1. "The Ruby Story"
Posted by Kat on Feb-28th-04 at 9:26 PM

I have been innundated with letterbox mail asking me to please explain this Ruby story.
I should have done this sooner but I procrastinated, partly because I was getting a new computer set up and trying to learn all the things on it and finding my files and learning to scan.
Also, I couldn't figure out how to paraphrase the story because each article is a bit different.  Then there is Gramma's story as well.  I will call "Gramma", "G".

I will try here now to get this straight, and will continue here to try.

Ruby Cameron's mother was named Margaret.  "Maggie", sometimes she was called.  She was probably a maid of the Anthony family.
She was friends with Bridget Sullivan (the Borden's maid in 1892) who might be "Nora Donohue", in some articles.
However, Bridget Sullivan is not named ever by Cameron...so that might be where everyone's confusion starts.
Some articles say that Ruby was substituting the name Nora for Bridget- through a memory problem, or it was told to her wrongly?
If we assume "NORA" is Bridget the links begin to make some sense.

Ruby's father was John Cameron who worked for the Anthony Family and they lived at 368 N. Main Street, according to the City Directory.  There was a son named David.  The story is that David wanted to marry Lizzie- he 22 and she 32- both family's with decent money- but Andrew would not allow it.  "G" points now to the Trickey-McHenry story of a mad Andrew who would not countenance a marriage as he hated the man and would kick Lizzie out and it was implied she was pregnant.
The Trickey-McHenry article implied this, and "G" says it was so.  "G" says Lizzie had an abortion about the time of the murders.  This part is "G"s story but is not in the RUBY articles.

The Trickey-McHenry article has been claimed false in every particular, by everyone since the day after it appeared in the newspaper.
Therefore it is an assumption on anyone's part, and pure speculation, that Lizzie had a boyfriend and that she was pregnant.

In Ruby's story supposedly told her by Lizbeth during the week Ruby nursed her around the time of her last illness, Andrew supposedly fought with David over his marrying Lizzie,  and David killed Abby and Andrew with the hatchet.

"David...was a suiter of Lizzie Borden and...murdered her parents 'in a fit of fury.  David got tearing mad because Lizzie's father wouldn't let him marry her and laid down the law,' Ruby said.

After the murders, Ruby says Lizzie told her, Nora Donahue, the Borden's maid [sic], ran to the Anthony's house on North Main Street to get Maggie Jonsson, the Anthony's maid.  Somehow, according to Ruby, Maggie got her fiance, John Cameron, to come to Second Street with his meat delivery wagon.  He took David Anthony, Nora and Maggie to the Kempton Farm in New Bedford, where David remained in hiding, Ruby says.

She offers no reason why Lizzie stayed at the Borden home to take the rap."

Margaret Jonsson, who supposedly was a maid of the Anthony's, was Ruby's mother.  Ruby said after her father John Cameron died, her mother fell into a pattern of drunkeness and kleptomania.  Ruby felt guilty that she had worked for Lizbeth as a nurse, because she knew her mother couldn't stand the thought of it.
But, supposedly, when Lizbeth found out that Ruby was Margaret's [Maggie Cameron] daughter, she told Ruby the story and Ruby asked her some things too.

Ruby's parent's did not expose David ever and everyone kept quiet.
The participants who were servants, or John, who worked for the ANthony meat business, were immigrants who were afraid of being deported and that supposedly kept them from talking and ensured the secret.

That was c. 1927, and Ruby told her story in 1985.  One article states Ruby was disgusted by a review of a  Lizzie Borden book when she decided to tell what she knew.  She was reading about Spiering, but the article does not say if that particular book was one which disgusted her.

That is Ruby's story- besides that she rode to Maplecroft as a young girl, on the back of David Anthony's motorbike.  She said she thought David used her as an excuse to visit Lizzie and she sounded happy to go.

" 'I watched David go absolutely crazy,' [Ruby] Cameron said Lizzie told her.  'He killed my stepmother, waited until father came home and killed him.  I seemed to be numb.' "

" 'Mother called Lizzie [later] "that woman" and felt Lizzie was as much to blame as David.' "

"In the short time Cameron spent with Lizzie, before her death, she asked her, 'Was it true father and mother got David in the meat wagon?' and Lizzie said it was."

Ruth Waring, who is related by marriage to Jenning's son-in-law, did reply to a query by the paper that she was shocked at the story, at the time, 1985.  She was David Anthony's niece, Ruth, and she said of him.."I knew my uncle David very well.  He was a shy, kind, gentle man, and I never heard anyone speak of any association with Lizzie Borden....We called him Uncle Dade...[he] loved the outdoors.  He would come from Fall River to Swansea on his motorcycle many days.  He had a cottage on the water and he would go sailing many afternoons.  I can remember going with him."

