Lizzie Borden Society Forum

With recent directions our researches are going, there is a tendency to think Andrew may have had a history of doing some pretty bad things. On the other hand there wasn't a general idea at the time of Andrew being this kind of person. If he repeatedly messed with maids, maybe got one of more pregnant, it seems to me there might have been gossip at the time. I realise incest, even years of incest, may never have been known outside the family. But recently we have some idea that Irish maids may have been dishonoured.

So another important direction to look is for ONE incident that could have enraged for instance an Irish Catholic family. Something so big they stayed mad for years. Throw in also the class division in FR, how the workers felt about the rich and successful like Andrew and his family.

Reconsider the daylight robbery that preceded the murders by about a year. I say no way Lizzie was stupid enough to give those car tickets to someone. Who would she give them to? Church ladies? Sunday school students? Yet there is a tradition that the tickets were used and someone allegedly said Lizzie gave him(?) the tickets. Andrew wanted it hushed up. Told his family to hush it up. Yet both Lizzie and Abby mentioned it to others shortly before the murders. I really don't think Lizzie was suspected. So why else did Andrew want is hushed up? To not even allow the family to speak of it?

Abby didn't seem to fear Lizzie. She seemed to fear an outside agent poisoning milk for instance. She surely didn't think Lizzie was getting up early and poisoning milk. Or did Abby fear the milk was being poisoned specifically for them at the dairy farm? They owned that dairy farm didn't they? (Isn't that where Elsie the Cow lived? ) Can we trace out any family connexions between maids, farms, criminal activities, etc.?

I agree, had he been guilty of forcing himself on his maids, there would have been rumors, gossip and a high turn over rate and this would surely have come out at some point, even if it wasn't until after his murder. If sexual behavior went on for some time with maids, or the sisters-- why no pregnancies we have heard more concrete rumors about?

I am not a supporter of the incest theory. But I would say:

1) Yes, Andrew need not have been a monster, I agree, but this doesn't exclude the possibility that he was a monster.

2) Being no pregnancies does not exclude the possibility that Andrew had done ugly things. If he did molest the girls, why do you think that Andrew was not capable to avoid the pregnancies?

3) No rumors...ok. But what if his victims were only his two daughters (or only Emma)? He might have been more certain of the silence of his own daughters, but not that of the servants, so he didn't touch them? What if Bridget wanted to leave just because she found something unusual, but herself was not a victim of Andrew's ugly deed?

I repeat, I am not saying that I believe the incest theory, but the question is open for me.

What I have suggested here really isn't about incest because that can be hidden forever. I'm encouraging everyone to think, research, whatever, for one incident that could have caused simmering hatred for decades and ended in murder. What might point this way. What has been suggested about Andrew and the maids implies someone did have a long term hatred for Andrew. If so, how do other facts support this?

I was thinking too that it has come up a number of times, who would Lizzie take the rap for? If she knew who did it and kept her mouth shut, who would it have been. What if she didn't know WHO but kept her mouth shut about some dark family secret in honour of her dead father. She may not have realised what she was doing in the beginning and then it wouldn't have mattered later to explain this or that.

No known pregnancies could be explained a number of ways. Begin with whether or not Andrew was still fertile at that point in time. That can change. And it wasn't like Sarah was pregnant every year. We're all adults here and we know there are a number of practices that can sometimes prevent pregnancy, especially if the woman has low fertility.

It's a working theory. I'm sure Andrew was smart enough to avoid pregnancies (there are also other things that would be taken into account but I'm a prude, thank you!).

You have to admit that the crimes were ones of rage and extreme hate. So someone, somewhere knew something, even if the murderer wasn't Emma and/or Lizzie.

I agree with Franz. We can't exclude the possibility that Andrew was a monster. It's just that there is no evidence that he was one. Len Rebello collected tributes and memories of him published in contemporary papers at the time. The image that emerges from those is the one that we all know, old-fashioned in attitudes, hard in business, scrupulously honest, courteous.

If he assaulted his servants then they remained on in his home for a remarkably long time, fourteen years in one instance, eight years in another, putting up with it.. Bridget was in her third year at the Bordens.

