Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Did Andrew have a will drawn up at the time of his death, which possibly was the precipitating motive for his murder? Had he began to speak about the necessity of having a will due to his advancement in years? I am very curious to know what opinions you all have on this matter.

I voted that I think it's possible that Andrew was thinking about having a will drawn up. Earlier in the year he had signed as witness on Southard Miller's will. There was talk that there was some kind of *inventory* being taken, listing his holdings. Morse mentions something about Andrew thinking about giving land to an old ladies home or some such thing. I think it's possible.
I also think these Borden people all defined their relationships thru money and so Andrew could have been being prudent, or realistic or even threatening (like monetary blackmail). Or he could have been attempting to be secretive, but someone let it leak- like when he gave Abbie 1/2 her father's house. That leaked out and caused all kinds of problems. If he was keeping this *will* secret, you'd think he'd have learned from that earlier mistake!

So far I find it very interesting that the majority of those who voted tend to agree with you Kat. I'm wondering if their reasons for believing so are pretty much the same as the ones you cited in your post. I agree also that Andrew was probably capable of using his will as a sort of "blackmail." He might have utilized the idea of a will as a tool to try and keep his girls under his thumb.

I believe Andrew was up to just that during the week of the murder. He probably expected Lizzie to throw a fit, but he didn't anticipate such a big one. Maybe that's why Morse was in town- to be on hand in case of family trouble. It's my feeling (no proof) that she may have been trying to thwart the whole thing by poisoning her parents, but it didn't work fast enough. Then, when Abby went running to Dr. Bowen to verbalize her suspicions (or indirectly ask for help) Lizzie panicked, and the rest is history.

From the Inquest, John Morse, page 106:

Q. Did he say he had made a will?
A. He did not say .
Q. He did not say whether he had or not?
A. Whether he had or had not.
Q. Did he talk as though he was intending to make a will?
A. I judged from that that he was intending to, I drew my conclusions that he had not, but was thinking of it.
Q. Did he mention the bequests outside he thought he should make?
A. He did not.
Q. How came he to be speaking about it?
A. Common conversation, I suppose, same as about his land. Before he bought the Birch land, I was down there
with him. He says lets go up Main street. We went up. He says 塗ere is a piece of property, dont say anything
about it, I have got a chance to buy. What is your opinion about it ? I asked what it could be bought for. I dont
know as he told me direct, but about. I says 的 think it is good property in the heart of the city. The city will be
coming towards it all the time. I believe it will be a good investment. Several months afterwards, one Sunday, he
says 笛ohn, I did as you told me to . I says 努hat is that, I forgot all about it. 的 bought that Birch land.”
Q. I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A. That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out, you know, for charitable
purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about the Old Ladies Home, 的 dont know but I would give them
this, if they would take it.”
Q. Was that the same talk?
A. I dont think it was the same time.
Q. Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A. I think that is all.
Q. That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had
destroyed it.
Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A. 15 years ago.

From the Witness Statements, Charles Cook, page 30:

(Question.) “Mr. Cook, have you any reason to believe Mr. Borden had, or had not, made a will?”
(Answer) “I do not think Mr. Borden had made a will, unless it has been made recently. I will tell
you how I know. He came to my office one day when I was writing, and waited until I finished, when I
told him I was just writing a will. He said “Charles, do you know that is something I have never done
yet, but I must attend to it.”


Based upon this testimony and the fact that no one came forward as having witnessed or notarized a will, I believe Andrew died intestate. He may have had a will while Sarah was alive but destroyed it after she died. Andrew had been talking about making a new will, so he may have had current plans for one at the time of his death.

One reason for making a will is to name administrators, unless you want the family members to follow the default conditions. One third to widow, the rest divided amongst the children.

NOTE: merely saying you might do it doesn't count. Unless the state allows holographic wills, even a written statement doesn't count.

RayS @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:42 pm wrote:One reason for making a will is to name administrators, unless you want the family members to follow the default conditions. One third to widow, the rest divided amongst the children.

NOTE: merely saying you might do it doesn't count. Unless the state allows holographic wills, even a written statement doesn't count.

But the idea that Andrew might make a will, and that she might not like how he divided up his estate could be a possible motive. She might have wanted to stop him before he went through with making one.

Lizzie was away but she returned.

I feel I should qualify my vote: I voted that "He may have began making preparations to have a will drawn up," however, I think it VERY likely that he had previously had drawn up a will - at some point in the past - but had perhaps destroyed it and was about to draw up another...perhaps with some significant revisions from the old versions.

From what I know of AJ Borden, I find it next to impossible to believe that this man who had devoted so much of his existance to building a fortune would have been without a will, except perhaps when he was young and not yet a "man of means." As the years went by, I believe the chances that he had a will drawn up increase exponentially.