"David played the violin. Ruth, a pianist, remembers playing with Uncle Dade.  'He was a master of the harmonica', Ruth said.  'I remember him as a very religious man.  He belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Fall River and later became a Christian Scientist.' "

The  relationship between "G" and the Ruby story is this:
That "G"'s grandmother worked one year at Maplecroft and probably knew Nellie Miller who stayed with Lizbeth until the end.
Also, "G" says the 2 women had worked at the same mill together prior to service.
"G" was told the Ruby story directly by Ruby.
"G" is not related to Ruby or the Anthony story, except her grandmother worked at Maplecroft and knew Nellie.
Nellie is not part of the RUBY story- but a connection to Lizbeth.

[Rebello-289 - "Miller, Ellen, servant at the Borden home, female, white, age 30, single, immigrated 1891, naturalized citizen, born in England, father born in England, mother born in England, occupation, servant for a private family (Borden)."]

[In Lizzie's will, after The City Of Fall River (for care of Andrew's gravesite), Ellen Miller was second-named:]
"2. To my housekeeper and to each one of the servants who shall have been with me for five years and shall be in my employ at the time of my death the sum of three thousand dollars.

Ellen B. Miller $3,000.00"

Rebello
338+
"19. To my housekeeper, Ellen B. Miller, always called Nellie, all the contents of her room if she wants them.

Profile: Miss Ellen "Nellie" Miller was born in Bolton, England, in May 1890. She was the daughter of James T. Miller and Jane (Bennett) Miller. Ellen's sister, Jane, was born in 1895. She also had a brother, Alfred. Miss Miller's father, a widower, died in 1904 at the age of 43, leaving Nellie and her sister Jennie "Jane" to live with an aunt and uncle, Cyrus and Mary Miller.

...Miss Miller began her employment as a housekeeper and maid at Maplecroft in 1914 at the age of twenty-six. She resided with Lizzie for thirteen years. After Lizzie's death in 1927, Miss Miller went to live with her sister Jane, her cousin Winifred and her aunt Mary in Fall River. Nellie continued to work as a domestic after Lizzie died. Miss Miller's aunt died in 1939. Her cousin, Winifred, died in 1960.
Miss Ellen "Nellie" Miller died in Fall River on November 11, 1980. She was in her 92nd year. She was a former Sunday school teacher, as well as a member of Union United Methodist Church in Fall River, the Sunshine Circle, and the Fall River Women's Club. Waring- Ashton conducted the funeral services. She was survived by her sister Miss Jane B. Miller, a cousin, and two nieces."

"G" says Gertie wanted to court and did have a suitor and did marry about 1914.  So "G" thinks her Grandmother Gertie reccommended Nellie Miller for her job, as they were friends.  Nellie did start at Maplecroft in 1914.
Now, "G's grandmother's picture was put here, and "G's" mother as a baby.
So "G" must be Miss Taylor (what was- in case she married)- daughter of Virginia Taylor.

Rebello 289:
"Gertrude M. (Russell) Callow was employed as a live-in domestic from 1912-1913. Miss Russell was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts, March 1889. She was the daughter of Addison E. and Minerva F. (Hubbard) Russell and sister of William E. and Frederick C. Russell. Miss Russell was first employed as an operator at the Kerr Thread Mill, a domestic for Miss Borden and a clerk. She later married John W. Callow (1883-1967), who was first employed as a weaver, gardener and a sexton at the Church of Ascension in Fall River. The Callows resided in Fall River. Mrs. Russell died in Fall River, February 25, 1968, at the Home for the Aged (now Adams House, a rest home). She was survived by a daughter, Mrs. Harold C. (Virginia) Taylor; and a son, Mr. John R. Callow. Mr. and Mrs. Callow are buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Fall River."

In the articles, the main consensus as to David Anthony, was that his family was probably wealthy and that he probably did not work.
"G" claimed David was a butcher, and Ruby said he worked in the Anthony meat plant, but Bernie Sullivan says in his article that "David never held a full-time job" ...according to "published materials."

In the video The Strange Case Of Lizzie Borden", the story was mentioned at the end.  Joyce Williams was asked to comment because she had  talked to Ruby.
She said that Ruby was a dignified, older lady who was not senile.
A person knowlegeable about the Borden case pondered that Lizbeth may have said anything at the end. 
Ruby's mother, being herself afflicted, might have said anything also.

--Sources:
Sunday Standard-Times, New Bedford, Mass., January 13, 1985, pg. 11.

The Boston Herald, Sunday, January 27, 1985, 119

Providence Journel-Bulletin, Jan. 13, 1985 C-2.


(Message last edited Feb-28th-04  9:31 PM.)

Kat -- that is amazing! That makes sense even to me!

I don't see why Lizzie would have told anyone anything
unless she just wanted to put the blame off on someone
else because she was old & sick & didn't like being
thought of as the killer even if she was found not
guilty -- or if she wanted to blame someone to keep
the blame off another person entirely.

I can picture her wanting to tell people it wasn't
really her --- even if she had to admit she knew who
it was & why she protected them. If she was guilty
she probably didn't enjoy having people think she was.