The incest theory has been around a very long time. It was introduced and discussed by posters on this forum very early on. So were the possibilities of illegitimate sons, Lizzie's lover as murderers and Uncle John and Dr Bowen's involvement. Great to discuss and we learn a good deal about these people as individuals, but for all the research, nothing has turned up to implicate them.

As Franz says, Andrew may have been assaulting Emma alone. If he was then she never confided in any of the Gardiners to whom she was very close all her life, or if she did, nothing was ever hinted at in family letters.

Borden family life directed by Andrew, as elucidated later by Alice Russell and others, shows a firm minded husband and father who liked an ordered life and wanted things done his way. As we all know he didn't like spending money on 'fripperies', no doubt a reflection of his Quaker family background.

He was capable of great generosity at certain times (on his terms). Lizzie's trip to Europe for her thirtieth birthday, for example. She was away nineteen weeks. He probably had offered Emma the same but she hadn't taken it up. His wife and the girls were kept on strict weekly allowances. However, as twins once pointed out, in a year these added up to quite a hefty sum for the times. His daughters were allowed to go away and stay with others.

The story of the robbery at no. 92, as recorded by Rebello, Page 36.

Mysterious Robbery and Its Relation to the Killing of the Bordens' New Bedford Daily Mercury, August 10th 1892. 1

'Captain (Dennis) Desmond, then inspector of the department, was detailed to look after the stolen articles. He made a long search, but could find no trace of the missing valuables. The peculiarity was that the only thing disturbed was Mr Borden's desk where a man might be believed to have kept his private papers was significant. Mr Jennings, who is steering Supt. Hanscom in his efforts on behalf of the Borden family, was asked about the robbery, but he said he could not say a word about that.'

Officer Desmond's notes about the investigation were included in a letter sent to Albert Pilsbury by Hosea Knowlton on September 9th 1892. The last written comment read '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'.

(The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs Lizzie Borden, the Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893: 74-75.)

Rebello Page 36-37.

'Chief Hilliard (allegedly) told the members of the grand jury why it was the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs Borden's watch.... 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 the time were the property of Mrs Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse 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 had never had any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs Borden, so Mr Borden requested that there be no further investigation. A number of such points were brought before the grand jury which never before made public and they added much strength to the case......'
New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday November 22nd 1892: 4

Alice Russell Testified at the Trial as to Lizzie's remarks about the robbery. (Trial 378) Lizzie told Miss Russell ".....they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there..." According to Alice Lizzie said "It was in Mrs Borden's room, what she called her dressing room...her (Abby's) things were ransacked and they took a watch and chain and money and car tickets and something else I can't remember'.

Why would Lizzie only mention the robbery the evening before the murder? Well, of course, as a 'Lizzie dun it' person, I would say to heighten the atmosphere of dread surrounding the Bordens and set the scene.

Abby, of course, never told anyone her version of these mysterious disappearances, just told a friend she would tell her some other time.

As far as poisonings are concerned it was Dr Bowen who seemed anxious about the family's milk and wanted it tested. It didn't come from the family's farms. Just about the first thing Bridget did every morning was to put the jug out for the milkman. There was ice in the house and Bridget drank a glass of milk on Wednesday so I don't think the milk was affected by a poisoning milkman. Yes, the Bordens had cows at Swansea. I think Abby, as we've previously discussed, thought there was something wrong with the bakery products.

How much credence do we give the story about Lizzie giving away the tickets? We can't prove it because it was supposed to have been part of grand jury proceedings. Is there any corroborating evidence to support this tale? It just doesn't make sense that she gave the tickets to "a number of persons". Guilty or innocent of murder, that doesn't make sense. Once again, who were these people? If we knew that we might have another insight into Lizzie. Exactly what were the tickets worth? How expensive was a ride on a horse car? If she gave the tickets to members of her church or friends in her circle and they were subsequently questioned by the police I would think she would have been ostracized much sooner. If she gave them to working class people it would be interesting. If Irish immigrant working class people used the tickets & said Lizzie gave them the tickets, that might be another interesting thing. This whole thing doesn't add up right.

