Inheritance laws at the time

[RivkahChaya]

Hello-- lurking for a few months; second post.

I just read the link discussing inheritance laws in Mass. at the time of the murders. I actually came to the site looking for that sort of information, because it occurred to me that the odd timing of the deaths seems to point to one of Andrew Borden's daughters as the killer, and Lizzie was the only one there at the time.

It seems to me that anyone killing in order to commit a one-time robbery of strangers or near-strangers, or someone in a rage over something, would kill the two people very close together in time, probably killing the one downstairs first, then chasing a fleeing witness upstairs.

However, someone who wanted to make sure that the best forensics of the time could clearly determine that Abby died first, would kill her long enough in advance of Andrew that her body would be cold, blood would be congealed, and rigor might even have begun, while Andrew would be warm, and clearly just dead, when the bodies were discovered. (In that kind of situation, it would also make sense that someone who knew more of theater and novels than real-life medicine would attack someone's face, to avoid sudden, miraculous revival, or dying declarations to a doctor.)

So, Abby would be killed, left to be clearly dead, then Andrew would be killed as soon as he got home, before he had an opportunity to discover the body, he being the most likely person to do so, since Bridget wasn't looking for extra work, and Lizzie wasn't speaking to her.

The reason it makes sense for one of Andrew's daughters to do this, is to be assured of inheriting everything.

Killing Andrew while leaving Abby alive meant that, unless he had a will stipulating otherwise, she would get one-third of his estate. Actually, I was concerned that possibly she would get everything, if he died intestate, as in some places at the time, widows inherited everything from husbands who died intestate, without sons, no matter how many daughters they may have had. It wouldn't matter that Abby died before she actually took possession of anything; her share would go to her relatives.

However, killing Abby first meant that she (her relatives, that is) got nothing, and the whole estate went to the sisters.

Killing Abby, and then biding their, or her, time would be a bad idea, since Andrew could remarry, and the new wife might be younger than Lizzie. If she were murdered, that would really bring on the suspicion.

Biding time, and hoping that Abby died, then Andrew wasn't working out, since he was giving gifts to her relatives, and might make a will leaving more than 1/3 to her. And he was likely to die first, being older.

Two things probably brought pressure on Lizzie: one was the independence and luxury of the European tour, and the difficulty of returning to Fall River after; the second was the gifts to Abby's relatives.

It sounds like Lizzie tried to pull off something more cunning, like poisoning in different doses, so Abby would die, then Andrew maybe a week later, while everyone else got sick, but no one else died. But that didn't work out, and she got desperate.

It isn't proof, but the order of the deaths, the locations, and the time gap are all bizarre unless there is something specific to gain, at least in my opinion.

Any other thoughts?

[Yooper]

To my understanding of the law at the time, and if Andrew died intestate, Abby would have been entitled to the proceeds (interest) from a portion of Andrew's estate, with the principal going to Lizzie and Emma upon Abby's death. The rest of the estate not set aside in trust would have gone directly to Lizzie and Emma. So, Abby would have had an income as long as she lived, but the money set aside to generate that income would have gone to Lizzie and Emma when Abby died. Abby could have used the income to the benefit of her family, but that hardly seems sufficient motive for two murders.

A much more substantial motive would exist if Andrew had been planning to write a will. This implies that he didn't want the default (intestate) arrangement, he wanted to alter that to some degree. Possibilities are to increase or decrease Abby's interest in the estate and/or to leave something to others outside the immediate household. I seriously doubt that Andrew would have wanted to decrease Abby's interest in the estate because what she would have had was relatively minimal if he died without a will. Anything else Andrew would have changed by writing a will, increasing Abby's interest, leaving money to charity or people other than Lizzie and Emma, would have decreased Lizzie and Emma's share of the estate. Lizzie and Emma would have benefited the most if Andrew died intestate, and more so if Abby died before he did.

[DJ]

Welcome, RivkahChaya!

I think Lizzie's knowledge of contemporary forensics was limited, but agree that Mrs. Borden was her principal target. No way was Lizzie going to take out Mr. B first, then have Mrs. B dash to safety or otherwise survive.

Lizzie's Inquest testimony about going to the barn seems designed to put her out of the house while both murders were allegedly committed.

One of Lizzie's unlucky turns-- and one that makes her look all the more guilty-- is the forensics report establishing the time lapse between the murders, which increases the suspicion that Lizzie had plenty of time to clean up before her second strike.

Also, if someone were hiding that long, waiting for Mr. Borden, then why shouldn't that supposed murderer take out Lizzie and Bridget, who could have caught a glimpse and thus I.D.-ed him/her?

IOW: Why the wait to target Mr. Borden, and not bother with Lizzie and Bridget?

That made both women look like the logical suspects, until Bridget managed to convince the authorities otherwise.

To sum, Lizzie appears to have hoped the murders could have been more neatly tied together, not separated to such a degree by the forensics report.

After all, SHE knew who died first!

(Those FRPD fellows-- what if one had suggested that Abby was killed first, to bait Lizzie? "Sir, I beg to differ.... Oops!"

[snokkums]

Isn't there something with the inheirtance law that says that even if both of them were died , if Andrew died first, the inheiratance would go to Abby and then to Abby's family? I might be explaining wrong, but if Abby was alive at the time of his death, then she inheirts the estate, if it the other way around, what ever was hers goes to him even though they are dead.

[Yooper]

That's right Robin, Abby's estate went to Andrew because she died first. But if Andrew died first, the estate would have probably gone to Lizzie and Emma under the existing laws. There would have been no reason to apportion a part of the estate for Abby's benefit because she was also dead. If Abby had survived, then she would have had an income for the rest of her life, with the bulk of the estate going to Lizzie and Emma. As it was, Lizzie and Emma inherited Abby's estate along with Andrew's due to the sequence of the deaths. They wound up giving all or most of Abby's estate to her family some time after the murders.

Lizzie and Emma would have benefited directly either way, but more so if Abby died first. They wouldn't have had to wait for the amount set aside for Abby's income, they would have had it all at once.