Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have read that Lizzie wsa bit of a clypto. And that there had beena theft in the house and that Andrew took to locking his room and putting the key on the living room fire place mantel. Everyone thought that Lizzie had commited the theft.

Now, my question is this: If you are going to go thru all the trouble of locking your bedroom, why leave the key to the room on the fire place mantel?

Because then if another theft occured, and the key was used, Andrew would have the culprit pretty well narrowed down. And that was the point he was trying to make!

How do we know that Andrew kept the key on the mantle? And how do we know that he started doing that after the robbery? Did this come up in testimony somewhere?

Richard @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:00 pm wrote:How do we know that Andrew kept the key on the mantle? And how do we know that he started doing that after the robbery? Did this come up in testimony somewhere?

I think that was in Victoria Lincoln's book.

Hi, Richard, according to Bridget and Lizzie both, Andrew kept his bedroom door key in the sitting room on a shelf. Though later in Bridget's testimony she says the key was on the sitting room mantel piece.
Trial 1, page 210, Bridget on the stand:

Q. What did he do when he came down stairs?
A. He came down stairs; he went into the sitting room and put a key on the shelf in the sitting room.

Q. What key did he put on the shelf in the sitting room?
A. The key of his bedroom door.

Q. Where did he ordinarily keep that?
A. In the sitting room.

Q. On the shelf?
A. Yes, sir.

And on page 236 of the Trial 1:

Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. The next thing I remember, Mr. Borden went out in the kitchen and come in the kitchen door, come from the kitchen into the sitting room and took a key off the mantel piece and went up stairs to his room.

Q. What key was it that he took?
A. The key of his bedroom door.

And on page 267 is an interesting bit about there possibly only being one key to the elder Borden's bedroom:

Q. Mr. and Mrs. Borden had a key?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did they have more than one key to that door?
A. I don't know.

Q. They had one?
A. Yes.

Q. I mean their bedroom door up stairs?
A Yes, sir, I mean their bedroom.

Q. Their bedroom door. Going up the back stairs you would reach their bedroom door, and that key was kept on the mantel in the sitting room unless it was in use up there?
A. Yes, sir.


Now as to when this was established as the spot to leave the bedroom key is another question entirely, no definitive answer for that one.

Edit here: Oops! Our posts crossed each other, Susan-- please excuse.
(BTW: HI! Nice to hear from you!)

Bridget says the key was on the mantle. Also, Dr. Bowen had to get it to give to her and Mrs. Churchill for them to unlock the bedroom to get a sheet to cover Andrew's body.

If the bedroom door was going to be kept locked, and let's suppose there was only one key, then Abbie would also need it- so by leaving it on the mantle, an outsider would not know what it was, yet both Andrew & Abbie would have access to it and share the one key. It's been an item of discussion in the past, that since Andrew did meet people for business at home, that interior doors that were to the family's private quarters might be kept locked so the *public* did not wander into their rooms. Just one explanation.

At first, notice Bridget keeps calling its placement as on the "sitting room shelf."
But please see the testimony at the bottom here where she finally specifies the mantle.

Bridget
Prelim
21
Q. Where was Mr. Borden when you came into the dining room?
A. After coming down stairs from his room.

Q. Did you see him go?
A. I saw him take the key from the shelf.

Q. Was that after Miss Lizzie spoke to him?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Where did he take the key from?
A. Off the sitting room shelf.

Q. How did he go to go up stairs, which way?
A. The back way.
_______

Bridget
Trial
209
Q. What did he do when he came down stairs?
A. He came down stairs; he went into the sitting room and put a key on the shelf in
the sitting room.

Q. What key was it he put on the shelf in the sitting room?
A. The key of his bedroom door.

Q. Where did he ordinarily keep that?
A. In the sitting room.

Q. On the shelf
A. Yes, sir.
. . . . . . . .

223
Q. Do you know whether he took the key or not as he went up with the pitcher?
A. Yes, sir; he had the key in his hand.

Q. Did you see where the key came from?
A. He took it off of the shelf in the sitting-room.
. . . . . .

236
Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. The next thing I remember, Mr. Borden went out in the kitchen and come in the kitchen door, come from the kitchen into the sitting room and took a key off the mantel piece and went up stairs to his room.

Q. What key was it that he took?
A. The key of his bedroom door.

Q. And what stairs did he go up?
A. The back stairs.

Edit

Hi Kat, no problem, all us great sleepless minds think alike.

East Coast meets West Coast! We've missed you!

Awww, thats sweet. I do check in every day even if I don't post. I've been soooooooooo busy at work. With the economy such as it is, we've had many new clients cancel on us and have been scrambling to keep going, ugh, my brain is tired.

I've read that Andrew kept the key there purposely so Lizzie could see that the key was there, and if the room was ever broken into again they would know it was her for sure, because she would have known where the key was. This was by an author (probably Victoria Lincoln) and was only a possibility. No one that I know of ever verified this at all.

I have never seen any verification that the key was put on the mantle right after the daylight robbery, either. I would think nothing else would make sense. If he and Abby were sharing the key, he would put it somewhere hidden I'd think - if that were the only reason he needed to leave the key at home.

