Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Here is an old thread from the previous version of the forum. I didn't see it migrated here, but in trying to find out which building Taylor was talking about in One August Morning, I ran across this, which would be interesting to explore again.

Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: Follow The Money
1. "Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-2nd-03 at 1:24 AM

If Lizzie committed the crime and her motive was partly or mostly money, then if we follow the money we may get some insight into what was important to her, and her relationships with others.

In this way examining the wills of Morse & Emma & Lizzie might give us more clues then we've really discussed before.

I keep coming back to that odd arrangement made between the sisters, in writing, when Emma left Maplecroft.
It seems that this agreement might hold some key to the personality of each, since they obviously both signed it.
My question has always been: Why would Lizzie have to pay Emma who chose not to stay there in that house? They divided other property, I believe, yet this dual ownership of Maplecroft stands? Even though Emma lives anyplace BUT there? Why didn't Lizzie buy out Emma unless they thought the estrangement might be temporary?
What was so sacred about The French Street House that was not so sacred as to the A. J. Borden Building, when the division of That was attempted in 1923?

There are many questions here and since these are their father's daughters, we might find out about Andrew while we look at how his money was spent or invested by his progeny...

To refresh memories, here, from Rebello, 312, is the Agreement:

Agreement

"Whereas Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden, of Fall River, Massachusetts, all equal owners in common of a certain lot of land containing about 34 5/8 rods of land and a dwelling house, thereon numbered 306 French Street, in said Fall River, and also of certain personal property located in said house, said lot being the same purchased by them of Charles M. Allen.

Now therefore we the said Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden do hereby covenant and agree, the one with the other as follows to wit, --

1. Said Lizzie shall have the right to exclusively use and occupy said premises and property as a home and place of residence so long as she chooses to do so during her natural life upon condition however that during such time she shall and does pay all water bills and taxes, make and pay for all necessary repairs in connection with the premises and property, keep the undivided half of said Emma in said premises and property insured against fire in the sum of sixty-hundred dollars ---, also $4,000 on the house and $2,000 on the contents ---, and also pay unto said Emma one hundred and fifteen dollars every six months for such use and occupation, the first payment to be made January first A.D. 1906 for six months in advance. .
2. If said Lizzie shall before her death cease to use or occupy said premises and property as foresaid, then forthwith said house and property shall be put into the hands of Charles C. Cook of said Fall River as broker to sell the same at private sale or public auction as he deems expedient, or in case of his decease, in the hands of some other broker to be designated by Andrew J. Jennings and said personal property shall be divided by the parties, or if they cannot agree upon a division, be sold in the same manner as the real estate, the proceeds of such sale after deducting expenses to be divided equally between the parties.
3. Neither party shall during life except as thereinbefore, provided sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of her said undivided interest without consent of the other.
4. Said Emma and Lizzie shall each provide by will or otherwise so that in case the said undivided interest has not been sold or disposed of as aforesaid the same shall go and belong to the other if she survives her.

In witness Whereof we the said Emma L. Borden and Lizzie A. Borden have hereto set our hands and seals this twelfth day of October A.D. 1905."

Emma L. Borden Seal
Lizzie A Borden Seal


2. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-2nd-03 at 2:54 AM
In response to Message #1.
LBQ, Jan., 1994, pg. 12

Reproduced here a document that bears Lizzie's signature.

Does this look like a mortgage payoff by the Gardner's?

(Message last edited Mar-2nd-03 2:55 AM.)

3. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-2nd-03 at 2:05 PM
In response to Message #1.
I wonder if Emma held the mortgage on Maplecroft? It seems almost like Lizzie is paying Emma rent from the wording, strange. Or, paying Emma to keep away?

4. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by rays on Mar-2nd-03 at 2:59 PM
In response to Message #3.
The 'law of division' says an heir can sue to get their portion of the inheritance. That means Maplecroft would have to be sold to split this. Lizzie preferred to live there, and pay Emma (who relocated to New Hampshire) far from the Fall River folks, to live hidden. Why?

5. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-3rd-03 at 2:08 AM
In response to Message #3.
I believe a lot of the real estate was held in common, other than the few parcels Lizzie bought up in the neighborhood surrounding the French Street property (Was that after Emma left?). Lizzie added to Maplecroft's vicinity.

But what's weird too is that Lizzie didn't honor the Agreement after all, which can be found by reading her will.
This makes me wonder if she was royally P.O'd at Emmer, and WHY??

(Message last edited Mar-3rd-03 2:10 AM.)

6. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-3rd-03 at 2:44 AM
In response to Message #5.
I think what may have done it for Lizzie was when Emma tried to sell her share of the AJ Borden building. I'm trying to recall, but, didn't Lizzie create such a stink about it that Emma dropped it?

I wonder if Emma survived Lizzie by a few more years if she would have had any recourse since Lizzie reneged on their legal agreement? It would be interesting to find out.

7. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-4th-03 at 2:37 AM
In response to Message #6.
I had thought it was Emma who wanted to sell her share but this is found in Rebello, pg. 307:

" 'Lizzie Borden Asks Division of Fall River Block," Providence Evening Bulletin, May 12, 1923: 3.

Lizzie wanted Probate Court to make an equal distribution of the A. J. Borden Building. She wished to dispose of her share of the property."

1923 and Lizzie was having trouble maybe with upkeeping that property. Apparently there was a lawsuit against Lizzie (& NOT Emma?) for not honoring a sub-lease, in January. I wonder if she got tired of stuff like this? She is there, Emma is not, so Lizzie may just have given up on that building. By May she filed to split the property.


8. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-4th-03 at 2:49 AM
In response to Message #7.
That makes me wonder if at that point in time that Emma may have sold out her share of the AJ Borden building to Lizzie? If Emmer wasn't co-named in the lawsuit and her name didn't seem to appear in the paper when Lizzie wanted to sell? Its strange, Emma wasn't mentioned at all, I wonder why not?

9. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-4th-03 at 3:12 AM
In response to Message #8.
More Rebello, 307
(Sorry I didn't include more info so you could reach an informed conclusion) Here is what's missing. I missed it myself.
It's still a good question as to why Emma wasn't named as co-defendent. Maybe Lizzie had some Power of Attorney?

" 'Lizzie Borden Files Probate Petition,' Fall River Daily Globe, May 11, 1923: 1.
'Files Action in Probate Court / Lizzie A. Borden for Partition of the Property at Corner of South Main and Anawan Streets,' The Evening Herald, Fall River, MA., May 11, 1923: 1.
'Looking Back: 50 Years, May 11, 1923,' Fall River Herald News, May 11, 1973: 9.

Lizzie Borden filed a petition in Probate Court in Taunton, Massachusetts, claiming certain real estate located on South Main Street in Fall River. The land in dispute was owned jointly by the petitioner and her sister, Emma Borden, and was part of an estate inherited by the sisters when it was settled for $50,000 in 1894."


10. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-4th-03 at 3:26 AM
In response to Message #9.
Ah, thank you, Kat. So, sounds like another myth bit the dust here tonight, the one about Emmer wanting to sell out. Girl, you must be butter, cause you on a roll again!

11. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-4th-03 at 6:14 AM
In response to Message #10.
I don't know. I'm still confused.
What do they mean "settled for $50,000 in 1894"?

12. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-4th-03 at 12:05 PM
In response to Message #11.
Maybe that is what the building was worth at that point in time when it was signed over to the girls? How much money did Lizzie and Emma inherit?

13. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-5th-03 at 3:29 AM
In response to Message #12.
Yes that may be the appraisal value.

Now why does Lizzie not include Emma in her will, and purposely states
"28. I have not given my sister, Emma L. Borden, anything as she had her share of her father's estate and supposed to have enough to make her comfortable." [Rebello, 339]

--So Lizzie has made no provision to satisfy the Agreement as to French Street, and she also uses an odd form of language to denote the relationships between that eternal triangle:

Emma is called "my sister".
and Andrew is designated as (Emma's] father.