WOW Kat,

Great job summarizing a whirlwind!
There are only a couple of things I need to clarify.

"The Trickey-McHenry article has been claimed false in every particular, by everyone since the day after it appeared in the newspaper."

NOT in every particular and NOT by everyone as evidenced by this quote from the Globe itself!
"The story may be wrong in some other minor particulars, but the weight of the evidence favors the main facts to be true."

This story was also published in the Porter book so someone else thought it worthy of attention!

"Some articles say that Ruby was substituting the name Nora for Bridget- through a memory problem, or it was told to her wrongly?"
This was the reporter's confusion. Ruby was never unclear about Nora Donahue being a maid for the Anthony's along with her mother, Maggie Jonsson.

Ruby held Joyce Williams in high regard and spoke of her often to me.
Because of Ruby's opinion I own a copy of The "Casebook" but to my chagrin it is still buried in a box in storage.

Thank you, Kat, for oncce again rising to the occasion.

Gramma

If Nora was not Bridget, then what connection does Nora, Bridget and Margaret have?
Margaret was Icelandic, not Irish, correct?

Thanks for the summary Kat. "You'se guys" (as we said in NY) had so many messages flying back and forth that it had been hard to follow.

'splain Lucy, why Anthony would kill Abby.  He would have seen Abby one to two hours before Andrew.  What brought him to a frenzy that he killed her so savagely? I would think Abby would be delighted Lizzie was going to get married and out of the house. If the tension between them was even half true she would have been helping Lizzie pack.  And would not only Andrew's opinion mattered to him anyway?  This was 1892 and the head of the house's opinion was supreme.

Bless ya, Kat - it makes sense now!!

Thanks to Kat for the clear and succinct summary!  I understand the story, but I have problems with it. First, if Bridget was not Nora, how did they keep her from noticing the sudden flurry of activity.  Now we have the murders, and enraged beau running for an ax, two maids and a fiance running hither and yon to clean and cover up.  But no one noticed any of it? Especially the maid, who just couldn't be persuaded to check out the cheap fabric sale at Sargent's? And WHY would Andrew object to David's honest proposal to a pregnant Lizzie?  Even if there was bad blood between them (BEFORE David got the ax), I think Andrew would have been inclined to overlook it in order to legitimize the child and separate at least two of the bickering women in the family. 

Why would Ruby tell the story?  Maybe because she believed what her mother said when in her cups.  Maybe Lizzie perpetuated the story because David was dead and beyond harm, but someone else was not. For that matter, some plainly guilty people (H.H. Holmes comes to mind) have declared their innocence on the gallows.  Who knows why? Or as I suggested before, she wanted to ease Ruby's conscience as nurse. These things I can believe. The story I cannot.

--Lyddie

Well, you asked for some proof that this story was false.
I tend to take a challenge like that.
You have, as yet,not  provided any proof yourself that it is true...

This is partly what was published in Porter's book.  I didn't just take out the parts which claim a hoax, but you led me right to all the story by Porter himself, who was around and knew the participants.  Porter leaves out his own opinion but it seems pretty clear what did happen:

Porter
144
"Henry G. Trickey bargained with Detective McHenry for an exclusive story of the Borden case and the price to be paid was $500, according to Mr. Trickey. The story was delivered, paid for and published in the Boston Globe. It was false in every particular, and the Globe discovered its mistake ten hours after it had been made. Mr. Trickey left Boston soon afterward and was accidentally killed by a railroad train in Canada in the latter part of November. His friends insisted that he was unjustly dealt with by McHenry, and that his death was the indirect result of the transaction."

Porter
145
"As the Fall River police in connection with McHenry secured the evidence upon which Mr. Trickey was indicted, it is but natural to expect that they had reasons for so doing. To offset this, the friends of the reporter claim that he was the victim of a plot of which McHenry was the moving spirit and they shoulder most of the blame on the detective. He, however, appears to be able to bear the burden, as Marshal Hilliard has repeatedly said that he found McHenry a capable, reliable and trustworthy officer so far as his connection with him had been. Thus it will be seen that if Mr. Trickey was innocent of the charges preferred against him he was at a disadvantage, for the Fall River police, as well as the District Attorney and the Attorney-General were kept thoroughly posted on what was taking place between the reporter and the detective."


Porter
150
"At this point the writer asked Mr. McHenry if he furnished Mr. Trickey with a list of the witnesses for the government. He replied,'“The only living evidence that I furnished Mr. Trickey with the names of living witnesses, is that I did tell him that I, my wife and Bridget Sullivan were witnesses for the prosecution, and that he knew before I told him. I defy contradiction of this statement.' ”



--As to The Boston  Globe quote, From "100  Years of the Boston Globe" what about:

"But a few months later the Globe was lucky to escape ruination. The paper fell for a false story that purported to disclose the state's complete murder case against Lizzie Borden. It wrapped the double murder of her mother and father right around her neck. The 'inside story,' exploded by the Globe before Lizzie had been tried or even indicted, was exposed as false as soon as it was printed; it must have been the harried condition of the Borden lawyers, desperately seeking to contrive any plausible defense for Lizzie, that led them to settle for a complete retraction and apology."

and

" But Trickey didn't trust the detective to protect his expensive scoop, and he must have rushed the story to print, for he failed to take elementary precautions to check names and addresses of McHenry's "witnesses" (who didn't exist)-- or even their street numbers, as lawyer Jenning's was quick to point out as soon as the Globe story appeared.