I am puzzled by Dr. Bowen getting the key off the mantle on that Fatal Fourth. He had not been in the Borden's house many times. Yet it sounds like he walked right to it and knew where it was. It could have been that Bridget or Lizzie asked him to get it and told him where it was. But it's never said anywhere. I imagine a lot of things that were said weren't written down.

[/i]Please give to the Edwin Porter gravestone fund. (See 'The Hatchet' main page on this website.)

Actually Dr. Bowen did not know about the key there. That is a good example of how even a neighbor would not know of it. Hidden in plain sight, so to speak. One glance at the mantle upon entering the room, and depending on whether it was Abbie or Andrew, they would know the other was in their room, or else the other forgot to put the key back, but knew they would be home and could let the other use it by asking them for it.
Also, this might be a reason Lizzie said Abbie had got a note and gone out, because when Andrew entered the sitting room he would know 2 things: that Abbie was not in their room because the key was there, and that she was not at home (because he could tell for himself she wasn't around within a very few minutes of being at home).

Here is some Bridget at the trial, about telling Bowen where to get the key. Bridget says *keys,*

Page 248

Q. What led you to go up stairs into Mrs. Borden's room? Describe all that was done and said.
A. Dr. Bowen wanted a sheet and I said "I guessed the sheets were up in Mrs. Borden's room, Mrs. Borden's desk where she kept the bed-clothes, and he wanted to get the keys, and I asked Dr. Bowen if he would get the keys off the shelf in the sitting room, and he did so and Miss Russell said she would do anything to help me. She went in and unlocked the door and got two sheets, I guess.

Q. Was it Miss Russell or Mrs. Churchill?
A. Mrs. Churchill.

Q. When you went up with the key from Dr. Bowen from the sitting room, did you find the entrance to Mr. Borden's sleeping-room locked or unlocked?
A. Locked.

Q. When you returned with the sheets did you lock the door?
A. Yes, sir.
___________________________

I am pretty sure there is more info on how Bowen came out with keys but had to return to the sitting room for the right key. Here we find him not remembering. Maybe someone can find that?

Trial
Bowen
304-5
Q. What was done in consequence of your request? Describe everything that was done.
A. Bridget Sullivan brought me a sheet.

Q. Do you know whether any one went with her or not?
A. No, sir; I do not.


Q. And I understand you, to be sure, that you do not know whether any one did or not?
A. No, sir. I do not know.

Q. Do you remember anything with reference to the key of Mr. Borden's room?
A. Not at that time; I knew afterwards.

Q. You remember how they got into Mr. Borden's room?
A. They got into Mr. Borden's room---the key was usually placed, they said, on the end of the mantel of the sitting-room.

Q. Did you notice anything with reference to it, that day?
A. With reference to--- ?

Q. With reference to the key that day?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you get the key yourself, or did any one get it in your presence to give to those who were going for a sheet?
A. I don't know sir.

Q. You would not say, one way or the other?
A. No, sir.

Q. The sheet, you say, was brought back?
A. Yes, sir.

morgan @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:13 am wrote:Because then if another theft occured, and the key was used, Andrew would have the culprit pretty well narrowed down. And that was the point he was trying to make!

How would he have it narrowed down? He would have had it narrowed down to three people: Lizzie, Bridget, and Abby. (Sorry, didn't mean to come off like I am biting your head off-- didn't mean too.Opps).

I can see your stand point of that he knew lizzie was a clypto, so if something from his room got stolen, he could narrow it to her.

I think the idea was that Lizzie, Emma, and Bridget were aware of the key on the mantel. If anything went missing from Andrew's room, and if the door showed no signs of forced entry, the first three suspects questioned by the police would be those three. The point is, they knew it.

From a practical standpoint, anything Andrew couldn't afford to do without could have been locked up somewhere else other than the bedroom. He could have obtained a larger safe if he needed something close at hand and didn't trust the door lock.

I never really thought that Andrew kept the key on the mantle as a defiance against Lizzie or trying to send her a message. If he really believed she commited the robbery, why wouldn't he keep the key in his pocket where she can't get at it? I think people have stretched it psychologically to say he was sending her a message.

At work, I have a cubicle closet that I keep my laptop locked up in. I take the key for the laptop and put it in the top drawer of my desk. A good corporate thief would know that people do this and take the key, but it provides a minimum amount of security. If I carried the key around with me, I'd either lose it, or have it at home when I need it at work.

Likewise, the admin assistant who takes care of the office supplies locked all the supplies in a cabinet and puts the key dangling on a peg right next to the cabinet. I suppose she puts it away during the evening when no one is here, and keeps it out during the day so any of us could go and get the office supplies (pads, sticky notes, pens, printing paper) without having to bother her for the key.

So I think Andrew keeping the key on the mantle made practical sense. Perhaps he kept his bedroom locked because he had money in there, or his personal valuables, and after the robbery he just was a bit paranoid.