When it came to splitting up what he had built, I don't think Andrew wouls have been content to merely let the status quo laws of the time decide who would be getting what; he strikes me as a man who needs control, a man who would see having a will as a responsibility, a necessity. I think he would have definite opinions as to how his estate should be divided up, and would have seen to it that this was documented properly in preparation for his death.

I think poor Andrew was killed "in between wills" - and that whoever was responsible for his murder knew this.

sguthmann @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:28 am wrote:I feel I should qualify my vote: I voted that "He may have began making preparations to have a will drawn up," however, I think it VERY likely that he had previously had drawn up a will - at some point in the past - but had perhaps destroyed it and was about to draw up another...perhaps with some significant revisions from the old versions.

From what I know of AJ Borden, I find it next to impossible to believe that this man who had devoted so much of his existance to building a fortune would have been without a will, except perhaps when he was young and not yet a "man of means." As the years went by, I believe the chances that he had a will drawn up increase exponentially.

When it came to splitting up what he had built, I don't think Andrew wouls have been content to merely let the status quo laws of the time decide who would be getting what; he strikes me as a man who needs control, a man who would see having a will as a responsibility, a necessity. I think he would have definite opinions as to how his estate should be divided up, and would have seen to it that this was documented properly in preparation for his death.

I think poor Andrew was killed "in between wills" - and that whoever was responsible for his murder knew this.

That sounds good. But Andy might have not decided to do it at this time. Still in good health at three score and ten.
The lack of any legal records say Andy made no will. Could he have planned one? Sure, but a plan is not reality, given his regular dealing with his lawyer.

I voted for the third option--that Borden was probably in the process of drawing up a will (and I agree with Angel that Lizzie might have found out and had a hatchet-wielding hissy-fit ), but I was very tempted to choose the first option--that he already had one (which may not have survived for whatever reason).

I just cannot see someone of Andrew Borden's temperament blithely running around--esp. nearing the age of 70--without a will. He was an extremely orderly, organized, money-conscious kind of person--I can't imagine a man like that, with the amount of money he had amassed during his lifetime, taking a chance on dying without a will. Yes, he may have considered himself healthy and likely to live a good many more years, but 70 was pretty darned old back in 1892--and people died unexpectedly then as now, regardless of their age.

And I agree that he could not have tolerated the idea that his fortune would be dispersed after his death without his making absolutely sure who got what--he was the kind of person who wants to maintain control at all times--even from beyond the grave!!

I think he may have been drawing up a new one that would give the majority of his earnings and belongings to his wife, Abby. Maybe the girls found out about and did something about it; kill the parents. It has happened before. Look at the Mendenz boys out in California. They didn't want to work so why not kill the parents and get the money? But of course, they got discovered.

The important point would be Andrew's intent in making a will. There is usually a "default" distribution of an estate in cases where there is no will, something like 1/2 to the spouse and the other 1/2 distributed among the children, but it varies among the states. Sometimes there is a minimum value in place which the spouse can expect, something like (in today's value) the first $100,000 goes to the spouse and the value exceeding that amount is distributed proportionally. I have no idea what, if anything, Massachusetts law provided for in 1892, but if it allowed for 1/2 to Abby and 1/4 each to Emma and Lizzie and if Andrew was content with that, he might not feel compelled to have a will.

Andrew's reason for making a will would be to modify any "default" distribution. This might be to include someone not provided for by law, or to leave something specific to an individual. As an example, maybe he wanted to leave the Swansea property to John Morse. Excluding someone from a will who would ordinarily be provided for in the "default" distribution, spouse or children for example, is usually more difficult and might lead to the excluded party contesting the will.

Yooper @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:47 am wrote:The important point would be Andrew's intent in making a will. There is usually a "default" distribution of an estate in cases where there is no will, something like 1/2 to the spouse and the other 1/2 distributed among the children, but it varies among the states. Sometimes there is a minimum value in place which the spouse can expect, something like (in today's value) the first $100,000 goes to the spouse and the value exceeding that amount is distributed proportionally. I have no idea what, if anything, Massachusetts law provided for in 1892, but if it allowed for 1/2 to Abby and 1/4 each to Emma and Lizzie and if Andrew was content with that, he might not feel compelled to have a will.

Andrew's reason for making a will would be to modify any "default" distribution. This might be to include someone not provided for by law, or to leave something specific to an individual. As an example, maybe he wanted to leave the Swansea property to John Morse. Excluding someone from a will who would ordinarily be provided for in the "default" distribution, spouse or children for example, is usually more difficult and might lead to the excluded party contesting the will.