The Evening Standard, New Bedford, Monday, October 10, 1892:


"A TISSUE OF LIES.

.......................
Lawyer Jennings Says the Boston Paper's Story Is False.
........................
Member of Fall River Police Force Asserts That It Is True.
........................
Names are Fictitious, But Statements Substantially True.
........................

Fall River, Oct. 10.-- Andrew J. Jennings, counsel for the defendent in the Borden case, made the following statement to a correspondent to-day:  The matter published in a Boston paper this morning relating to the murders of Andrew J. Borden and his wife [see second page] is a tissue of lies.  I have endeavored to find out about Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace, at the number indicated, 198 Fourth Street.  There is not only no such number but not any within 50 of it.  There is no such name George F. Sisson in the directory, nor can I find any person who knows anybody of that name.  The kernel of the whole malicious story deals with a condition which is absolutley disproved by things found in the cellar by the prosecution and admitted to be what Miss Lizzie claimed they were.  Subsequent events have confirmed her claim.  Mr. Morse says that the whole story is absolutely false, not a word of truth in it.  The Reagan story has already been denied by Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie, and was admitted by Mrs. Reagan to be false by at least six persons."

A member of the police force says today that the names used in the story are fictitious, but the matter is substantially true."
[Here, we have one insider attesting to the "matter".  He is not named.  He is no source]


100 Years of The Boston Globe

..."In this story McHenry was quoted as still asserting that the facts he had given were true but that 'the names of witnesses were given wrong for obvious reasons.'

However, the Globe reported that the statement of Dr. Bowen as to Lizzie's physical condition convinced them that 'in this respect at least, McHenry was wrong. The story may be wrong in some other minor particulars, but the weight of the evidence favors the main facts to be true.'

But this wouldn't stand up either. Lesser headlines told: 'Mr. Morse is Very Angry / He has commanded his lawyers to take steps at once to secure legal redress.' Another headline was 'Can't Find Witnesses / So Jennings is Not Convinced' and another 'I Can't Believe It' / What Rev. A. E. Buck of Fall River Has To Say of the Case.' What the family minister had to say was what everybody was saying by that time.

The Globe said it next edition. The center of the Tuesday evening front page retracted in bold face type under a top headline:

The Lizzie Borden Case

...The Globe feels it its duty as an honest newspaper to state that it has been grievously misled in the Lizzie Borden case. It published on Monday a communication that it believed to be true evidence. Some of this remarkably ingenious and cunningly contrived story undoubtedly was based on true facts... The Globe believes however that much of it is false and never should have been published. The Globe being thus misled has innocently added to the terrible burdens of Miss Lizzie Borden...We hereby tender our heartfelt apology for the inhuman reflection on her honor as a woman and for any injustice the publication reflected on her... The same sincere apology applies to Mr. John V. Morse and any other persons to whom the publication did an injustice...

This, incredibly enough, seems to have been enough to hold off any damage suits. Next day the Globe had a headline:

'Honest Amend / Globe Apology Pleased Its Readers / Regrets Spread Broadcast at Fall River / McHenry's Act Condemned by Fair-Minded Citizens.'
Its leading editorial repeated the apology and alibi. "



--I'm not sure if you read the whole article recently.  I'm not sure if you read the whole Trickey-McHenry story recently, which I had transcribed and to which I provided a link.
I'm not sure why these statements don't seem to mean to you what they say, which is that this was a hoax.
I'm sorry, but no Bordenite, I think, would ever believe the Trickey-McHenry story.
That's just a friendly note to you- if that is a basis for proof of Ruby's story- it won't get far.

Did Ruby talk about the Trickey-McHenry story?  Did she say it was true or mention any details that she thought were right?  Did she know about it?

Thanks for softening your stance that these affidavits from "witnesses" you knew were true.  Explaining as you did later, that this is in the context of your opinion, is a progressive stance to take and leaves room for debate.




(Message last edited Feb-29th-04  3:19 AM.)

Great job, Kat!

You have "unweaved" a very tangled web. Send your resume to the New York Times Book Review - they need skilled individuals to provide an analytical perspective that unravels complex story issues.

The Ruby story is fascinating, exciting . . . and incredible.

Hi Kat,
Nora and Maggie were maids at the Anthonys. Maggie was, indeed, Icelandic and the story of how she and her brother came to this country is a soap opera in itself!
The connection to Bridget would have been via David and the sisterhood of servants.