I once had my apartment broken into and hasd $10,000 worth of possession stolen, including television, computer, stereo, family jewelry including my great-grandmother's wedding ring. After that, I started getting paranoid in my own two-room apartment about locking stuff up and hiding things to make sure that some thief would have to work hard to find it.

Andrew was a man of means with some amount of money, and after the robbery, he probably wanted to protect his room with the minimum amount of security. Putting the key on the mantle wouldn't be unusual and it would allow other people in the family to get into that room, especially Abby, to get into that room when he wasn't home.

I personally don't think the key on the mantle was a weirdness between him and Lizzie.

Also, I was thinking: Perhaps on the mantle, it was discretely slipped behind a ceramic or a framed photograph. Not cleverly hidden, still in plain sight, but not wide out in the open.

What a good post, and such good information!
I still believe Mr. Borden was more than a bit of a control freak. As Kat pointed out, he could walk in the sitting room and tell right away whether Abby (or someone else) was in the bedroom. Well, that would be the logical inference-- someone could have just taken the key. I would have disposed of the key, just to annoy the living hell out of him-- not being able to get in the bedroom, having to change the lock, etc., being one who does not suffer control freaks gladly.
I've stuck to the belief that it was also a dare to Lizzie. I've wondered, too, when she left that July, if he continued to leave the key on the mantel during the duration of her absence.
I've wondered whether Lizzie asked Bridget about this, when she returned.
It would have been a huge slap in the face for Lizzie if he didn't leave it there while she was gone. Also, it would answer many of our questions.

[Edit here: Sorry DJ, you were not there when I was posting]

I do tend to agree with Richard's point because it is reasonable. There were not hints of murder yet and so maybe too much is being read into the key-on-the-mantle, after the fact, once we know the outcome in hindsight.

(BTW:Andrew's safe was so 'safe' I think it took 2 days to get it open, the effort including hiring a guy out of Boston!)

Well, I did find where Bowen brought out the wrong key and then brought out the right key. It is Mrs. Churchill, from the Witness Statements, page 12, her "second interview" and recorded by "Doherty/Harrington," Monday, August 8, 1982:

. . .When the Doctor returned, he asked for a sheet. Bridget Sullivan, the work girl, was afraid to go up stairs alone, so I went with her. Lizzie said we would find the sheets in the dressing room, which is off of Mrs, Borden’s room. I think we waited for a key to Mrs. Borden’s room, and I think Dr. Bowen went into the sitting room to get it. If I am not mistaken, he first brought out a bunch, but the one wanted was not among them; so he went in again, and returned with a single key. We then went up stairs, and Bridget asked me if two would be enough. I said I think so, one will cover a person. But we brought down two, and gave them to Dr. Bowen. He covered Mr. Borden, and then went out. . . .

This shows so far that neither Bowen nor Churchill knew of the key on the mantle. These are neighbors and friends.

My 2 friends who live together have 1 deadbolt key to their front door that they keep on the hall stand, discreetly tucked under the edge of a decorative bowl. They each share it to open the front door to get the mail. I asked why not leave the key in the front door lock always? My friend had not a real answer to that other than someone could see it sticking out of the keyhole inside because there is glass at the door.
It didn't make sense to me to slightly hide it.
Anyway, also, they are pure creatures of habit and would never have changed their routine with the key unless forced to by some circumstance.

I don't understand the idea that Andrew may have left the key on the mantle so he could tell it was Lizzie if something was taken from his room. If everyone knew where it was, then Bridget could use it to sneak in as well. It still wouldn't be proof that Lizzie took it.

The suspicion of Lizzie as the culprit for the break in is not specifically indicated by keeping the key on the mantel. Andrew had no way of knowing who it was, but he may have had reason to suspect someone. An intruder intending to rob Andrew would have probably ransacked the house. There might well have been other things missing besides streetcar tokens, etc. While I have no idea what condition the room was found in, an intruder would have probably left a mess to some degree. The door would probably have been left wide open. There may have been good reason to suspect an inside job, who knows?

If Andrew suspected an intruder was responsible for the break in, it would have to be someone who knew what they were looking for if only Abby's belongings were missing. The intruder would have to know just where to look for them if there were no signs of random searching.

If Andrew suspected an inside job, then it would have made all the sense in the world to keep the key with him, or lock the valuables up in a safe, if theft was the point. He did not do that, so the theft of the objects was not the point. Leaving the key on the mantel was a message to whomever he may have suspected, without having to accuse that person outright.

Unless Andrew kept keys for the outside doors to the house in flowerpots, or wherever, there isn't much support for the idea of keeping the key on the mantel as a convenience. It seems out of character for Andrew to do so. Anyone as intent as Andrew to keep things locked up would not likely leave the keys lying around unless it was to prove a point.

Then we are back to an earlier question about when Andrew started locking the exterior and/or interior doors. Some base the locking on the robbery. If that is why Andrew had a locking *rule* that is one thing- but we don't know that. It has been mentioned that we don't know when, why or how this habit started. So we can't know why Andrew left his and Abbie's bedroom key on the mantle.