We don't know that Sarah Welch or Mary Grein were preganant at any time. BOBO has posted that Mary Grein attempted suicide by prussic acid. That doesn't mean she was preganant or thought she was, or even if she were, that Andrew was involved.

Contraception at that time was very uncertain. Abstinence, coitus interruptus and primitive home remedy douches plus tie on rubbers. If Andrew had been buying these last from local pharmacies there might have been questions asked!

Surely, if the maids' families were mad at Andrew's behaviour they would have demanded that their relatives leave immediately? If these women became pregnant they, with Roman Catholic beliefs, would have just submitted to abortions would they, and then continued working for the same household? Not a hint even to the local priest about their employer's behaviour. Nothing! How remarkably docile!

I am starting to believe in Uncle John's involvement. Not in the sense that Franz means it, but that John may have been concerned that his old friend intended to divide his estate in inequable fashion. John was always closer to Emma than Lizzie, though that doesn't mean much. What I do believe is that there was something afoot about the Swansea farms and the girls had got to hear about it, just as they had about the Whitehead property. Hence Andrew's statement to a business aquaintance about trouble at home a short while before the murders.

This may have quietened down and Emma went away. Remember, Emma rode horses and was, according to a New Bedford newspaper, a regular visitor to the Dartmouth cottage where John lodged with his butcher friend. Whether she heard about a transfer of the Swansea farms from her foghorn leghorn uncle inadvertantly or deliberately is immaterial. By the end of July the girls knew that Abby would be getting three quarters of Andrew's fortune on his death and they would be left with about 25,000 dollars each. The proposed transfer of the Swansea properties was the beginning of the process and may have been discussed on the Wednesday before the murders. I believe it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The theft of the horse car tickets was kept remarkably quiet at the time. According to the Fall River Daily Herald the police kept a watch on the street cars for several weeks. As no charges were ever laid and the robbery at no 92 didn't come to public knowledge until after Lizzie's arrest, the people concerned may have put the matter of the cards they were given down to an embarrassing mistake of Lizzie's, that perhaps her father had given her tickets he shouldn't have.

It seems to me that if working class people had been given them they would have gossiped. Middle class people would have been more likely to have put it down to an honest mistake od Lizzie's.

The key is that the robbery at 92 wasn't known outside the police and family for over a year.

Incidentally Captain Desmond, who investigated the theft, apparently knew the Borden family very well. He'd 'grown up' with the daughters.

I also have a problem believing Andrew would leave 3/4 of his estate to Abby. Absent a son, the girls were his namesakes. In that day and age Abby at about age 64, necessarily almost had one foot in the grave. That she would live many more years was unlikely so in effect Andrew was willingly transferring what he had worked so hard for, to Abby's family. Why? Doesn't make sense. What I could understand would be the girls get $25,000 each and the rest would be tied up in a trust that Abby would administer or over which she would have power, with the balance transferring to the girls upon Abby's passing. THAT I could believe. If it was to be as suggested I'd have to guess Andrew didn't think much of his own offspring. I can understand wanting to take good care of Abby and not leave her at the mercy (wrong word probably) of Lizzie and Emma, but I don't see cutting the girls out so severely unless he hated their guts or figured they should have been supporting themselves all along. Maybe that was the source of the trouble. Maybe Andrew wanted them to pull their own weight, make their own fortunes, and they wouldn't do it because it wasn't ladylike or something. THAT also would make a lot of sense for motives all around.

Yes, Andrew, troubled by the atmosphere in his home, may well have been deciding on (a) making a will and (b) setting up a trust fund of some nature. This would of course be anathema to his daughters as it would, in their eyes, give Abby 'control' over them. I don't believe things had got that far.

It may have been germinating in Andrew's mind. His daughters might have disappointed him somewhat in showing no active interest in being landlords (the Ferry St property.) He may well have reasoned, what's the point in giving them other properties or stocks and shares direct? Better off in a trust fund!

I do believe that something was going to happen in connection with the Somerset farms. We don't know what Andrew felt about his daughters no longer holidaying with him and Abby there. Perhaps he was going to make a point to his offspring. You're not interested in the farms, you no longer visit, your stepmother does, so I'm going to transfer them to her and your Uncle John will make sure they're run properly!