Yet another reason for having a will drawn up would be to allow for charitable contributions. John Morse stated that Andrew had spoken about possibly leaving some money to the home for the elderly. Not that I believe these type of bequests would've in any way angered or driven Lizzie to kill. But if for whatever reason Andrew had began to talk about making out his will, it could've given Lizzie some concerns about what else might be in it.

Yooper @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:58 am wrote:From the Inquest, John Morse, page 106:

Q. Did he say he had made a will?
A. He did not say .
Q. He did not say whether he had or not?
A. Whether he had or had not.
Q. Did he talk as though he was intending to make a will?
A. I judged from that that he was intending to, I drew my conclusions that he had not, but was thinking of it.
Q. Did he mention the bequests outside he thought he should make?
A. He did not.
Q. How came he to be speaking about it?
A. Common conversation, I suppose, same as about his land. Before he bought the Birch land, I was down there
with him. He says lets go up Main street. We went up. He says 塗ere is a piece of property, dont say anything
about it, I have got a chance to buy. What is your opinion about it ? I asked what it could be bought for. I dont
know as he told me direct, but about. I says 的 think it is good property in the heart of the city. The city will be
coming towards it all the time. I believe it will be a good investment. Several months afterwards, one Sunday, he
says 笛ohn, I did as you told me to . I says 努hat is that, I forgot all about it. 的 bought that Birch land.”
Q. I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A. That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out, you know, for charitable
purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about the Old Ladies Home, 的 dont know but I would give them
this, if they would take it.”
Q. Was that the same talk?
A. I dont think it was the same time.
Q. Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A. I think that is all.
Q. That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had
destroyed it.
Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A. 15 years ago.

"The Home for Aged People, which now occupies a handsome brick building on Highland avenue, providing a comfortable home for between 25 and 30 persons of advanced years, is the outgrowth of a movement begun in 1891 by John D. Flint, John S. Brayton, Hon. Milton Reed, Mrs. Hannah Almy, Mrs. Charles Durfee, Mrs. David M. Anthony, Mrs. John H. Boone, Miss. A. B. Wrightington, Mrs. Edward S. Adams and others. The old Leland house on High Street was rented for the first house. The late Robert Adams gave a lot on Highland avenue as the site for a new building, and an active canvass for money to pay for the cost of erecting a structure, aided by a gift of $15,000 from M.C.D. Borden, justified the beginning of work in the latter part of October 1896.The structure, which is of brick, 76 1/2 by 37 1/2 feet, was completed at a cost of $41,000 and dedicated in March 1898. Various individuals, churches and societies furnished the building, which has a commanding view, it is finished in whitewood and North Carolina pine and excellently arranged for it's purpose. As a result of numerous legacies it now has invested funds amounting to $56,000. The present officers are: President, John D. Flint: Vice Presidents, Milton Reed and Mrs. D. M. Anthony: Secretary, Miss A. B. Wrightington: Treasurer, Edward S. Adams."

Source

History of Fall River / prepared under the direction of a committee of prominent citizens appointed by His Honor Mayor John T. Coughlin by Henry M. Fenner, A. B., assisted by Benjamin Buffinton. -- New York : F. T. Smiley Publishing Co., 1906.
364 p. : ill., ports. ; 28 cm.

Chapter XVI. Clubs, Lodges, Social and Other Organizations: Y.M.C.A., Boys' Club, Home For Aged People and Similar Institutions. Quequechan Club and Masonic and Other Lodges. The Militia. Labor Unions and Labor Troubles, p. 132-142. (2,433K)

http://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/fulltext.htm

The fact that Andrew was fast approaching his 70th birthday might have jogged him into making a will. 70 was a ripe old age for that era. With Lizzie and Emma safely out of town and out from underfoot, seems like a good time for Andrew to make the arrangements. Then Lizzie decides to come back home early. Still the only hitch in this idea is that surely the attorney who was drawing up the will would have come forward under the circumstances- and nobody did. Unless, of course, Jennings would have been the attorney beginning the will process, and he decided not to volunteer confidential information which would negatively impact Lizzie.

Allen @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:00 pm wrote:

RayS @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:42 pm wrote:One reason for making a will is to name administrators, unless you want the family members to follow the default conditions. One third to widow, the rest divided amongst the children.

NOTE: merely saying you might do it doesn't count. Unless the state allows holographic wills, even a written statement doesn't count.

But the idea that Andrew might make a will, and that she might not like how he divided up his estate could be a possible motive. She might have wanted to stop him before he went through with making one.

Thanks for your input (and suspicions). But that is not proof.
"Might" does not make right in this case.
Murder over an assumed inheritance is a slender support, given the lack of blood spatter and murder weapon.