Morse says pretty much, I think, that Andrew had always been careful about the doors. We would need more than logic to figure this out.

The thing that implicates Lizzie in the theft originally seems to come from a *leak* from the grand jury. That is spurious at best. Is there another more legitimate source for Lizzie being the culprit? We would need that in order to assume she is a target of some kind of special signal to her by Andrew as to where he keeps his key, to be fair, I think.

It seems logical to assume that after the robbery Andrew would have put anything of value in the safe regardless of who he may have suspected.

I don't know why Andrew would have left the key on the mantel. Perhaps it may be as simple as there was only one key. If that's true and since it was a key to an interior door there would be no reason to carry it on his person. Abby would need it when Andrew was not home.

There is an indication that Abby had access to the safe. The Boston Globe of August 12th contains an interview with Sarah Whitehead, Abby's half-sister and perhaps Abby's closest friend. In it she says:

"The money found in the Borden safe was undoubtedly Mrs. Borden's, as she always kept the money she wanted to use there. She had a dislike for checks, and when she went shopping always took the necessary money out of the safe instead of drawing checks to pay for her purchases."

We don't know the extent of the trust Andrew had in Bridget. To get to her room Bridget had to pass by that locked door. Perhaps he thought there would be too much of a temptation to leave it open.

There is not enough information to arrive at a conclusion about what Andrew had in mind with the key on the mantel. It certainly does not target anyone specifically, other than the immediate household, if it was done as a message to anyone. If the theft of the objects was the focus of Andrew's actions, he could have, or probably did, lock them in the safe. There were far better solutions to that problem than locking the bedroom door. Here we arrive at the point of valuables locked in the safe or removed from the house and locked up elsewhere. Now, why lock the bedroom door at all? The valuables are secured and the silverware in the dining room is probably worth more than the bed sheets and pillowcases. The outside door locks are in place and working, and they are trusted far enough to secure the rest of the house other than the bedroom.

If Andrew began the practice after the break in, it was almost certainly a message to someone. It made absolutely no sense otherwise. If Andrew had always left the key on the mantel, it is inconclusive.

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility of a frame-up? A household member trying to frame Sarah Whitehead, for instance?

Just another thought addressing the other side of the issue; the message might have been a token of trust rather than distrust. This also assumes Andrew began the practice after the break in. If Andrew somehow thought it necessary to lock the bedroom, but did not want Lizzie, Bridget, and Emma to think he distrusted them, he might have left the key on the mantel with their knowledge. This is a bit shaky because it presumes he did not completely trust the outside door locks. That point could be argued with the fact of three locks on one door, no one lock by itself was ever completely trusted.

I think the daylight robbery was done by Lizzie, and I think it was done to show people that a crime could be committed in the Borden house in broad daylight with people in the house, so that when the murders occurred it would be said that, "Well, there was another crime committed there in broad daylight with people about." And that was picked up in the press.

It took place, though, in June of 1891. That seems pretty far removed from the date of the murders. I wonder if it could have been one of Lizzie's acts of kleptomania.

I have read that Andrew put a stop to the investigation because the police would never find who did it. (I have looked and so far cannot find the source for this.) This infers that Andrew knew who did it. But he did not tell who it was.

Andrew did know about Lizzie's kleptomania. When it happened, the shopkeepers sent Andrew the bill. I gotta say, she'd be my first suspect.

Lizzie was extra helpful when the robbery occurred. I read something about her showing the cops how a nail was used to gain entrance.

The only thing disturbed during that robbery was Andrew's desk, which had been rifled through. (Sourcebook, page 39.) I have read that only Abby's things were taken. I have also read that Lizzie gave the stolen horsecar tickets to friends who used them. Personally, I doubt that last line. I only read it in one place (can't find it just yet), and it sounds too sensational. Just my opinion.

I don't think the daylight robbery happened in the Bordens' bedroom. I just read something last nite in the Sourcebook, but didn't mark it, that it took place in the room next to their bedroom.

I've read about the key on the mantle since I was a little kid, and I never did understand it. All the posts here are interesting and thought provoking.

I'd think Andrew would keep the safe locked. Well, he's got Lizzie living there for one, with her penchant for stealing. But it goes with his triple-lock system of the front door and the feel of need to lock up tight, day or night. He had money, and everyone knew it. Who knew what he kept at home? He was a potential target for thieves.

Locking his bedroom makes sense, even if Lizzie didn't exist. If a thief got as far as getting in the house, then by thunder he'd stop him at his room. Remember, he kept a club under his bed, too. If the thief made it thru all else, he would still have his club. I don't think he'd use the club on Lizzie. I think that club was for outsiders only.

Maybe what is stranger, is why did Lizzie lock and barricade her bedroom door?

Those are some interesting points.

Andrew may have called off the investigation because he didn't think the police would find the thief..or because he thought they would and he didn't want them to know who it was.

If a thief was able to get through the outside doors, why would an interior door stop him? It might slow him down a bit, but not much other than that.

If a nail was used in the break in, was it used in conjunction with the interior door, the exterior door, or both?