Andrew may not have been a monster, but I'm 99.9% sure that monstrous acts occurred in that house prior to the murders...either purposefully, due to mental health deficits, or both. It's pretty easy to find reasons for individual acts, but the Borden situation taken as a whole leaves a lot to be explained. In no particular order:

1) The murders were the result of rage...no one dies in such brutal fashion unless the killer is filled with fury or mentally ill, or both. I'm inclined to believe an inexperienced killer would err on the side of quitting too soon...about the time the blood and brains started oozing onto the carpets and bone chips started flying.

2) Lizzie engaged in kleptomania which is now known to correspond with abuse of some sorts...not always but often enough.

3) Servants were not allowed on the second floor, never ever in the family bedrooms. How could this be a trust issue when Bridget had a key to the house but dared not venture into the guest room? Taken all together, this makes very little sense. Or a lot of sense....

4) Given the skinflint Andrew was purported to be with his tenants and in all other business transactions, why did he overpay and underwork the maid? Compare this to the landlord who raised the rent when he knew a tenant had received a raise in pay. If Andrew did father an illegitimate child who was farmed out to someone else to be reared, what better way for the mother to monitor whether Andrew was paying than to stay within the household until the child was grown.

5) The house was locked down similar to a psych unit or Fort Knox...to keep people in or out, or both? What each of us does always has a reason whether we know it or not.

6) Abby thought their food was being poisoned...even if she were perfectly sane, why would anyone with normal thought processes engage in such paranoid thinking? Either she was mentally ill or she had a good reason to entertain the idea of being poisoned. When was the last time anyone on this forum thought their food contained poison? Or for that matter, anyone known to anyone known to anyone? Even people who really being poisoned rarely figure it out until their autopsy.

7) A trip to Europe may be a generous gesture or it may be pay off. Or maybe Andrew got sick and tired of being nagged. Given the secretive nature of that household, I doubt anyone admitted within the community that Lizzie was going to Europe so she would STFU about it.

8) How come the sisters changed bedrooms when Lizzie came home? Why was the head of her bed as close as possible to the elder Borden quarters? Did Lizzie arrive home with the realization that the way she'd lived for the previous 30-plus years was not how everyone else lived?

9) Why didn't Abby babysit Little Abby on the day of the murders? Could it have been that Abby was heading into another episode of chronic mental illness that made her unfit to care for a child? Who sent the note? Could Abby have lied, saying someone else was sick instead of admitting the someone was herself... decompensating.

10) Why was Abby wearing those boots? She was a victim so even now we give her a benefit of doubt, and write it off to frugality. But no one knows for sure. Perhaps she had bunions? Or corns? Or maybe she had the makings of a bag lady in modern society.

11) Neither of the sisters ever married or, given what we know, ever had male callers. Unless we take David Anthony seriously...and if Lizzie admitted an incestuous relationship to a young man who wanted to marry her then Ruby's story, poor memory for details or not (I'm old enough to accept that after all those years she might've been a Borden murder revisionist but still telling a basic truth) his supposed actions might be an absolutely natural response.

12) Prussic acid was used for all manner of odd purposes including to kill bugs and fetuses. How come that book on herbal remedies fell open to page on prussic acid? Or did it? Suicide is a mortal sin in the Roman Catholic Church, and so is abortion. Admission of a failed suicide attempt brings family sympathy and support...admission of a successful abortion doesn't!

13) "They" did a lot of bad stuff around the Borden household. They broke in during broad daylight. They took Abby's keys. They sent a note requesting a sick visit. They didn't stop Lizzie from burning the dress. They came in and killed father. Blaming "they" is exceptionally immature thinking...my kids learned to stop blaming "they" (referred to as "the elf" at our house) at about age four.

14) Emma and Lizzie didn't just cease living together; they ceased being sisters. For as long as they lived. Emma didn't like being alone and Lizzie thrived on it. Neither of which falls on the Bell curve of normal although normal is a bit difficult to define. But both of them appear bordering on pathological. That Emma never spoke of this to anyone makes me wonder what can of worms she was keeping the lid on. Sarah supposedly had moods and fits of rage. There's one picture where she looks absolutely deranged. Emma seems to have had the ability to successfully live (albeit for $$) with others. How about Lizzie? Did Emma flee Maplecroft because of Lizzie's intolerable behavior, immoral behavior or did Lizzie border on criminal or crazy?