Gramma

Kat,
Did I ever say I KNEW the witnesses were true? Please quote me on that. I think I said don't discount what they said automatically as false. I continue to say look for the golden thread of truth.
Are there certain facts that seem to repeat in several of the statements? Don't just NOT read them!
You continue to see only the surface and not what lies under it. If it were easy to see the truth of it then there would be no debate or discussion here today.
The Globe was a new baby on the block. It had to fight for its life through this episode. When Dr Bowen covered for Lizzie they had no recourse but to apologize. But there are signals throughout the articles that it might not be as black and white as everyone would like it to seem.
Porter, pg 144
"It was false in every particular, and the Globe discovered its mistake ten hours after it had been made."
This is purely Porters's opinion and not fact. And was he just trying to protect himself from a lawsuit?



Porter, pg 150
"He replied,'“The only living evidence that I furnished Mr. Trickey with the names of living witnesses, is that I did tell him that I, my wife and Bridget Sullivan were witnesses for the prosecution, and that he knew before I told him. I defy contradiction of this statement.' ”

No one could ever contradict such a cagey statement! Notice the extremely careful wording of the begininning of the sentence...."the only living evidence..."  He is saying, in effect, "The only thing you'll ever be able to prove....." He is not saying it was false!

Contradictions abound in the Globe's stories, even in its own explanations. Where there are contradictions there is usually a coverup.
The more local the paper the more bias involved. I give little credence to anything Jennings or anyone from the defense said about this article. Their job was to bury it fast!  That is why there was an effort to remove Porter's book from the market as fast as it came out. Much to their chagrin there were some escapees.

Personally, I really don't care what the general concensus of Bordenites is. I make up my own mind by reading and thinking and listening to people who were in direct contact. The preponderance of surface evidence does not prove Ruby's story, but it does not exclude it either.
I'll close with this.....If there is no substance to Lizzie either having a boyfriend or possibly being pregnant then why were there references and hints of it from so many directions? It is my contention there was an effort to let people know what was really going on but the suppression and cover-up was incredibly successful.
Before Ruby told me her story, the references and hints of it never stood out. After she told me I went back and re-read and was astounded at the things I had just skimmed past and read in a very different light. Ruby connected the dots for me and once the dots were connected things that were previously loose ends were now woven into the fabric of the whole story.

Gramma

Add my thanks as well Kat!  You also have my humble admiration at you ability to take facts, information, posts, speculation and obscure remarks and present them in a succinct review while maintaining their source, addressing their credibiity and making it all make sense-- keeping your opinions apart and allowing the reader to make his or her own conclusions. 

You should, indeed-- get a job in this area!  A high paying one at that!

Gramma....

May I kindly share with you one of the main concerns and problems I have with some of the posts you present?  I mean this without malice and in no way think it is intentional on your part...

I will use an earlier post in this thread as an example:


Maggie was, indeed, Icelandic and the story of how she and her brother came to this country is a soap opera in itself!


OK... You seem to be possession of inside information and you hint at it quite a bit-- and you also have coyly hinted that you may (or may not) write a book.  If you are planning to write a book-- then I can see your reluctance to divulge certain information or sourced you have which may compromise your writing.  If you are not planning to write a book I do not understand your not giving more details on some of your dramatic announcements. 

If you are indeed planning a book, say so.  We will respect that and not attempt to lure information from you that you are protecting until your work is published. 

Again, I find you a welcome addition to the forum.

"I defy contradiction of this statement."
Yes, claiming to have told something to a dead man can never be contradicted! The real burden is to prove the truth, not to prove innocence.
Logically, innocence can never be "proved", and, is an unfair burden. IE "prove you had nothing to do with this crime".

First it is just common sense that anyone who "dated" (as defined in those times) Lizzie would want to stay away from the possible smears. Think of something in your day, such as at high school. You could have been friends with someone, but would not be involved with anything he did.

The classic example is Lee Harvey Oswald. Before he was involved with the Russian emigre set and others(?). After the shooting nobody knew him. (You have to read the books to find out more than the press reported.)

Thank you Kat and Gramma, the story is much clearer now.  Only makes
things more interesting and more to think about..

