Page 1 of 1

Was Andrew Healthy?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:57 am
by augusta
Has anyone else thought that Andrew Borden was a very healthy 69 year old man?

I'm basing this on his autopsy photo, which is a heck of a way to judge, but it's the only picture we'll ever have of him nekked, or even near to.

I had always thought he was this frail, tall, bent-over man, selling eggs thru his back door, whose days were numbered (or hours, as the case may be). Does anyone know how old he was in that photo of his we always see, a head shot in his black suit? (I was surprised to read recently that Abby was only like 54 when her usually-seen photo was taken.)

Abby had some things that we could call real health problems. She was overweight, which nowadays we know is bad for you. And they found that female problem - oh, memory don't fail me now... Well, it did fail me (thanks a LOT, memory!) I don't know what would happen to her since it was left untreated.

But I was surprised to see Andrew's unclothed body. It looked like the body of a much younger man than I expected. And the doctors didn't find a thing wrong with him.

But did they really LOOK? :shock: Or did they just kind of give him a checkup (after removing the stomach - a part of their theory that could have done him in), because they knew the cause of his death was being bludgeoned by a hatchet? Maybe it'd be like doing an autopsy (which is required) on people who are executed. You know darn well how they died, but how meticulous is the autopsy? Have any of those ever come back with other things wrong on them?

I am inclined to think that had Lizzie waited, Abby would have died first. And Andrew may have lived a long time after. If he lived till he was 90, Lizzie would have been about 52 and, geez, she died at what, 65 or 66? And Emma would have been about 61 and probably senile or close to it. (I'm thinking her death certficate read that she was senile the last two years of her life.)

I think someone commented on the Forum earlier that just because the life expectancy in 1892 was ____, there were a lot of people that lived a very long time.

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:19 pm
by DJ
I'm with you Augusta-- Andrew's body looks pretty good (aside from the head, of course) in those autopsy photos. Considering how much he walked, took stairs, and dined on fresh, unprocessed foods-- and lived without stress of money problems-- he seems to have been a prime candidate to have made it 20 more years.

Barring food poisoning (or just plain poisoning), an infection, or accident, he probably would have kept on keeping on, like the Energizer Bunny.

Even if Andrew began making charitable bequests of monies and/or properties out of his estate, one wonders whether Lizzie would have done him in if Abby were dead and gone. That's quite a question!

Seems to me Lizzie's (and Emma's) major concern was *Abby having as little as possible.*

Still, I think Lizzie would have worked her widower Father hard to relocate to better digs. If he had dug in his heels, Lizzie might have put a little chloroform on a pillow and held it over his face just a tad too long, while he was in repose.

"Mrs. Churchill, Father has stopped breathing."

(I believe Lizzie may have justified killing Andrew by thinking, "He's lived his three score years and ten. He's going to die soon, anyway." Which simply may not have been the case.)

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:07 am
by Angel
I seem to remember, but don't know from where, that Andrew had a hernia and had to wear a truss.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:43 am
by snokkums
I didn't realize Abby was onlly 54. I thought that she was older; she certainly looked older. At least, all the pictures I have ever seen of her, she looked older.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:01 pm
by Yooper
Abby was 64 at the time of her death.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:27 pm
by Harry
Angel @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:07 am wrote:I seem to remember, but don't know from where, that Andrew had a hernia and had to wear a truss.
Right you are, Angel. Dr. Dolan's report of the second autopsy at the cemetery, lists "Inguinal hernia on right side." The truss was one of the items in the clothing pile in the cellar.

Here's a description:

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorder ... a-symptoms

(Just getting back on line. My modem died. :cry: )

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:02 am
by snokkums
Oh, guess I was wrong on the age. Don't know why I thought she was only 64. I think Andrew was in good health considering his age. He did walk alot. And something tells me he wasn't a glutton for food. Probably just his miserly ways-- waste not want not.

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:32 am
by Yooper
I expect Andrew was in reasonably good health for his age. I don't imagine he was too fond of doctors in general, so he likely kept minor aches and pains quiet. He had sold his horse and buggy some time before the murders, maybe he didn't want the chores of feeding and watering a horse any more. He could hire transportation to and from Swansea, or have the farm hands transport him.

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:36 pm
by SallyG
Andrew was probably a lot healthier than a lot of US. I remember my grandmother walked everywhere she went up until she died at age 78. She never drove a car and only took a taxi when the weather was inclement. She walked to work about a mile and a half each way every day, summer and winter. I can honestly say that at my age, 53, she was probably in much better health than I am. She was rarely sick a day in her life, ate moderately, and never smoked or drank.