15) Andrew did not wear a wedding ring but he wore Lizzie's ring on the pinky finger of his left hand. Lizzie requested to be buried at his feet, the place of a slave not a daughter. Just saying...this is on the odd side. Once again, what we choose to do within our lives always has meaning.

15) Money was the remediating factor in this household. It made bad things tolerable and leveraged present and past behavior for future rewards. Until the reward appeared to be headed elsewhere. Then payment came due with interest. IF Lizzie and possibly Emma planned and/or committed these murders it was not because they were greedy. Greedy could've been fixed by throwing Abby off the front stairs or out of the hay mow and then giving her neck an extra twist for good measure. Instead, her head got smashed to pieces, and Andrew's face was obliterated which is an 'on point' example of depersonalization. This is rage in action, and such intensity of rage is pretty hard to come by without a lot of Something Really Bad happening to fuel the fire.

16) Reporters, neighbors, friends, even family in the 21st century have no problem with airing the dirty linen of crime victims. I'm guessing that speaking no ill of the dead was considered proper in the late 1800s, especially those who were victims of violence and of good social standing.

I think Andrew was more than likely a monster...living in a house of monsters.

Fascinating run-down!

But I have to say, Abby wearing Andrew's shoes is a mark of sanity. Shoes were very bad in those days and God help a woman with large feet or foot problems. I am an expert on this. Only in the last few years have shoes caught up to large or odd sizes. I have dozens of pairs of shoes because for the first time in my life I can get shoes that fit. Unfortunately my feet keep getting bigger with age and they are now size 12 but I can wear an 11 and those are available. Not so long ago women like me had to wear men's shoes.

In the range of crazy, when Lizzie was asked if her parents got along, were happy, whatever, she always avoided a direct answer. They were as happy (probably the word cordial) as she was able to judge, or something. I find this very frustrating. Surely she knew other families to make a comparison. Maybe she knew her own family was miserable and didn't dare say it. Anyway, this question threw her for a loop and the whole thing was creepy.

I agree with Curryong that I think the Swansea farm was going to be transferred to Abby.

Considering money, businessmen have ups and downs. Is there any evidence that Abby brought money into the marriage? Could that explain Andrew's choice of her? I know her family wasn't wealthy,but did she have an inheritance of nest egg that perhaps helped Andrew at a tough time and thus he planned to repay her with inheritance? The marriage occurred around Civil War time so who knows what Andrew's finances might have been. I could see him making a profit during the war but maybe not. Especially with his Quaker background.

I've never read that Abby had an inheritance but I'll look into it further.
The Federal Census records are interesting. In 1860 Andrew, aged 37, a cabinet dealer, reported his personal wealth on the census as real estate $5,300, personal estate $6,000.

In the 1870 Census Andrew, aged 47,Mfr, had real estate $25,000, personal estate $15,000.

So it looks as if the Civil War years were good to Andrew. By 1880 he was describing himself as 'retired' on the Census form.

The 'girls' attitude to money and inheritance becomes painfully clear in a rather interesting passage in Lizzie's Inquest testimony about the Whitehead property Page 86 (43) notably

'....the house was for sale. The stepmother, Mrs Oliver Gray wanted to sell it and my father bought out the Widow Gray's share. She did not tell me and he did not tell me but some outsiders said that he gave it to her. Put it in her name. I said that if he did that for her he ought to give us something. Told Mrs Borden so. She did not care anything about this house herself. She wanted it so this half sister could have a home because she had married a man who was not doing the best he could, and she thought her sister was having a very hard time and she wanted her to have a home. And we always thought she persuaded father to buy it. At any rate he did buy it and I am quite sure she did persuade him. I said what he did for her people he ought to do for his own children. So he gave us grandfather's house. That was the only trouble we ever had.

A very firm attitude or sense of entitlement, indeed !

'

This is a bit of a look at the Borden family and their home life by a second cousin.
"Was Queer/ Not Insane/ A Second cousin Described Some of Lizzie Borden's Oddities",
Boston Herald, August 7, 1892:2 . Rebello Pages 176-177.