The thing is nobody is ever going to know what really went on inside that family, think about your own families are there things that only you as a family member know about that no family friend, neighbor,etc will ever know.  No one truly knows how anothers family truly ticks, and nobody will ever know how a person truly ticks, everyone has things about themselves that they keep for themselves, I don't care who you are, they are between you and God.  The Borden family to me seems like the type of family who let you know only as much as they wanted you to know.  They seemed very paranoid and reclusive to me.  If I were a betting woman I would lay money on the fact that there were things going on in Miss Lizzie's life that were we to hear of them it would floor us!  All we have to rely on are a bunch of facts from people who were not a part of the Borden family home life, not the surface home life, but the inside nitty gritty stuff, the stuff proper people hide from the outside world.  Yes, Bridgett was inside but only so much, and I think she knew more than she was ever willing to share.  Do I think Lizzie's boyfriend did it? Who am I to say, I am certainly not going to discredit someone who claims he did, because I was not there, I never knew Lizzie, never talked to her, never even peeked inside her diary ( oh what I would not give to do that though!) I don't know who the real Lizzie is, I only know the legend and a bunch of facts that the experts layed out for us.  Do you know why we don't know the real Lizzie?  Because she was a master manipulator, not only of other people but of herself, she could control, hide and invent her emotions better than any actress. This part of herself I believe she did unintentionally let the outsider see, plus I have alot of experience with members of my own extended family possesing these skills. She had incredible survival instincts, I believe she could do whatever it took to insure her survival. I believe she did do whatever it took.  Did that take form in her killing or her boyfriend killing or her half brother killing ...I don't know.  but one thing I do know, when I get to heaven if God holds a question answer session on the mysteries of life, I am going to be raising my hand anxiously, wanting to know who really killed those Bordens?!

i agree.  you've identified the problem:  motive.  nothing turns up to explain the reason for killing abby.  this is another "abby made him mad enough to decapitate her" -- WITHOUT (as usual) a believeable motive, if a motive at all.  barring the incest theory (with andrew sexually possessive of lizzie) -- i can see no reason why he would not have been tickled pink to have her off his hands and off his payroll -- unless there was something UNACCEPTABLE about the identity of the suitor, which is the very thing this theory lacks.   

which reminds me of how much these murders look like planned "executions."  and certainly  not because abby made someone mad. 



  

I understand, Gramma, that you have a point about conspiracies and newspapers, and suppression of stories and possible murder, of money paving the way to an outcome.
I am probably the same age as you, and that means we have lived about the same amount of time.  So I have the abilitry to understand your points and did read all the material I could on the Trickey-McHenry fiasco.  I also can read betweeen the lines like anyone else.  I can see the subtlies as well.

What is different here, is my thoughts on the subject are still open.  I really don't shut my mind to any theory.  I find them all endlessly fascinating.
But- I also have a foundation in the source documents, over and above the authors and the newspapers.  I haven't met Ruby, nor Lizbeth, for that matter.  I have not been convinced of anything by anyone.
I like it like that.
Yet I still strive to find some truth in this case.

I do continually thank you for your attention.

Did Ruby talk about the Trickey-McHenry story?  Did she say it was true or mention any details that she thought were right?  Did she know about it?

Hi Kat,
It was not my intention to imply that you, specifically, would skim over material! Your attention to detail is wholly obvious and admirable! There are some out there, though, who read a couple of the books and think they know the whole story. I have been attempting to show there are sources that some have never heard of or looked at. And that there are more ways than one to look at a set of words. Not only do you have to look at the motivation of the murderer, you also have to look at the motivation of those who wrote the words about the murder (Trickey's was money and fame, McHenry's was possible fame in solving the case, the Police department's involvement was what?).
My motivation is simple and not unlike Lizzie's in telling Ruby, or Ruby's in telling the world and me. I believed Ruby implicitly after years of reading about, hearing about , and thinking about the story. Her story was the only thing that made sense to me and tied up the loose ends. I am afraid if I do not share it now and something happens to me it will not be told or given the credence it deserves. Writing it is an answer, but that will not happen overnight. In the meantime I want to share what I can here.

My mind was entirely open until I met Ruby. I, like her, could not stand all the new dark Lizzie gendre floating about. Theories that had no basis at all, and trying to apply today's social mores to a time when they did not exist. I was convinced from all the reading I had done, starting at age 15 (I do have a few years on you, but just a few!, and the meager gleanings from home that Lizzie had not actually swung any axe. Pearson was the first book I read and I wrote so many notes and exclamation points in the margins you could hardly see the type. I was furious that he had put his own "spin" on it to the point of presenting it as fact.
In Ruby's case I am adding no spin. I heard it from the very mouth who heard it from Lizzie, I have no doubt about that at all. Ruby was very much of Lizzie's time period. There was no nonsense and everything she had to tell me was straightforward. There were those she did not trust and she gave them tidbits but not the meat of the story. She chose the papers she talked to and who she would meet in person. If there was something she did not want to say, she didn't! She confessed how hard it was to divulge the story after growing up under the "We don't talk about that!" rule. I confess, even I, another generation down the road, am having some trouble with that. My mother's words were often "Would Gramma like that?" and those words are ringing in my ears with every word I now type. I envision a gaggle of women looking over my shoulder....Mom, Gramma, Ruby, Mrs Brigham, and Lizzie.  And I consider myself extremely independent! Hah!