"...her father's estate..."
--NOT 'Our father's estate.'...



14. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-5th-03 at 12:15 PM
In response to Message #13.
Well, I personally don't understand all that legal speak, I'd need a lawyer to figure it out for me. But, it sounds as if Lizzie has totally distanced herself from Emmer, almost as if they are business partners instead of sisters.

15. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-5th-03 at 9:54 PM
In response to Message #14.
From Rebello
Pg. 344
Part of Emma's Will:

"SIXTH: If my sister, Lizzie A. Borden, shall survive me and I shall own an interest at the time of my death in that tract of land with the dwelling house thereon situated on the northerly side of French Street, in said Fall River, and being the same premises now occupied by my sister and which were purchased by my sister and myself of Charles M. Allen, then I give, devise and bequeath all my right, title and interest in and to said tract of land and the improvements thereon, to my said sister, Lizzie A. Borden, and all my interest in and to the household furniture in said house or upon said premises.
If, however, at the time of my death I shall have disposed of my interest in said tract of land located on French Street and in the contents of the house, and my said sister, Lizzie A. Borden, shall survive me, then I give and bequeath to my said sister the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000)."

--Emma honors the Agreement. Lizzie makes no provision for it.
Emma also is willing to give Lizzie all the trapments and household goods if she survives Emma.
Emma also is willing to give Lizzie ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS if the house has already been split and shared upon Emma's death, if Lizzie survives her, as a gift.
Lizzie pointedly states in HER Will, as to her sister, Emma:
"she had her share of her father's estate".

--It almost sounds as if Lizzie is saying something to Emma. Think of all the ways there are, inflection-wise, to say that statement aloud....
And Lizzie is Witholding 2 things FROM her that Emma is willing to give to Lizzie.
-Does this hint to us-Which sister is P'O'd at the other?


16. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-5th-03 at 10:12 PM
In response to Message #15.
Sure sounds like its Lizzie to me! Boy, talk about a kick in the pants, from the grave no less! How cold that statement is when I said it aloud. I wonder too if Lizzie thought that since Emmer was older than her that she would never have to make any provisions for her in her will?

Still kind of strange that if Emmer sells her half of the house and the stuff inside that I guess she jointly owns to Lizzie. She will leave Lizzie $1000.00 dollars, why?

17. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Mar-5th-03 at 11:48 PM
In response to Message #16.
Just a "BTW"...I LOVE that this topic is being discussed. I poured over those wills a few yrs back, trying to read between the lines & personally thought there was a LOT MORE going on than "legalese". I have my own opinion to the dynamics between the 2 sisters (based on admittedly "subjective" personal experiences). Very stimulating to hear other POVs. Thanks!

18. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Kat on Mar-6th-03 at 2:50 AM
In response to Message #16.
Yes with that age difference Lizzie could very well have banked on Emmer dying first.

Here it seems to me, or sounds to me as if Lizzie is bitter.

I remember when I first read this stuff I thought, "OH! Lizzie has found out she is illigitimate!". That would account for the *Billie Borden* idea--(close but not quite right) and why the sister's don't seem much alike. That this is their shameful secret. Emma can still be "My sister" but Andrew would not be called "Our Father", but "Her Father".

God/dess, I developed a huge theory based on that, and accounted for everything. But after a while of working on it with Stef's input, she didn't buy it. it got way involved.

Anyway, now I wonder if Emmer is the one who is involved...that Lizzie took the rap and agreed that if she were convicted Emma would confess. If Emma did the deed SHE would leave town, and she did, didn't she? We always wondered why Lizzie didn't leave, but not why Emma DID? Lizzie stayed and faced things because she knew she was unjustly (somewhat) maligned? and Emma coudn't face it and crept away? Not with head held high but with head bowed and with her father's Share, and changed her name and continued going to church?



(Message last edited Mar-6th-03 2:55 AM.)

19. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Susan on Mar-6th-03 at 11:57 AM
In response to Message #18.
You make a good point. Lizzie could have been bitter because she felt that Emmer, her little mother, turned on her and left. Or, it could totally be as you say, Emmer may have done, Lizzie took the rap and was tired of her walking around with a holier-than-thou attitude. Lizzie may have lashed out at her on a daily basis which caused Emmer to leave when she couldn't take it anymore.

She suddenly got religion, she changed her name, she hid away. I don't know what the final outcome was of the past discussion of this, true or false, but, didn't Emma towards the end of her life ramble that they would come for her in the night? Whose they? The police? John Morse and Lizzie? Who?

20. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Mar-6th-03 at 5:47 PM
In response to Message #19.
The rambling, paranoid Emma thing came from Spiering (the Emma-Done-It book) & I don't think I've heard it confirmed anywhere else. Altho a lot of sources seem to believe she was "senile".

The "little mother" thing, IMO, was @ the core of the conflict (all else following from there). I think Emma, carrying that role far into adulthood, drove Liz to distraction.

21. "Re: Follow The Money"
Posted by rays on Mar-6th-03 at 7:11 PM
In response to Message #18.
Frank Spiering aside, there is NO proof of Emma's guilt before the fact. She must have know who really did it, and supported Lizzie's attempt to NOT be framed for the crime.
The police did send two men to investigate her alibi; it checked out.
The older, thinner Emma is not a good fit for the crime. Too mousy?

(Message last edited Mar-11th-03 3:25 PM.)

22. "Re: Follow The Money...Harry?"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Mar-16th-03 at 12:52 PM
In response to Message #21.
Harry, would you be so kind as to post that link you have to the money equivalents...present vs 1892?

Thank you.

23. "Re: Follow The Money...Harry?"
Posted by harry on Mar-16th-03 at 1:09 PM
In response to Message #22.
Tina, here's the URL for the inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

And thanks for the Fleet notes in another thread.

24. "Re: Follow The Money...Harry?"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Mar-16th-03 at 1:49 PM
In response to Message #23.
Thanks, Harry. This is a great resource tool. Is it included on Stef's website?

Yr welcome re Fleet.

25. "Re: Follow The Money...Harry?"
Posted by Kat on Mar-16th-03 at 8:35 PM
In response to Message #24.
Yes, it's in the LABVM/L, Lizzie Borden Society section, first set of LINKS.
Lizzie Borden Society Archive, about 31 down, "The Value Of Money Then Vs. Now"
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/archive.htm

ChatGPT analysis of the old thread above:

The thread contains several useful leads, but its value is mostly **documentary and financial**, not in the later speculation about illegitimacy or Emma’s possible involvement in the murders.

The strongest item is the **October 12, 1905 Maplecroft agreement**. It shows that Emma did not relinquish her half-interest when she left. Lizzie received exclusive lifetime occupancy while paying all taxes, water bills, repairs, insurance on Emma’s interest, and **$115 every six months**. That arrangement is not inherently mysterious: it resembles compensation from one co-owner to another for exclusive possession. More significant are the restrictions against either sister selling, mortgaging, or leasing her share without the other’s consent and the requirement that each arrange for the survivor to receive the other’s interest. Those clauses suggest a deliberate effort to preserve Maplecroft intact and outside the ordinary market, despite the estrangement. fileciteturn0file0

The old thread probably moves too quickly when it says that **Lizzie “didn’t honor” the agreement because her will contained no devise to Emma**. The agreement was a separate signed covenant. Depending on its legal construction, it may have remained enforceable against Lizzie’s estate regardless of what her will said. Clause 4 also says the sisters could provide for survivorship “by will **or otherwise**.” The decisive evidence would be the recorded agreement, Lizzie’s complete probate file, Emma’s claim—if any—against the estate, and the ultimate disposition of 306 French Street. The omission from the will is emotionally suggestive, but it does not by itself prove a legal breach.