A Herald reporter interviewed Mr William B Wilcox and his sister Mrs Ella F Cluny, distant relatives of the Andrew Borden, who lived in the Globe section of Fall River. Mrs Cluny spent a week with the Bordens and did some housecleaning for them. She said she was always treated as a family member and never witnessed any ill feelings between Lizzie and Abby. "She never acted as though she disliked her stepmother, rather she seemed to show as much regard for her as I believed it possible for her to show anyone."

The reporter asked Mrs Cluny if she had any reason to believe Lizzie to be insane. Mrs Cluny said "No, I always thought she was pretty level headed. She was peculiar, though. She was odd, very odd. I have heard a number of persons speak of it." The reporter asked her to tell about Lizzie's oddities. Mrs Cluny said, "There were times whereby Lizzie would not speak to members of the family who were visiting the Bordens. She would act as though she dd not see them, and go right through rooms where they were without speaking a word to them. Then again, she would be extremely pleasant and would act as though there was nothing too much for her to do for any one....A great many members of the family had the same experience."

As the interview continued, Mrs Cluny stated Lizzie had "a great habit of staying in bed in the morning. I have seldom seen her at breakfast. She would invariably remain in bed until 10 o'clock or so".

Mrs Cluny provided the reporter with a vivid and revealing account of Lizzie's personality. He asked if Lizzie was "irritable or would she fly into a passion." She said "Lizzie never impressed her as being passionate. She seemed cold-blooded...she seemed to mope and sulk. I never heard any words, and couldn't tell what the trouble was, but I knew it was generally considered as one of Lizzie's odd streaks."

The issue of insanity surfaced when the reporter asked " Would you be surprised if it turned out now that she was insane?" Mrs Cluny replied "Well, yes, I should. Her odd streaks never lead me to think anything like that. She never acted in any way like an insane person --that is, what I call a maniac. She didn't do things wrong, and wouldn't get excited and hysterical. She just seemed to have spells of moping and sulking, and I call it her condition. Then there never was any insanity in the family that I know of."

When queried about Andrew Borden and his "closeness in money matters", Mrs Cluny said "Oh, no, there was no reason for it. He wasn't close in family matters. He was a sharp businessman and looked after his property, as all the Bordens do, but he treated his children and his wife well. She (Abby) was a splendid woman. He gave the girls most of what they have, although their grandfather left them something."

William Pavao jnr 'The Truth about Lizzie Burden's Stepmother' was published via the International Lizzie Borden Association Publication, Jan/Oct 1998: 3. It was reprinted in Lizzie Borden Quarterly Volume IX, Number 1, Jan 2002. Page 13.

I don't intend to reproduce the whole of this article but I thought this was interesting. I don't believe that Nellie McHenry (unfortunate name) was a professional reporter, at least I hope not! For instance, the grammar was atrocious as was the spelling (their for there, for instance) which I have cleaned up. It reads like the report of an ordinary woman who had gained Bridget's confidence.


'Following the murders of Mr and Mrs Borden Bridget was interviewed by Mrs Nellie McHenry.'


'Bridget stated in the interview that Mrs Borden was always kind and good to her and would talk to her and tell her what she was going to do.' Bridget often said that it was too bad that Mrs Borden was their stepmother (as) she was too good for them and they did not like her.'

"She further stated she had made up her mind three times to leave and give in her notice but Mrs Borden coaxed her to stay and once raised her wages. Mrs Borden was so good that Bridget stayed but was intending to leave (?) she gave as her reason that while the work was not hard the place was not pleasant for any girl on account of the odd habits of the family she said things were not very pleasant in the house, I asked how it was, well the girls kept so much to themselves, there was no love for their stepmother."

The girls particularly Miss Lizzie was very difficult always keeping to themselves and no one ever was allowed to go into Miss Lizzie's room she took care of it herself".

Nellie was married to Edwin McHenry so she may not have been unbiased either when she was married to McHenry or after she divorced him for adultery... She tricked Bridget into talking by pretending to be a relative of the family. This was on August 19, not all that long after the murders. I'd love to know what 'odd habits' she was referring to!