Yes, Ruby knew about the Trickey-McHenry story but not until later in her life. She said many of the things I have said here...."don't throw the baby out with the bath water"...."truth is often buried in fiction"....."read slowly and carefully"....."find the common thread".
She and I talked often about reporters and their unreliability sometimes, and then those who put everything they had into their job.
She talked about the possibility that Lizzie may have been pregnant but we never went into the conclusion of that pregnancy, whether it was birth or miscarriage or abortion. It was not a subject Ruby would speculate about very much. The most that happened was we tossed about the options and that was the end of that.

Ruby and I thought a lot alike although she was of a fiesty and firey spirit and I see myself as much quieter in spirit. I'm sure some of you would not agree. Where Ruby was likely to be an explosion I would be a stonewall. She occasionally became a stonewall and I occasionally explode.
She had a Masters in English Literature and a Doctorate in Biochemistry as well as her RN. She was not dull, that is for sure!
The Lizzie story was not all we talked about and some of the hesitation seen in my posts is my trying to decide what is proper for this forum and what is "off topic" and, indeed, as some have guessed, what do I need to save if I intend to write.
You all have the basic story and enough source information to dig out more but I do love an active, intelligent discussion.

Constructive criticism is not a negative. It is a sign of thought and a motivator of growth.

Gramma

"which reminds me of how much these murders look like planned "executions."  and certainly  not because abby made someone mad."

Haulover,
You and my mother would have gotten along famously! Mom was convinced it went way beyond the obvious and was a "corporate" hit involving Andrew's business at the bank.
I am not sure about that but it is open for consideration in my mind.

Gramma

At the Inquest, Lizzie responded to Knowlton’s question as to whether or not her father had any enemies.  She responded by pointing to Hiram Harrington.  (I’ve always thought Lizzie was still fuming over Hiram’s interview about her being “haughty and domineering”, etc.  etc. ).  Years later when Hiram died, Lizzie remarked (can’t think of the source right now) to the effect that was her last chance of proving her innocence.   In all her lifetime, she never implied any one else but Hiram.

As to David Anthony, I have to wonder why not one word has ever been printed indicating Lizzie had a relationship – of ANY kind – with this man.   If he courted her, would he not have accompanied her to church or church functions?  We only have it that Lizzie was escorted to church one time by Dr. Bowen when Andrew and Abby were in Swansea.  Apparently, that caused some tongues to wag.  But no tongue wagging anywhere about dear David.  

Slow dissolve.  Fast frame up.  The meat wagon.  The method of escape.  No one saw a meat wagon leaving the area of 92 Second Street. At least it never came up in the Witness Statements, Inquest, Prelim, Trial,  decades of independent essays, books, and/or  film documentaries.    I suppose David could have gotten out by the cellar door, jumped the back fence, sprinted across the orchard and hopped into a meat wagon waiting for him on Third Street.  All things are possible.  But are they probable?

What is very probable is that Lizzie had the clearest of motives, the best opportunity, and the means to commit both murders.  As with Lee Harvey Oswald, conspiracy theorists in this case will continue to speculate and weave patterns of belief.   It’s part of the mind-spin in finding a solution to this enigmatic case.  But ask any criminal investigator and they will all concur that the evidence pointing to a suspect in the very early stages of investigation usually points correctly.  The further in time away from the crime, the less likely the evolving “clues” will prove correct.

AR Brown's book claims that Wm S Borden (and Wm L Bassett) parked their buggy at Hiram's stable. Note that this was where Uncle John headed upon his return that Thursday noon, according to his testimony.
(All from Brown's book.)

There was never any evidence (hatchet, blood stains, etc.) to connect Lizzie (or Bridget) to this crime. Blaming Lizzie seems like a desperate act (the only known person there).

As for Lee Harvey Oswald, it appears or seems that he was on the front steps when the shots were fired. Note that rifle was found on the south-west side of the building, not the south side where the empty shells were found. There is too much to say about this, but some books (like the 1966 'Rush To Judgment') cover this better.
The 1978 Select Congressional Committee reinvestigated this and brought out more facts.

(Message last edited Mar-1st-04  11:28 AM.)

Of course the paper would allege that it hadn't totally printed garbage; I don't find the statement concerning how they were only wrong in some particulars anything beyond an attempt to save face.

Nice job, Kat!  But why should it have been up to YOU to untangle this account?  

G., how many directions, as you've put it, is the pregnancy story coming from?  Two?

I see Lizzie killing Abby out of hatred more easily than David Anthony. 

This has all been fascinating, and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but it's not adding up for me.  How many people were paid off to look the other way when the meat wagon full of cleaner-uppers showed up?

I'd like to echo the sentiment expressed above, that if you're writing a book and need to keep your cards close to the vest, please tell us so.  Otherwise, if you really expect us to buy this, please tell all.

I agree with Merri.

There are dynamics in every family kept hidden to the outside world.  I think the Bordens had slightly more than their fair share of secrets behind those locked doors of theirs!

I have to admit I don't entirely understand this story. Guess I'm just dense.