Yooper - I think you're exactly right about why Andrew called the police off the 'daylight robbery' case. He was so close-mouthed, darn it!

Ha! That's true - why would locking an interior door do any good? I guess it would buy Andrew some time to try to ready a defense. With the clatter a thief might make, maybe Andrew thought he would be able to hear a burglar before being busted in on in his sleep.

That club under his bed ... What good would that do against a thief who had a gun? True, Andrew was a Quaker and might not have a gun. But then that club was a weapon, same as a gun would be a weapon. I wonder why Andrew didn't have a pistol in his room, since he was locked up like Fort Knox there.

I don't know which door, inner or outer, that the nail was used to enter. If I could find the source to it, it tells there. I'm still lookin'.

Looking at this from another perspective: If Lizzie (or Bridget or Emma) committed the thievery, surely they would have realized there would be consequences from such-- that the house would go on further lockdown. That security would be even tighter after the crime, regardless of who committed it.

Here's another perspective: If Lizzie committed the crime, maybe it was a passive-aggressive way of rattling Abby and/or Andrew.

Then, there's Augusta's perspective: Maybe Lizzie was thinking of murder even at that date, and maybe the robbery was staged as a prelude to something bigger, that Lizzie put the kibosh on, for whatever reason.
(Maybe she was planning to chloroform them in their bedroom, but Andrew started locking the door at night!)

I'm just one of those who believes the murders were planned. So, it's not a big leap for me to believe that Lizzie might have been thinking of killing her parents the year before. If Emma had an inkling of Lizzie's murderous intent, she probably would have put a halt to it. I don't think Emma wanted to be around if and when Abby died, as their dislike of each other was firmly established, and she would probably be accused.
It's not a big leap, in my theorizing, that Emma left the house the month prior to the murders in order to open the door for Lizzie to proceed, without Emma on the premises.

I also think if Lizzie committed the robbery, it was in keeping with her kleptomaniac tendencies and also to provoke Andrew/Abby. It may have been the first step in her murderous scheme. I read somewhere that she had nearly $3,000 in bank accounts around town. If this was true, did she not have access to the money?

I'm very sure Lizzie had access to her own bank account, kssunflower. It was not enough for her. Not when Father has so much more.

I was reading in the "Sourcebook" last night that Andrew had been preparing to make a will for the previous ten days to his murder. He was making an inventory of all his stuff, the article said. And he made a comment about he was going to do his will his own way. I think the same article said he and Abby Borden had a lot of affection for each other and that she had a big influence on him. Personally, I think that article is bogus. But from dribs and drabs from Morse reading, I do think Andrew was gonna make a will and that's what sparked things off.

I agree that that robbery could have been one of Lizzie's kleptomania episodes.

Kleptomaniacs usually don't really need the thing they take. They usually do it for the rush it gives them. (I did read a book on it to try to understand what Lizzie had.)

(Lizzie's favorite football team was the Pittsburgh Steelers.)

augusta @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:36 pm wrote:Yooper - I think you're exactly right about why Andrew called the police off the 'daylight robbery' case. He was so close-mouthed, darn it!

Ha! That's true - why would locking an interior door do any good? I guess it would buy Andrew some time to try to ready a defense. With the clatter a thief might make, maybe Andrew thought he would be able to hear a burglar before being busted in on in his sleep.

That club under his bed ... What good would that do against a thief who had a gun? True, Andrew was a Quaker and might not have a gun. But then that club was a weapon, same as a gun would be a weapon. I wonder why Andrew didn't have a pistol in his room, since he was locked up like Fort Knox there.

I don't know which door, inner or outer, that the nail was used to enter. If I could find the source to it, it tells there. I'm still lookin'.

If the nail was used on the interior door, then Andrew was locking his bedroom at the time of the robbery rather than as the result of the robbery. I have to wonder how long that club had been kept under the bed. If that was a recent development, then why did Andrew fear for his safety at that point?

DJ, I have often thought that Emma and Lizzie were giving Abby the Gaslight treatment, trying to subtly drive her nuts. I think the primary power struggle existed between Emma and Abby, Lizzie had been a pawn up to a point. Items went missing from her room in the robbery, her door key was missing as of two days before the murders, who knows what else might have occurred but went unreported to anyone. Abby's complaint to Dr. Bowen about someone trying to poison them tends to bear this out, also. The robbery may have been a message to Abby to not get too relaxed!

augusta @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:31 pm wrote:
(Lizzie's favorite football team was the Pittsburgh Steelers.)

!!

Lizzie as *klepto* has not been fully embraced as a character trait by everyone- at least I waffle on that.

The info about the robbery is in the Knowlton Papers by Desmond, who investigated.**

I was reading The Fall River Evening News item tonight, from May 22, 1893, "Lizzie Borden's Case" and it said, "...the mysterious robbing of Mr. Borden's safe some months before the murders may also cut some figure."

