat too long. They can go bad even in a modern electric refrigerator.

Well I'm not Pearson and I'm fairly sure he wasn't familiar with the term "criminal profiling," which didn't exist as we know it today while he was writing. While I do acknowledge that food can go bad and sicken people - and often did at that time - the key is looking at the "poisoning" in context with other incidents: ie, the prior burglary in broad daylight while at least 3 people were in the residence and counting the murders themselves. Taken in isolation, sure it could be a case of food gone bad. Taken in context of a pattern of events - some of which are undoubtedly not even known to this day - the probability that it was just a case of spoiled food is quite low, IMO.

Alice Russell had been treated to Lizzie's fears Wednesday evening and when Alice came over Thursday morning she says she did not know murder had been done until Morse came!
(That's part of what I meant about "sophistication" in my other post.)

Could this mean that the *talk* around the house (at least around the women gathered) until quarter of noon did not include the word murder?

Alice
Inquest
Q. What was said and done when you got there, as well as you remember it?
A. I have a very confused idea of it. I have tried my best to have it clear. I met Lizzie, and I said “sit right down here Lizzie in the kitchen”; and she sat down. I dont seem to remember what she said or done, except she says “will somebody find Mrs. Borden”. She seemed to
148
be very much overcome.
Q. Did she tell you anything about where to look for her?
A. No Sir. Then I remember of Maggie and Mrs. Churchill starting, and Maggie says “O, I cant go through that room”. Dr. Bowen says “get me a sheet, and I will cover Mr. Borden over”. They started and went after that. Then when they came down I remember Mrs. Churchill saying “O, Mrs. Borden” this way. Whatever she said or did gave me that impression that she had gone too. I did not then know either of them were murdered. I supposed it was from this impression of the poison that I had had in my mind.
Q. When did you first learn that they were murdered?
A. I got Lizzie into the dining room, on to the dining room lounge, and we were there, I dont know how long, when her Uncle came in.
Q. That is Morse?
A. Yes Sir. And something he said about their being murdered, and looked up to her, then it dawned on my mind that it was cold blooded murder. That is the first idea that I had that it was murder.

sguthmann @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:05 am wrote:

RayS @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:42 pm wrote: Its been over 40 years since I read Pearson's book on this case. As I remember it, Pearson did not think of poison, merely trying to keep fish or meat too long. They can go bad even in a modern electric refrigerator.

Well I'm not Pearson and I'm fairly sure he wasn't familiar with the term "criminal profiling," which didn't exist as we know it today while he was writing. While I do acknowledge that food can go bad and sicken people - and often did at that time - the key is looking at the "poisoning" in context with other incidents: ie, the prior burglary in broad daylight while at least 3 people were in the residence and counting the murders themselves. Taken in isolation, sure it could be a case of food gone bad. Taken in context of a pattern of events - some of which are undoubtedly not even known to this day - the probability that it was just a case of spoiled food is quite low, IMO.

"Profiling" is just a new technique that tries to come up with a suspect from a motive. First used for an 'Unknown Subject'.

EG: 5 men hold up a bank in 1871 Missouri. Their MO, height, weight, etc recall the James-Younger gangs. Hence?
Their MO was to pose as respectable well-dressed businessmen who need change for a $100 bill, Big Money in those days. The manager would have to open the vault to get the money. Then came the robbery.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! I’m so confused as to what to believe on the poisoning hypothesis. On the one hand there was no evidence of any poisoning based on the autopsy of Andrew and Abby’s stomachs. On the other hand there’s evidence aplenty of poisoning fears on the day before the murders based on Lizzie’s or a Lizzie look-alikes attempt to buy prussic acid at Smith’s Pharmacy, Andrew and Abby’s vomiting illness and Abby’s trip to Dr. Bowen, and Lizzie’s telling of her fears of poisoning to Alice Russell. Does seem to make it look like a murder “just had to be committed” .

RayS @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:17 pm wrote: "Profiling" is just a new technique that tries to come up with a suspect from a motive. First used for an 'Unknown Subject'.

EG: 5 men hold up a bank in 1871 Missouri. Their MO, height, weight, etc recall the James-Younger gangs. Hence?
Their MO was to pose as respectable well-dressed businessmen who need change for a $100 bill, Big Money in those days. The manager would have to open the vault to get the money. Then came the robbery.

"Profiling" is quite a bit more complex than trying to ID an UNSUB just from motivation. It includes victimology, crime scene analysis, behaviorial psychology, forensics, geographical crime analysis, MO, classifications of both offender and crime, and patterns recognized over a range of time, persons, places, and crimes.

The 1871 example you provide is a recognition of MO and a physical description of the criminals - which not doubt aids law enforecement in their pursuits both then and now - however, criminal profiling is much more than those two aspects. Profiling in its infancy may have existed at the time Pearson wrote his work, however it was a far cry from the criminal profiling of today. When I speak of profiling, I'm not talking about "Wanted" poster material - I'm referring to a powerful forensic tool that covers much more than MO and physical descriptions.

I'm not exactly sure what the point of your post was, but it's neither "here nor there" that Pearson didn't think of the Bordens' bout of illness as more than a case of spoiled food. My point of posting is that there is ample evidence in my mind that the "illness" wasn't an innocent case of bad meat.

Pearson was refreshingly bold as to always believe everyone was always Guilty!

SteveS. @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:32 pm wrote:Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! I’m so confused as to what to believe on the poisoning hypothesis. On the one hand there was no evidence of any poisoning based on the autopsy of Andrew and Abby’s stomachs. On the other hand there’s evidence aplenty of poisoning fears on the day before the murders based on Lizzie’s or a Lizzie look-alikes attempt to buy prussic acid at Smith’s Pharmacy, Andrew and Abby’s vomiting illness and Abby’s trip to Dr. Bowen, and Lizzie’s telling of her fears of poisoning to Alice Russell. Does seem to make it look like a murder “just had to be committed” .

The Bordens' stomachs may have been tested for poisoning, but I'm sure their testing was limited; they couldn't have had testing in those days for everything like they do now. It could have been something other than prussic acid, arsenic, etc., or it could have been a slow acting thing that wasn't in their stomachs immediately after death, but, with more sophisicated tests of today, could have shown up elsewhere in their bodies, or it could have been some virulent bacterial thing Lizzie was putting into their food to give them those symptoms.

Lizzie as a bioterrorist. Now thats something I never even thought about.

About poison- just an observation.
Most poisoners that we know of, used common types and got away with it for a long time. If experts at the time did not have tests for exotic poisons, that might imply that the general population did not know about these poisons in order to utilize them.
The tendency for a neophyte might be to use a compound that was *popular* and therefore more easily accessible.

i also recall in criminal profiling, the majority of poisoners are women. I'll work on the exact citation/work. not at home right now so can't look it up. one of Douglas's books I'm sure...

NCIS, last week!