Mark, you may have missed message #1 in this thread.  If so, go back and read it!  Kat summarizes Gramma's theory and sources for all those who weren't following all along.  Even those of us who had read every word found that entry VERY helpful in getting straight on relationships, real names and newspaper pseudonyms, scenario, and method of passing the story along. Try rereading it if you have read it before--concentrating more on events and presumed motives than on names, which are slippery as a bar of soap.  Most of us are intrigued and respectful, but unconvinced.  See what you think!

--Lyddie

Okay, this is how I understand the story. David Anthony wanted to marry Lizzie. Andrew refused to allow it, so Anthony killed Andrew and Abby in a rage. He then bails, leaving Lizzie at the scene to take the rap. Lizzie kept silent from 1892 till 1927, finally telling a nurse during her final illness.

I am not convinced either. Why would Anthony kill Abby if he was only pissed at ANDREW?  If David was from a wealthy family, why would have Andrew said no, especially if Lizzie was pregnant with David's baby? Plus, how does this fit with Lizzie's/Lizbeth's alledged homosexuality?

Please forgive me, I need more proof.

(Message last edited Mar-1st-04  8:05 PM.)

Thank you for your post (#20) Gramma, very well written and along
with Kat's expert organization of all, It is making sense.  That you
are willing to share your inside knowledge is so lucky for us.  As you
can see we don't all agree but you are a gem, thank you!

Yes, I agree!  I like the "Journey".

As I've said before Gramma, you are very patient.
I was thinking last night about those who have had the passion of their conviction to write a book.
The ones which are memorable are the ones who believe firmly they have solved the case- for instance Fritz Adilz's current article in The Hatchet.
He is sure.
Brown seemed sure.
Lincoln came off as pretty sure.

I can't be sure, but I do have some passion.

Dear Bob:  I just took a challenge.  You know me.  I made myself look stuff up.

And Gramma, I think it's neat that members are motivated to hash this out.

It just struck me....

If Lizzie experienced an abortion on or about the time of the murders she would have still be bleeding, rather heavily a week later when she was arrested. 

She would have done so for upwards of 6 weeks.

Surely the matron at the prison would have noticed an exceptionally long menses such as this and any woman would know what a period of this length and "strength" would have meant....

Surely we've heard of people who change their lifestyle after marriage, or even within it?

Good point.  Unless they assumed she had suffered a miscarriage from the stress and ruled it out as evidence. Maybe it's mentioned in the Sitz Bath collection.

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Mar-2nd-04  4:43 PM.)

Earle Stanley Gardener wrote in one of his "Perry Mason" stories that "only murders by organized crime are never solved". But this was prior to the 1960s and the effects of quick and easy hiway travel.

Remember the story of Andy cheating the Brayton family over an inheritance? (David Kent's book?) Maybe the ruling class would not allow Andy to treat (or cheat) them like the working poor?

I would like to see more facts and less speculation.

The "motive" of an illegitimate son who was crazy provides murder, and a reason not to prosecute. THAT's why AR Brown provided a "logical solution", in my opinion.

The famous Raymond Chandler story about "the little sister" is another example of this. Yes, its fiction, but believable to me. Didn't you know rich kids who could get away with speeding tickets etc. because of their parents?

you're right to draw attention to "motive."  but the "insanity" of the brown theory is what fails to convince.  he was sane enough to get there, to wait an hour and a half, and to escape undetected.  his reason for killing abby?  NO reason -- she made him mad.  go no further but look at that alone.  it's too easy.  and brown does not explain how lizzie was oblivious to the first murder -- yet this must be explained.  these theories need to explain abby's ability to enrage someone to the point where he/she needs to decapitate her.  it looks like the killer walked up on her knowing exactly what he was going to do and why he was doing it -- this was not a matter of someone losing their temper. 

I accept Brown's theory, but can't speak for him. ARB notes that WSB had a reputaion (?) for flying off the handle (about that horse killing when dressed in a suit). I can believe that a low IQ individual can take just so much kidding, etc. (The Starkweather killing in 1958 Nebraska ? is an example.)

The discussion between Andy & Uncle John Wed night after Abby went to bed suggests they cooked up a scheme to bring in WSB for a secret meeting. When Abby found him hiding upstairs, she insulted him. (I don't think it was only Lizzie who wanted her Dad's money.)

"Crazy" doesn't mean totally stupid, etc. WSB waited to see Andy, because that was the purpose of the meeting. A final pay-off? We can only speculate.

The point is that Lizzie didn't know, until she found her Dad's body. She then sent for JVM to figure out what to do. Hence the cover-up.

I can't prove this, it just seems like the most likely explanation to me. It best fits the known facts.

We agree that Lizzie knew more than she told, and her story changed after Uncle John talked to her.

Here is another true story of a crime and coverup.
This formed the basis for an "LA Dragnet" story last year.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0736631658/qid=1078451291//ref=sr_8_xs_stripbooks_i2_xgl14/103-2476643-0446234?v=glance
...
I wonder why its no longer available?


(Message last edited Mar-4th-04  8:51 PM.)