A later item in the same paper, dated May 24, 1893, also called "Lizzie Borden's Case", but is quoting New Bedford, says this, included in "six leading features in the coming trial": #2- the mysterious robbery of Andrew Borden's safe some months before his death..." [and later] "The robbery of Mr. Borden's safe, while undoubtedly mysterious and possibly, when unexplained, tending to throw suspicion upon some member of the family, it is said can easily be met by the defense, in so far as removing any conclusive reason for laying it at Lizzie's door. This whole episode will probably be treated as a hearsay exaggeration."

I can't figure out why it keeps saying Mr. Borden's safe was robbed. If so, that is big.

I agree with Harry and Yoopers previous post on the page before this one.

Also, remember that screen door was only *locked* by a hook. Anyone intent on formal burglary could cut that screen, pretty easily I'd think. That hook does not protect the house. I like the idea that Andrew locking his bedroom door was just a precaution- and maybe because that screen door was not really secure.

**Maybe Harry can put Desmond's note here?

Personally, I think there's enough stuff out there that makes me believe Lizzie was indeed a kleptomaniac. It will never be proven how often she did it, but I think she did do it.

I could post some examples, but I'd have to post the sources, which would take me a long time to find.

I have been studying a lot of news coverage on Lizzie this past year, and it is irksome to see articles contradicting one another; important words changed, some things just made up.

The robbing of Andrew's safe was a good find, Kat! My gut reaction is that they were talking about the daylight robbery when his desk was robbed. Just a guess.

I am aware that the screen door was locked by a hook. There was a wooden door there, too, and I'll bet if it could be locked at night it was. My point was that Andrew locked whatever he could lock.

The triple lock on the front door no longer seems like 'overkill' to me, since I learned that the spring lock on that door sometimes did not work.

Here is Desmond's report about the robbery from The Knowlton Papers.

HK067
Letter, typewritten, with enclosure handwritten in ink.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.
New Bedford, Mass., Sept. 9, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Dear Sir,
The enclosed reports gives all the facts the police had in regard to the burglary. It certainly lends some additional mystery to the case.
Please keep it among the papers.

If you see Wood ask him if he thinks there would be any use in now examining a gossamer which was found in the closet with no apparent stains upon it, whether it could be easily cleaned so that blood could not be found anywhere upon it.
What has become of the fifth hatchet?
Yours truly,

H. M. Knowlton,
per M. E.

Enclosure:

On or about the 24 of June 1891 I was called into City Marshal's office.

"Marshal Hilliard said "Mr Desmond, Mr Borden says his house has been robbed. You go with him, and see what there is to it." Mr Borden and myself left the office and went direct to Mr Borden's house Second St. I found there Mrs Borden, Emma Borden Lizzie Borden & Bridget Sullivan.

On 2nd floor in a small room on north side of house I found Mr Borden's desk. It had been broken open. Mr Borden said "$80.00 in money and 25 to 30 dollars in gold, and a large number of H car tickets had been taken. The tickets bore name or signature of Frank Brightman."
Brightman was a former treasurer of Globe St. railroad co.

Mrs. Borden said "her gold watch & chain, ladies chain, with slide & tassel attached, some other small trinkets of jewelry, and a red Russia leather pocket-book containing a lock of hair had been taken. I prize the watch very much, and I wish & hope that you can get it; but I have a feeling that you never
will." Nothing but the property of Mr & Mrs Borden reported as missing.

The family was at a loss to see how any person could get in, and out without somebody seeing them. Lizzie Borden said "the cellar door was open, and someone might have come in that way." I visited all the adjoining houses, including the Mrs Churchills house on the north, Dr Kelly's house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon's house on the east, and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person
who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr Borden's house; but I failed to find any trace.

I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which "Lizzie Borden said she found in the Key hole of door," leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of building. So far as I know this robbery has never been solved.

P .S. Mr Borden told me three times within two weeks after the robbery in these words "I am afraid the police will not be able to find the real thief."

(Note: "Capt. Desmonde" and "Robbery Case" handwritten in lead and ink respectively on reverse side of document.)

Yooper posted:

If the nail was used on the interior door, then Andrew was locking his bedroom at the time of the robbery rather than as the result of the robbery.

--partial

That is a good point and one not noticed before. Good job.

Also, I love this interpretation, because it is different:
Yooper post:

Just another thought addressing the other side of the issue; the message might have been a token of trust rather than distrust. This also assumes Andrew began the practice after the break in. If Andrew somehow thought it necessary to lock the bedroom, but did not want Lizzie, Bridget, and Emma to think he distrusted them, he might have left the key on the mantel with their knowledge. This is a bit shaky because it presumes he did not completely trust the outside door locks. That point could be argued with the fact of three locks on one door, no one lock by itself was ever completely trusted.

That last point is why I reminded us that the screen door wasn't really secure with just a hook.

As for Lizzie saying the cellar door was open and that is how a thief got in, people can probably go to town on that one, as we've already been discussing Morse claiming the cellar door was "open" on the Thursday of the murders.

I wonder what day of the week was 24 June 1891- a *washing day or drying day*, meaning a Monday or Tuesday?