"Proof of Brown's Theory Part 2" explains why it was a relative of Lizzie, else she would not have kept silence. Don't you agree?
"Part 4" provides a better cause of murder and a cover-up. Don't you think its better than assuming that somebody may have not like what was not in a non-existent will?

Shelley @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:31 pm wrote:The fact that Andrew was fast approaching his 70th birthday might have jogged him into making a will. 70 was a ripe old age for that era. With Lizzie and Emma safely out of town and out from underfoot, seems like a good time for Andrew to make the arrangements. Then Lizzie decides to come back home early. Still the only hitch in this idea is that surely the attorney who was drawing up the will would have come forward under the circumstances- and nobody did. Unless, of course, Jennings would have been the attorney beginning the will process, and he decided not to volunteer confidential information which would negatively impact Lizzie.

But you haven't explained why Andrew's lawyer would shield a patricicde!!!
Has Jennings ever defended an accused murderer in his life. (I really don't know, but lawyers generally stick to their last - non-criminal law.)
Jennings didn't have to take this case, unless he believed Justice would be best served by defending this Puritan Maiden.
Your turn.

Arnold Brown is properly skeptical about any large (or small) donation to a charity. Source: "Lizzie Borden the Final Chapter ..." page number unknown.

Q. I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A. That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out, you know, for charitable
purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about the Old Ladies Home, I don't know but I would give them
this, if they would take it.”
Q. Was that the same talk?
A. I dont think it was the same time.
Q. Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A. I think that is all.
Q. That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had
destroyed it.
Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A. 15 years ago.

15 years earlier would be 1878, a long time then or now. Note that there are no eyewitnesses or documentation for this fact. Just be skeptical about testimony in court unless there is corroboration.

A will would be signed and witnessed. WHO witnessed it then? What lawyer drew it up?

RayS @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:43 pm wrote: Thanks for your input (and suspicions). But that is not proof.
"Might" does not make right in this case.
Murder over an assumed inheritance is a slender support, given the lack of blood spatter and murder weapon.

"Proof of Brown's Theory Part 2" explains why it was a relative of Lizzie, else she would not have kept silence. Don't you agree?
"Part 4" provides a better cause of murder and a cover-up. Don't you think its better than assuming that somebody may have not like what was not in a non-existent will?

Ray your post actually made me chuckle out loud. I mean a nice hearty chuckle. "Thanks for your input (and suspicions). But that is not proof. "Might" does not make right in this case". Thanks for the giggle Ray. Since your whole push towards Brown's theory is a push towards a theory that has absolutely no proof to back it up. Billy "might" have been Andrew's son. He "might" have been upset at the way Andrew treated his mother. He "might" have been disgruntled at the fact that Andrew did not acknowledge him, nor would he leave anything to him once he died. But there is not one shred of proof of this. I ask you Ray, does "might" make right in this case? I am not being sarcastic one bit I assure you. I actually think it truly comical that you do not see that this is the not just the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot teasing the kettle about being kitchen cooking implement.

If lack of blood spatters on a person is proof that someone did not murder the Bordens, then Lizzie is not guilty, nor is Bridget, John, Alice, Bowen, other relatives, neighbors, the ice cream man, the wild eyed man, Joe Schmo or any other strangers on the street, etc. etc. etc. No one on that busy street saw anyone with blood spatters or a weapon or any evidence or anything. So it would seem no one murdered them. They murdered themselves because they had blood spatters all over them.

you may laugh (an ironic laugh perhaps) but a very early press report - a dispatch from the Associated Press of the 4th - contained the following sentence: The murder and suicide theory is advanced and finds many supporters. (That's on the fourth page of the Evening Standard compilation, near the bottom of the lead paragraph in the AP report.)

Personally I'd suspect that "theory" was probably tossed out with the evening's dishwater.

I feel that Andrew was in the process of making a Will or at least revising an old Will when he was killed and I strongly feel that the Will was the primary reason for his death. I think money was the main reason for his killing and I feel that Lizzie was afraid she would be cut out of the money.

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:06 pm wrote:

RayS @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:43 pm wrote: Thanks for your input (and suspicions). But that is not proof.
"Might" does not make right in this case.
Murder over an assumed inheritance is a slender support, given the lack of blood spatter and murder weapon.

"Proof of Brown's Theory Part 2" explains why it was a relative of Lizzie, else she would not have kept silence. Don't you agree?
"Part 4" provides a better cause of murder and a cover-up. Don't you think its better than assuming that somebody may have not like what was not in a non-existent will?