The contrast between the wills is nevertheless notable. Emma expressly provided that Lizzie would receive Emma’s Maplecroft interest and household-property interest if Emma died first; if Emma had already disposed of them, Lizzie would receive $1,000. Lizzie, by contrast, stated that she left Emma nothing because Emma had received “her share of her father’s estate” and supposedly had enough for her comfort. The wording could reflect bitterness, but the thread overreads “her father” as possible evidence of illegitimacy. That phrase should first be compared with the rest of the will, the drafting habits of the attorney, and similar probate instruments from the period.

Another substantial nugget is the correction concerning the **1923 A. J. Borden Building partition proceeding**. According to the citations reproduced in the thread, it was Lizzie—not Emma—who petitioned for partition or division of the jointly owned South Main and Anawan Streets property. That contradicts the recurring story that Emma tried to sell and Lizzie resisted. The associated January sublease litigation may explain the petition as a property-management decision rather than evidence of a new personal rupture. The petition, docket, pleadings, newspaper reports, and final decree would be worth locating.

The thread also raises several concrete research questions: what “settled for $50,000 in 1894” actually referred to; whether the $50,000 was the building’s appraised value, the sisters’ purchase price, or an estate-accounting figure; whether Emma was named in the sublease litigation; whether Lizzie possessed authority to manage the property for both sisters; and when Lizzie acquired the parcels adjoining Maplecroft. Those are potentially productive leads. The theories about Emma committing the murders, Lizzie discovering she was illegitimate, Emma’s supposed paranoia, or the sisters having a secret confession arrangement are unsupported conjecture within the thread and should be kept separate from the evidence.

The central interpretive point is that the 1905 agreement does not look like a complete financial separation. It created a **controlled, continuing economic relationship** between the sisters: Emma retained capital ownership, Lizzie retained occupancy, neither could freely dispose of her interest, and the survivor was intended to obtain the whole. That makes the later will language and the actual probate disposition much more important than the old discussion recognized.

The decisive questions are:

1. Who legally owned Maplecroft when Lizzie died?

2. Did Lizzie still own an undivided half?

3. Did Emma file a claim against Lizzie’s estate?

4. Did Lizzie’s executors recognize the 1905 agreement?

5. To whom was Maplecroft conveyed after Lizzie’s death?

6. Was there a later agreement cancelling or replacing the 1905 instrument?

7. Was the 1905 agreement recorded in the land records?

8. Did Emma receive the house, money, or another settlement?

Those facts would tell us whether Lizzie actually repudiated the agreement, had already satisfied it in another way, or left an obligation that her estate had to resolve.

Emma and Lizzie died within days of each other. Lizzie preceded Emma. The AI response does a good job of weeding through the issues. I will say that heavy use of AI will take away a lot of the joy of research discovery.

1. Who legally owned Maplecroft when Lizzie died? After Lizzie and Emma's death, the property was transferred to Emma's estate.

2. Did Lizzie still own an undivided half? No

3. Did Emma file a claim against Lizzie’s estate? Yes, Emma's estate filed claim against Lizzie's estate and was awarded ownership. There does not appear to have been any dispute on this issue.

4. Did Lizzie’s executors recognize the 1905 agreement? Yes

5. To whom was Maplecroft conveyed after Lizzie’s death? Answered above

6. Was there a later agreement cancelling or replacing the 1905 instrument? No

7. Was the 1905 agreement recorded in the land records? Yes

8. Did Emma receive the house, money, or another settlement? Emma died 6 (or so) days after Lizzie.

Agreed, I will lay off the AI on the forum.

I ordered a used hardcover of Spiering's book to help round out the collection. I'll check the forum to see if any of his claims about Emma had good sourcing.

I was going to order my Borden case bookshelf by year published, so I could see how the thinking evolved over time, but I think I'm going to order it by plausibility and source citing discipline. Parallel Lives and Spencer's books will be on one end with Parallel Lives being gigantic enough to be the bookend for that shelf.

You're cracking me up.

There are actually a few things in Parallel Lives that I'd love to debate with the curators. To me, they came across very clearly wishing to cast Lizzie as innocent or, at least, possibly innocent.