I wonder whether Lizzie knew how much the watch meant to Abby. She probably did-- I return to the perspective of the robbery having been committed to rattle Andrew's and Abby's nerves. Moreover, if Abby lost something of great sentimental value, too, and Lizzie knew that that would upset her ... then all the more satisfaction for Lizzie, if she did it.

Also, too, the psychology of the act has many layers, if Lizzie did it. Could she have been testing the waters, to see whether Andrew would turn her in, or would he protect her?

Yes, Kat, there's that darn cellar door, again! It's interesting that Lizzie points to that in the robbery, but not in the case of the murders.
As I posted earlier, I don't see why Lizzie didn't slash the dadgum screen door-- at the time of the robbery, and at the time of the murders--
if she did either, or both.

Well, it certainly seems coincidental that the cellar door was pointed to in both cases. That does tend to indicate a preconceived story in the latter situation.
There's a lot of spurious info out there on this robbery and personally I'd really like to be very careful here that we know what is *reliable* at least.
Knowlton writes in September, 1892 that "The enclosed reports gives all the facts the police had in regard to the burglary."
However, there were grand jury *leaks* (or made-up stories that they called leaks) and later news tidbits that seem to blame Lizzie, and these took on a life of their own.

Notice all the money? Wouldn't that be a large enough sum to store in the safe, plus Abbie's valuables? Maybe it was the safe that was broken into and not a "desk."

Also we can see how the stories changed from this vivid-enough police report that both Mr. and Mrs. Borden's things were stolen, to a later *fact* or interpretation that *only Abbie's stuff was taken* (except for the horsecar tickets), which we have read in other less-careful sites and books.

The nail was supposedly found in the interior door, and whether it was actually found there or not is not important. Either way, it implies a lock was in use on the interior door and something was needed to open it, whether a nail or a key. There remains an unanswered question as to whether Andrew kept the key on the mantel before the robbery or not. If he did, there is no point to be made. If he did not, then it may still imply a message, but less pointedly.

What I find odd is Andrew's phrasing about the police not being able to find the "real" thief, and that it was stated three times in two weeks. Abby also expressed doubts about her belongings being recovered, but that seems like a fairly normal sentiment under the circumstances. Andrew may have been challenging the police and their presumed lack of effectiveness, or perhaps he meant something else by "the real thief".

One thing a daylight robbery does is to establish a precedent for an intruder coming and going unnoticed. Whether it was done intentionally for that reason, or simply reflected upon at the time of the murders is another question. It would have encouraged Lizzie if she was responsible for both.

Yes, to me it is like *in hindsight*- Lizzie killed cats we hear after the murders. Somehow cat stories are collected and used against her- but not before. Also, that Lizzie stole things- stories erupt and are collected after the murders, but not that we know of before. It's very hard to separate what are stories and what are real and what are exaggerations. I think the robbery is like this, as is the key. Legends are born, but after the murders.
These things are brought up in society to prove Lizzie capable of murder.

When I find the report, whether it is in the newspapers or not, that there was a string of robberies in the area at the time of this one, I will post it. If anyone is familiar with that source, please weigh in with it?

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/ind ... &country=1

June 24, 1891 was a Wednesday. It's possible Bridget was still drying laundry on a Wednesday, but I think she is used to getting the laundry in on Tuesday so Andrew can bolt the cellar.

The $80 in money and $25 in gold is worth about $2,100 in money in 1891, if I multiply by 20. That's enough to put in a safe, isn't it? If not, what the heck did Andrew really keep in there?

Another rather obvious reason for Lizzie to stage a robbery, if she actually did, would be to induce Andrew to move from that neighborhood.

$2,100 in today's money would probably be more than most of us would just leave lying around. Andrew seems to have locked the money and other valuables in his desk, which was in a locked bedroom, which was in a locked house. I would probably feel secure under those circumstances if I had never been robbed or had my house broken into.

Maybe Andrew kept the REALLY valuable stuff in the safe! Whatever that might be! If the safe was a pain in the neck to open after the murders, maybe it was a pain in the neck for Andrew to open, too. I imagine Andrew would have liked a safe like that! I agree though, the safe would have been a more sensible choice for the currency and the gold.

Here are 2 newspapers on the *robbery* or *burglary*- I put it in *stars* because I'm not sure if they are interchangeable, so I searched both terms. (I'm still looking for the story of other local break-ins.)

Evening Standard, August 13, 1892

...”Police inquiry is being made again into the details of a mysterious robbery which took place at the Borden homestead about a year ago.
A ladies watch and several articles of jewelry were taken from a dressing case in one of the upper rooms, and to this day the police have been unable to trace the thief.”