Ray your post actually made me chuckle out loud. I mean a nice hearty chuckle. "Thanks for your input (and suspicions). But that is not proof. "Might" does not make right in this case". Thanks for the giggle Ray. Since your whole push towards Brown's theory is a push towards a theory that has absolutely no proof to back it up. Billy "might" have been Andrew's son. He "might" have been upset at the way Andrew treated his mother. He "might" have been disgruntled at the fact that Andrew did not acknowledge him, nor would he leave anything to him once he died. But there is not one shred of proof of this. I ask you Ray, does "might" make right in this case? I am not being sarcastic one bit I assure you. I actually think it truly comical that you do not see that this is the not just the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot teasing the kettle about being kitchen cooking implement.

YES, some of my humor sneaks into my postings. I'm too old to get excited and upset by others who don't share my views. I just feel sorry for them, and hope they will learn better with time and experience.

My "Proof - Part 2" does not mention any name. I've done no research, just using logic and facts to explain why Lizzie wouldn't tell who was there. THAT is not the same as saying she was a witness. I do believe that if it was not a relative Lizzie (and Uncle John, arranged the meeting IMO) would have told all. Don't you agree this meets human nature?

PS Brown was not a professional author like all (?) the others. He just was told about some old memoirs that could solve the case.
Agnes De Mille told about a 1950s visit to FR. It was a secret that most people never knew or even suspected. Hence that is proof enough for this old mystery. NOTE how everything falls into place given this fact.

1bigsteve @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:36 pm wrote:I feel that Andrew was in the process of making a Will or at least revising an old Will when he was killed and I strongly feel that the Will was the primary reason for his death. I think money was the main reason for his killing and I feel that Lizzie was afraid she would be cut out of the money.

-1bigsteve (o:

Reading about various True Crime you will see that it is Love (lust) or Money that causes most murders. Serial Killers often take a souvenir from their victims. This will sometimes tie them to the killing.

The radio from that killing of the family in Kansas (In Cold Blood).
Mark Felt tells about the hatchet murders of an old couple in his book (FBI Pyramid).

Duplicate post.
I think those who doubt the Brown solution should explain why it does not provide a rational explaantion. No blood spatter, no murder weapon, the reason for Lizzie' silence.

No blood splatter : Time to clean up.

No murder weapon: Time to hide it. She knew that house well. Better than the police who were sent there to search it.

Lizzie's silence: I dont think Lizzie would keep silent as she was being put on trial for murder to save anyone but herself.

viewtopic.php?t=1352

Not to overwhelm this topic, but the laws can be read and understood, to give one a background in determining a possible act on Andrew's part to make or not make a will.

The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - 1, 4
"TO WHOM THE PROPERTY?"

Interesting Legal Questions Arising
Regarding its Disposal.

FALL RIVER, Aug. 12. - That neither Andrew J. Borden nor his wife, each possessed of property in their individual right, left a will, seems to be pretty thoroughly established, as a search of the premises does not reveal any will and all the legal papers and documentary evidence of the murdered people's holdings was found this afternoon in the family safe which had been broken open.

Yet it is authoritatively stated that, although every other paper the man presumably had in his possession has been found in good order, nothing in the shape of a last testament was found.

With the fact of no expression from either as to their desires in the disposition of their property, the distributing of the large estate must necessarily be according to the dictate of the common and statute law regarding inheritance.

In this case the deaths of these people, so nearly together that it may be impossible to determine, according to the lines of legitimate evidence, to the satisfaction of the law, just who died first, odd complications upon the matter of the settling of the estate may ensue.

In the case of Mrs. Borden, this absence of a will, if report is true, will cause a disposition of her estate entirely opposed to her intentions.

This question of the disposition of the property is freely discussed, and has been

Since the Arrest

taken up in the city as the latest topic of interest in connection with the murder.

It is presented upon eccentricities of law not upon the statute books, of which the legally informed public has such an extensive knowledge.

The determination of the exact time each died means a fortune, or the loss of one, for each of Mrs. Borden's heirs.

One of the heirs is so thoroughly convinced of her equity right in Mrs. Borden's dowry that she talks of taking a hand in the settlement of the estate.

According to the ideas of the interested public which are being disseminated about the city tonight, if the husband was killed first, then the wife was entitled to a widow's share of the deceased husband's estate, and consequently upon her subsequent decease her property thus acquired by widow's right would naturally revert to her heirs, and Lizzie and Emma would be relieved a third of the estate on the common law dowry.

It is astonishing how extensively this presentment of the situation has gained credence today, and the prejudice in favor of Mrs. Borden's heirs is illustrated in the assiduity with which their case is being argued upon the street.

There are
Reputed Facts and Arguments

presented in support of the theory of Mr. Borden's death having been first to be worthy the testimony of an expert medical man.

And yet their theory and their law is wrong.

Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.

The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.