Yes, that's what I meant by 'unfortunate name'! She was not an educated woman, judging by the original article. However, Bridget was genuinely fond of Abby and that comes through. The 'oddness' seems to centre around the Borden girls, especially Lizzie.

I have read those accounts before. (Thank you so much for reposting them, Curryong. I MUST get a copy of Rebello someday.)

Sounds to me like Lizzie had depression or some physical ill that made her unsociable sometimes. The other thing I get from the various reports is that Abby was a decent person. The only negatives I have read about Abby is her "interference" which may simply mean she didn't "know her place" as a woman. Also she lacked style and was frumpy. Altogether she sounded like a nice person. I feel Bridget genuinely grieved for Abby. That seemed to come out in the old newspaper accounts.

Yes, excellent information. I don't think Lizzie was insane, certainly not in the legal sense. But I do think she had some serious mental health problems given her odd habits as they are described. Abby, on the other hand, sounds normal although I wouldn't expect any damning information from Bridget especially less than two weeks after the murders. Supposedly that interview took place August 19 and wasn't published until six days later. There was-is some belief that Mrs. McHenry took information from testimony and 'created' the interview. Mrs. Cluny seems more credible.

However, if Abby wasn't given to paranoid fixations then why did she think their milk or baked goods were being poisoned? She should've understood the possibility of food poisoning in the hot summer months...plus most people do not think of poisoning when GI problems set in. As I said earlier, even the victims of real poisonings often fail in their suspicions. So now we have Abby, usually of sane mind, and Lizzie with decided oddities (what today would be considered a chronic mental health or personality problem or possibly a neurological condition) who both think they have enemies out to get the family. Plus the house is capable of lockdown by section.

The Bordens were secretive. I appreciate and respect what Mrs. Cluny says although I'm not convinced she was privy to all that went on, even having stayed there for a period of time. Bridget probably knew some of the skeletons that were in the closet, but I can't see an Irish maid telling anyone other than another Irish maid that Mrs. Borden has spells when she acts like a maniac, Mr. Borden is a creepy pervert, Miss Emma has her nose in the air and Miss Lizzie acts dangerously unbalanced. Even if it were the absolute unassailable truth.

There's a significant shortage of truth in this case, from almost everyone except the kids in upstairs of the barn.

With poor medical care in those days who'e to say Lizzie didn't have awful tooth aches or something that made her withdrawn at times? People got through stuff in those days, mental and physical.

Curryong made a very valid point quite some time ago that many products were adulterated at that time. I believe she mentioned chalk in milk to make milk stretch farther and possibly sawdust in bread to replace flour. Before we had the pure food and drug act here lots of dangerous things happened and people knew that. I have no idea what the conditions were like in England. That could have added to Abby's worries.

Adulterated food products were common on both sides of the Atlantic in the 19th century. I think it's pretty clear that on the Wednesday morning Abby meant adulterated food (specifically baker's products) when she meant 'poison' as in Dr Bowen's testimony he said he pointed out to Abby that there had been no complaints from elsewhere in town. In other words, he had seen no patients recently who had used that bakery and had been ill.

I think things in this area have been muddied because of course in the 21st century we don't think immediately of adulterated food products when someone says 'poison'. (Dr Bowen seems to have been worried about the household milk, which is natural enough in the days of hot summers and inadequate refrigeration.)

Also things have become confused because in Lizzie's conversation with Alice on Wednesday evening about 'enemies' of the family, she mentions 'poison' in its conventional sense.

Cellulose is virgin pulp, not quite sawdust, but not quite food either...except it's still used as fiber filler in many food items including meat (limited to 3.5%) including Eggo, Aunt Jemima, Cinnabon and a lot more.... http://www.thestreet.com/story/11012915 ... =obnetwork

I was just taking a look into a book on household management in Victorian times. Convulsions in babies were to be treated by a hot bath and a teaspoonful of brandy and water, followed by a purgative, repeated twice in the following three hours. If that didn't work there were patent medicines like 'Collis Browne's Cholodyne' (a mixture of opium, cannabis and chloral hydrate.) This was a remedy for colic, coughs, colds, stomach ache, bowel pains, diarrhoea and sleeplessness!