Also:

September 24, 1892
[While Bridget was testifying, Prelim]...”About this time lawyer Jennings pulled the coattail of Mr. Adams and there was a whispered conference. The district attorney winked at Marshal Hilliard and the marshal smiled. The robbery business was dropped by Mr. Adams, after that conference with Mr. Jennings, like a shot. Why? Well, that's for some bright newspaper man to find out. And it wasn't once alluded to by Mr. Jennings in his argument except in a general way, when he referred to the police knowing that the house had been burglarized when nobody in the house knew of the circumstances. Yes, the police did know that the house was burglarized, and they knew that some money and a watch had been missing after the burglary. And the police know something more, without a doubt. They know why the case wasn't followed, but it is questioned by those who ought to know if the police have found out yet just what the whole results of that robbery was, and how many articles disappeared besides the money and watch. It would not be surprising if it came out before this thing ended that the Bordens themselves stopped the police inquiry into that robbery, and it may be that Marshal Hilliard is backed up in his opinion of what course to take because in possession of certain facts which lead him to believe the worst of Lizzie Borden. It is hinted strongly that there were things taken from that house that an ordinary thief would have no use for, and that the money and watch was simply taken as a blind to throw Mr. Borden off the track. And when the real object of the thief was discovered proceedings were stopped and a family scandal checked right there. This is the theory of one or two who have been following the case pretty closely and who are well acquainted with all the parties interested.”...etc

Also:
October 10, 1892 there is the robbery included in the Trickey/McHenry mess in the Globe, which I will not include.
Also:
Tuesday, November 22, 1892
[ A leak from the grand jury. Please note that there are claims made in this section that I have not included, and which are spurious- no one ever knows what exactly is spoken in any grand jury inquiry- it is secret, and illegal to divulge the statements made there by witnesses. This next part also falls under that category ]:

...”Chief Hilliard also told the members of the grand jury why it was that the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs. Borden's watch and property about a year before the murder was never publicly accused. This peculiar burglary has been frequently referred to as showing the possibility of an assassin entering the house and committing his bloody deed without discovery. The chief said he was satisfied that Lizzie committed the theft, and went on to say how he convinced Mr. Borden that such was the case. All the articles stolen at that time were the property of Mrs. Borden, and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse railroad tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie never had any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation of the matter.
A number of such points were brought to the attention of the grand jury which never before have been made public, and they added much strength to the case."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Boston Globe, June 9, 1893
...”Judge Mason would not allow Bridget to testify, although it is a matter of record, concerning a burglary which occurred in the house in broad daylight when all the occupants were in, or concerning a robbery in the barn, both incidents, in the judgment of the court, being too remote to be in any way connected with the present investigation. It was learned from Bridget, however, that the burglaries did occur, and the point sought to be made by the defence was that if these burglaries could be committed when everybody was present it was equally easy for the murder to be done when there was but one person in the house.”

also:

June 12, 1893
... "What does Bridget know about the burglary of the Borden house some time ago?
Does she know the man who committed it? Has she a sort of a kind of an idea that that man committed the murder? Does she and Lizzie Borden share that secret between them, or does uncle Morse know something about it as well? Those are three very peculiar people, Bridget, Lizzie and uncle. Combined they form a suggestive trinity, and there is not much excellence about it either.
There is something in the air, and perhaps the rumor that detective McHenry is in town, and that he and his wife are to take the stand for the prosecution, will prove a key with which to unlock the mystery. One thing is certain. Robinson was not permitted to open Bridget’s mouth concerning the burglary. If he could have got his wrench in, who knows what he might have found? There are

All Sorts of Rumors

about Bridget’s knowledge of the burglary, as there are, too, concerning detective McHenry and his extraordinary efforts, first, to weave a web about Lizzie Borden, and second, to keep himself un ungetable hiding."

Perhaps this was something else the court successfully squelched. Robbery or burglary is a far cry from murder, and no one had been formally accused of the burglary. Hilliard's satisfaction as to the culprit behind the burglary is not hard evidence. Testimony from those to whom Lizzie gave the tickets might be considered evidence, but it was a trial for murder, not burglary. Inclusion of the information would have seriously undermined Lizzie's stature as the poor, defenseless orphan however, not to mention her standing in the Truth and Veracity League.

It could be that because of the unresolved robbery, the police zeroed in on Lizzie rather quickly. They may have been called off the robbery investigation, but that did not mean they could not have their suspicions of Lizzie as they wished.

Definitions per Merriam-Webster Online:

robbery: the act or practice of robbing; specifically : larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat.

burglary: the act of breaking and entering a dwelling at night to commit a felony (as theft); broadly: the entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime.

Interesting. Note the at night.

larceny, per the same source, is defined as: the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently.

Partial quote:

Kat @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:27 pm wrote:When I find the report, whether it is in the newspapers or not, that there was a string of robberies in the area at the time of this one, I will post it. If anyone is familiar with that source, please weigh in with it?

There is is this in Rebello, page 36:

"... There had been a series of robberies in Fall River just preceding this, and a young man was finally tripped up with a lot of sized keys in his possession, but there seems to have been something distinctive about this theft that did not indicate an expert.
Mr. Borden was a director in the street railway company, and the tickets stolen were those issued only to directors. Consequently, being of such limited issue, it was comparatively easy to trace the thief the minute the tickets were presented. The amount of money taken was not large.
A watch was kept on the street cars for several weeks, but just what the detective's work disclosed will not be known before the trial, for suddenly, Mr. Borden told the officers to drop the case. It is said, however, that the tickets were traced to some person.
It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed. - Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893"