A GLOBE reporter this afternoon spent some time with a prominent attorney of Fall River, poring over the probate laws and considering the Borden inheritance complication from its different aspects.

Arguing now upon the hypothesis that Andrew J. Borden died first, the old common law gives as a widow's dowry a portion of her deceased husband's estate.

If the husband dies intestate, the widow shall be entitled to a dowry of the lands of her husband, and shall be entitled to his real estate in fee, that is, with the right of sale at her pleasure, or willing at her death, according to her own desire, to an amount not exceeding $5000; and she shall also be entitled during her life to one-half of the other real estate of which he died seized.

If her husband dies intestate

And Leaves No Kindred,

then the widow shall take all the real estate in fee.

If these two sections of the Massachusetts statutes were only applicable to the Borden estate then Mrs. Borden's two sisters would be in most agreeable circumstances.

But they are not, in spite of the fact that these two heirs-at-law confidently expect a portion of the estate.

Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred.

It is commonly supposed that a dowry amounts to one-third of the deceased husband's estate, but it is not so.

The widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow.

In determining the proportionate part of the estate to be settled, Smith's probate law has a table of the amount widows at certain ages should receive.

Just what Mrs. Borden's proportionate amount of the half a million dollars her husband left, if she ever was a widow, cannot be determined tonight, as the only lawyer in town who has a copy of the Smith's probate law is away on a vacation.

In regard to the personal property, the probate judge would determine the widow's portion.

It will be seen that no

Construction of the Probate Laws,

in the absence of a will, will in any way provide for Mrs. Borden's heirs, as a good part of the city is anticipating.

If Mrs. Borden was killed after her husband, then she held a widow's dowry right to the possession of an income from a certain part of her deceased husband's $500,000 only during the few moments between the time of the murders.

Her income from the possession of the property disappeared the moment the axe descended upon her head, for death was in the first blow, and her opportunity to benefit her relatives had passed.

All the estate must necessarily then go to the two daughters, Emma J. and Lizzie Borden.

Mrs. Borden had both real estate and personal property in her own right, which she might have bequeathed in the manner she always said she would, to her two sisters and their heirs.

But she undoubtedly neglected to draw up a testament, and the matter is in the same condition it is on the opposite assumption of the relative time of the death of each.

Assuming that Mrs. Borden was killed first, as some contend she was, at 9.30 in the morning, there is just as

Interesting a Legal Construction

governing the disposal of her estate.

The Public Statutes provide that when a man and his wife are seized in their own right to real estate, and when a married woman is seized to her sole and separate right to an estate by an inheritance in lands and they have one issue living which might have inherited such estate, the husband shall, on the death of the wife, hold the lands for his life as a tenant thereof by courtesy.

If they have no such issue, then the husband shall hold one-half of such lands for his life.

If she dies intestate and leaves no issue, he shall take her real estate in fee to an amount not exceeding $5000 and shall also have her other estate through courtesy or other life interest.

“You see,” said the attorney, submitting the law on the question, “this is the only legal clause which in any way would enable the heirs of Mrs. Borden at any time to acquire the rights in any part of her real estate.

“Assuming that Mrs. Borden died first, then Mr. Borden inherited in fee her real estate to the value of $5000 and a life interest in other of her real estate.

“Upon his death, of course, this $5000 worth or real estate would naturally go to his heirs, not to hers.

“So if the wife was killed first, then for the short intervening space of time before he, too, was murdered, he would be holding an interest in other of her real estate over the value of $5000.

“He did not hold this in fee, that is with the right of bequeathing it to any one of his kin.

“Consequently arguing upon this theory, that Mrs. Borden was slain, that is the first opening of the heirs of Mrs. Borden to receive any of her real estate.

“This seems, at a cursory glance, favorable for the heirs-in-law of Mrs. Borden, and with the husband dead it would seem that the life interest in the dead woman's additional estate, over the $5000 worth, would come into the possession of Mrs. Borden's two sisters.

“The law on such a point would authorize such a disposition.

“But let us look at the facts of Mrs. Borden's estate, and apply this total provision.

“Mrs. Borden's

Heirs Can Get Nothing,

as, although she may have a total estate amounting to more than $5000, still she is not recorded as possessed of that amount of real estate.

“Her bank stock and shares in mills here form, I understand, the bulk of her estate, and that as personal property without a will becomes the property of her husband upon her death.

“So, you see, a condition dissipates the possibilities of the heirs accruing property under this clause.

“Now, we will assume that Mrs. Borden died first; her husband was, I just contended, possessed of her real estate to the value of $5000, and a life interest in the estate; we will assume for the purposes of this argument that Mrs. Borden had real estate of the value of more than $5000, then you would say her heirs-in-law will receive this additional real estate now that Mr. Borden is also dead.