Everyone thinks of Andrew as a miser, but was he, really? He lived well within his means, did not indulge in extravagances, and was a good businessman. His family was not deprived of necessities; they did not live a luxurious life, but they certainly had all the necessities of life. Bridget, the housekeeper, was well paid and was obviously not overworked. The girls were able to travel and did not have to work, and they had adequate spending money.

If they didn't like their lot in life, they could have improved it by marrying, but they chose not to do that. Why they didn't, I have no idea; they were not bad looking girls and could probably have attracted suitors. I'm sure Abby and Andrew would have been more than happy to see them married off.

Getting off the subject, however....yes, I'm sure Andrew was healthy for his age. Of course, disease and death were commonplace back then, and he could have died 6 months later from natural causes, but at the time he was probably doing quite well.

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:14 pm
by Harry
According to this life expectancy chart in 1890 a man 70 years old had a life expectancy of 9.35 more years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

According to the footnote these figures were for white males in Massachusetts.

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:58 am
by augusta
Oh, of course! Angel is right! I totally forgot about his truss. Thanks, Angel.

I was real surprised at the life expectancy table for men in 1890 that Harry posted the link to. (Thanks, Harry!) I would have thought probably 70 would have been closer to it.

It was very interesting, reading the info on the hernia and the truss that Harry posted the link to. (Thanks, Harry!)

Regarding a truss, it said that one shouldn't be worn unless specifically ordered by a doctor. And back then, even if Andrew saw a doctor about it maybe the rule of thumb then was that a truss was good for it. Maybe Andrew was doing more harm than necessary to it from the truss?

The hernia must have been painful to Andrew. Maybe the truss relieved some of the pain? I would not think he and Abby had a sex life while Andrew had that hernia. What say you?

General Custer's wife walked a mile a day, and she lived to be I think 90.
I have/had doctors that really stress walking as great exercise. And yes, Andrew walked around a bit.

Wasn't it a year before the murders that he got rid of his horse? It's mentioned somewhere - I'm guessing the Inquest Testimony - when they're talking about when was the last time Lizzie went to the bahn, I think.

Andrew sounded to me like he was 3/4s a miser, but could be pressured by three females to keep peace in the house. It sounds like Bridget did hardly anything, but back then doing the laundry alone like they did was back breaking work. And the cooking was harder. Yeah ... I never looked at it that way before. I always thought it was an extravagence for them to have Bridget, but if it got me out of those two chores - and window washing about every two weeks - I'd be asking for a servant girl. Their household was used to one from having one prior. Still, Andrew could have told them "Be off my back, women! If you spent half as much time doing these chores you detest as you do grumbling, you'd be done by now!" :mad:

I agree with SallyG, that Bridget was not overworked. I think that nap-before-the-noon-day-meal was a daily routine.

What happens to an untreated hernia? How long can a person have one without it getting worse?

I wonder if 'the girls' knew he had it? I wouldn't think that back then, Andrew wouldn't have made it known to them.

Enjoyed your post, DJ. :grin: Yeah, chloroform for Andrew. That would fit.

I think Lizzie would have killed her father (or had him killed) even if Abby was dead. He still held most of the cards. He had the power, and 'the girls' didn't.

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:46 pm
by Kat
snokkums @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:02 am wrote:Oh, guess I was wrong on the age. Don't know why I thought she was only 64. I think Andrew was in good health considering his age. He did walk alot. And something tells me he wasn't a glutton for food. Probably just his miserly ways-- waste not want not.
The confusion is because of the age of Abbie in her photograph, compared to the age she was when killed.
It was surmised Abbie was 54 in that small portrait, and we know she was 64 when died, per the autopsy report.
~~~~

As for the *female problem*- that is also the autopsy report info:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibr ... Borden.htm

ABDOMEN, Stomach and part of bowel had been removed. Spleen, pancreas, kidneys, liver, bladder and intestines were normal. Womb was the seat of a small fibroid tumor on anterior surface. Fallopian tubes and ovaries normal. Lower bowel empty. Upper portion of small bowel containing undigested food.

--That fibroid is not unusual, and not life-threatening. It might make her period more cramping. A pregnancy can actually be helpful in reducing symptoms of fibroid.

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:25 pm
by SteveS.
Kat @ Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:46 pm wrote:

--That fibroid is not unusual, and not life-threatening. It might make her period more cramping. A pregnancy can actually be helpful in reducing symptoms of fibroid.

At 64 I would hope that Abbie's period days were long over and if the poor woman had to worry about getting pregnant then she gets even more sympathy from me then she allready has.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:37 am
by Kat
Well, men may not know this, but the fibroid problem was probably longstanding. Some believe that complications from many fibroids can interfere with a woman's ability to achieve pregnancy.

Of couse, I refer to her breeding years as a time when excess cramping etc. may have led to more discomfort than usual. It would have been likely considered as a chronic condition- (in my meaning) that she would always have it.