Although things were certainly much improved by the 1890's, compared with earlier in the century, there were tests given in these books for contaminents. Water with muriate of lime in it could be used to test for alum in bread. Sugar could be checked for sand by dissolving a small amount in water and examining the sediment. Having said all that, I think that hygiene standards rather than overt adulteration was the problematic thing in the 1890's, especially with regard to items like fish, meat, and dairy products. The sort of things that could go 'off', and we know Abby loved her cream buns!

OFF TOPIC: from mentalfloss.com

This happens to be one of those hot-button issues with me....

The turkey meat in turkey burgers, turkey dogs, turkey patties and nuggets has been “mechanically separated” from the bone. That’s code for: an entire turkey, bones and all, has been forced through a sieve under high pressure, oozing—to quote the FDA—a “paste-like and batter-like poultry product” on the other side. That “paste-like” poultry product contains a high percentage of “ground, crushed and pulverized bones,” evident in high levels of calcium, which is cool with the FDA.

Meat of all sorts—ground beef, chicken nuggets, taco filling, etc.—must include at least 35 percent actual meat. The other 65 percent doesn’t have to be meat, and can be made up of any mixture of edible fillers and chemicals, including cornstarch, water, soy, maltodextrin, silicon dioxide, food colorings and artificial flavoring.

Tomato paste, pizza sauce or other sauces can include 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams. Alternatively, you can have 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots, OR two or more maggots, but not all of the above.

Cocoa beans can be 4 percent moldy or insect infested, but only 6 percent moldy and insect infested. More than 10 milligrams of “mammalian excreta” is permitted per pound of cocoa beans.

In 100 grams of corn meal—that’s roughly the amount required by your average corn bread recipe—the FDA says it’s OK to have two or more “whole insects,” 100 or more insect fragments, and either 4 rodent hairs or 2 or more chunks of rodent poop.

debbiediablo wrote:OFF TOPIC: from mentalfloss.com

This happens to be one of those hot-button issues with me....

The turkey meat in turkey burgers, turkey dogs, turkey patties and nuggets has been “mechanically separated” from the bone. That’s code for: an entire turkey, bones and all, has been forced through a sieve under high pressure, oozing—to quote the FDA—a “paste-like and batter-like poultry product” on the other side. That “paste-like” poultry product contains a high percentage of “ground, crushed and pulverized bones,” evident in high levels of calcium, which is cool with the FDA.

Meat of all sorts—ground beef, chicken nuggets, taco filling, etc.—must include at least 35 percent actual meat. The other 65 percent doesn’t have to be meat, and can be made up of any mixture of edible fillers and chemicals, including cornstarch, water, soy, maltodextrin, silicon dioxide, food colorings and artificial flavoring.

Tomato paste, pizza sauce or other sauces can include 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams. Alternatively, you can have 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots, OR two or more maggots, but not all of the above.

Cocoa beans can be 4 percent moldy or insect infested, but only 6 percent moldy and insect infested. More than 10 milligrams of “mammalian excreta” is permitted per pound of cocoa beans.

In 100 grams of corn meal—that’s roughly the amount required by your average corn bread recipe—the FDA says it’s OK to have two or more “whole insects,” 100 or more insect fragments, and either 4 rodent hairs or 2 or more chunks of rodent poop.

How come this is posted here and not in the Stay to Tea area? And yes, it's gross!

I think debbie was just pointing out how methods of food production and hygiene have improved since Lizzie's day!

Ah, okay. Now, I see. Some of that still holds true in today's time as well. Ick.

I work in a facility that kills and processes raw meat. Keep in mind that just because the FDA says something is a 'safe' level of contaminant doesn't mean that every thing has that amount of contaminant in it! There are Federal Inspectors in every food processing plant or factory, paid by the government, not the company who's facility they work in. They have the authority to reject any product they deem unsafe. They can halt production at any time. They inspect the plant for proper sterilization before the product begins to move through the 'line'. I do not dispute the facts above. It is a HUGE part of my job to ensure the food we produce is safe. Improper cook temps, food storage and handling at home is a bigger threat IMO.