“Very true, but now let us go back to the actual condition of things.

“Did Mr. Borden or Mrs. Borden die first?

“This must be legally determined before any real estate in excess of $5000, if she possessed it, could be given to her heirs, and I judge it would be hard to establish in the eye of the law.

“Doctors might say that Mrs. Borden was murdered first, or they might also contend that Mrs. Borden was, at some, however infinitesimal, time, a widow.

“But it would not be acceptable according to law.

“It would not be the establishment of a fact; it would only be on two men's opinions, and that would have no weight.

“The only way I see to come to a decision in any deduction in this matter, would be
Through a Confession.


“If the murderer came forward and said: 'Mr. Borden died first,' or “Mrs. Borden was killed first,' then there would be evidence of the actual fact.

“If this statement of a witness never could be obtained, you see, the property of Mrs. Borden, in excess of the husband's $5000, would never revert to her heirs.

“If a married woman dies intestate and leaves no kindred, the law reads that the husband would be entitled to hold in fee all of her real estate, and, upon his death, it would descend to his legal heirs.

“With the fact well established that Mrs. Borden did not leave real estate of the value of $5000, it would seem that none of her heirs can ever, reasonably, expect anything.”

Those who have known this estimable lady, and who have been cognizant of her intentions regarding her property, her affection for these two younger sisters of hers, are fully aware that this legal circumstance was farthest from her thoughts and desires.

If she could have foreseen any condition of this kind, she never would have neglected the making of her will.

But she did neglect it, and although some may say that it served the heirs right for ever entertaining any such anticipations, it is particularly hard upon one sister of the murdered woman, Mrs. A. G. Whitehead, who lives at 45 4th st.

Mrs. Whitehead is a half-sister, being the daughter of Mrs. Borden's father by his second wife.

She resides in the house where her father lived for many years, and where the wedding of Abby Gray, as she was, to Andrew J. Borden, and the marriage of the other sister, Mrs. Priscilla Fish of Hartford, was celebrated.

It was owned by her father, and when he died he left the old home to Mrs. Whitehead.

About five years ago Mrs. Gray, the mother, did not care to keep the half interest any longer, and rather than have it bought by persons outside of the family, and have her half-sister thus annoyed, Mrs. Borden induced her husband to purchase it.

He did so, paying something like $1500 for it, and

The Deed was Recorded

in Mrs. Borden's name.

This is, as far as known, the only piece of real estate Mrs. Borden held a separate title to.

In the absence of a will, half of this house, together with a sum of money left her by Mrs. Borden's father, will become the property of the Borden girls, Lizzie and Emma.

This lady [Mrs. Whitehead] is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune.


--Supplied by Joe, transcribed by Harry, re-formatted by Kat.

THANK you very much for posting all of that Kat!!

The above sale shows Andy knew how to dispose of property as he would will it.
Lawyer Jennings said Andy never made a will (as far as he knew?).

Thanks for the posting, I found it very interesting however I have a question. In the beginning it says that the family safe was broken into and they found papers all intact. If Andrew was such a great keeper of records I have a hard time believing there was no will or even a rough draft of one. However why was the safe broken into? No one had the combination except Andrew? I find that a little odd, because in the case of any emergency there should have been someone besides him that would be able to gain entry? Even if he didn't trust his family you would think one of his banker friends or someone that he might have had as an executor to a future will would have access.

That's a good question about the safe. Why didn't anyone but Andrew (and maybe Abbie?) have the info to open it? I've often wondered that. Anyone have a decent guess?

I think there is very little reason to own a safe if too many people have the combination, it defeats the purpose. If Andrew had a will and named an executor, the executor would have a copy of the will or would know where to find one. A copy retained by an attorney is an option if Andrew didn't want the executor known, the attorney could contact the executor. The combination to the safe might be included with the will and the documents sealed. Until Andrew died, there was no good reason for him to give anyone the combination to the safe. Maybe Andrew wasn't planning on dying anytime soon.

In the Boston Globe article 'To Whom the Property' posted by Kat this phrase appears:
"In the absence of a will, half of this house, together with a sum of money left her by Mrs. Borden's father, will become the property of the Borden girls, Lizzie and Emma.
This lady [Mrs. Whitehead] is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune."

In August 1893 – shortly after the trial ended -- land records show that Lizzie and Emma sold their half interest in the Fourth Street property to Sarah Whitehead and Priscilla Fish for "$1.00 and other good and valuable considerations". (Rebello, 556)

Because of the small sum involved, I used to think of this as a charitable gesture on the part of the Borden sisters -- they didn’t seem to be required by law to turn over the property to Abby’s heirs. But about five years ago, Stefani pointed out on the forum (using a specific example) that $1.00 sales were fairly common and not necessarily indicative of the amount of money that changed hands. It was suggested at that time that these sales may have been recorded that way in an effort to avoid incurring taxation.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... eeding.htm

So now I wonder how much money was actually involved in the Fourth Street transaction? I was much happier when I thought it was a generous gesture on Lizzie and Emma's part.

I agree about feeling that way. But I don't think the Borden girls took money for the property, especially since they also gave Abbie's family other things as well. I believe there was a sum of money that was Abbie's? If they took money they could have reasonably deducted that from Abbie's personal money, right?
Why give and take at the same time?
Maybe the newspapers have a better insider view of this. It's all an interesting question- safes- and money and property changing hands.
I mean, this case is about money after all.

BTW: I would think Charles Cook would have the safe info, or Andrew's attorney.
If I ever get a safe I will give my attorney the combo. But not my Administrator. They'd have to get it from my lawyer.

Kat @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:39 am wrote:That's a good question about the safe. Why didn't anyone but Andrew (and maybe Abbie?) have the info to open it? I've often wondered that. Anyone have a decent guess?

Andy didn't patent the saying "Trust No One", but knew what's what.

Yooper @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:22 pm wrote:I think there is very little reason to own a safe if too many people have the combination, it defeats the purpose. If Andrew had a will and named an executor, the executor would have a copy of the will or would know where to find one. A copy retained by an attorney is an option if Andrew didn't want the executor known, the attorney could contact the executor. The combination to the safe might be included with the will and the documents sealed. Until Andrew died, there was no good reason for him to give anyone the combination to the safe. Maybe Andrew wasn't planning on dying anytime soon.

Don't lawyers keep a copy of the wills they execute as an arbiter? I do know that Questioned Document Examiners make a business over disputed wills and other legal deeds.

Kat @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:52 pm wrote:I agree about feeling that way. But I don't think the Borden girls took money for the property, especially since they also gave Abbie's family other things as well. I believe there was a sum of money that was Abbie's? If they took money they could have reasonably deducted that from Abbie's personal money, right?
Why give and take at the same time?
Maybe the newspapers have a better insider view of this. It's all an interesting question- safes- and money and property changing hands.
I mean, this case is about money after all.

BTW: I would think Charles Cook would have the safe info, or Andrew's attorney.
If I ever get a safe I will give my attorney the combo. But not my Administrator. They'd have to get it from my lawyer.

If your attorney has the combination, so do the people who work for him. If you don't want anyone else to access the safe, use a key or secret combination.
You do know about safety deposit boxes? NEVER use one to keep your will!!!

RayS @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:41 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:22 pm wrote:I think there is very little reason to own a safe if too many people have the combination, it defeats the purpose. If Andrew had a will and named an executor, the executor would have a copy of the will or would know where to find one. A copy retained by an attorney is an option if Andrew didn't want the executor known, the attorney could contact the executor. The combination to the safe might be included with the will and the documents sealed. Until Andrew died, there was no good reason for him to give anyone the combination to the safe. Maybe Andrew wasn't planning on dying anytime soon.

Don't lawyers keep a copy of the wills they execute as an arbiter? I do know that Questioned Document Examiners make a business over disputed wills and other legal deeds.

Yes, most attorneys keep a copy of a will they have drawn up. They are bound by an attorney/client privilege which would limit the amount of information exchanged concerning a client. When you come right down to it, the individual with the least need for a copy of a will is the author! What is he/she going to do with it?

Kat @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:52 pm wrote:I agree about feeling that way. But I don't think the Borden girls took money for the property, especially since they also gave Abbie's family other things as well. I believe there was a sum of money that was Abbie's? If they took money they could have reasonably deducted that from Abbie's personal money, right?
Why give and take at the same time?
Maybe the newspapers have a better insider view of this. It's all an interesting question- safes- and money and property changing hands.
I mean, this case is about money after all.

BTW: I would think Charles Cook would have the safe info, or Andrew's attorney.
If I ever get a safe I will give my attorney the combo. But not my Administrator. They'd have to get it from my lawyer.

Were Cook and/or Jennings with the group who opened the safe?

Witness Statements, pg. 15- I think Harrington, because he was in Boston first and meanwhile Doherty was escorting witnesses to the inquest in Fall River:
"I went again to Police Headquarters, and with a detective went to the Diebold (?) Safe Co. No. 72 Sudbury street. From there a mechanic accompanied me home. At 3.15 P. M. in company with A. J. Jennings went to open the safe. I remained there until relieved by the District Attorney at about 5. P. M."
There's more about the safe in the newspapers, I think.