1. "The new NEWZLETTER and the Bridget-dunnit theory"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Aug-1st-03 at 3:35 PM

I loved the LBN interview with that nice man, Len Rebello.  Two years ago, when I was stopping in Fall River just after the anniversary, Len himself (after taking me through the house, from top to bottom, showing me the new pieces that had been added to improve the authenticity) and Bill took me over on a hot, sunny, humid morning (yet it was only 82 degrees!) to show me the location of the Whitehead place.  What a pleasure and an honor!

I enjoyed Carolyn Gage's piece, though I'll never believe Bridget Sullivan killed BOTH Bordens.  Yes, I'll go the Radin route and agree that a sick servant could've gotten into a dangerous row with her mistress, leading to slaughter.  However, there's never been a good enough (for me) motive to explain why she'd hang around and kill Andrew, and that includes one Ms. Gage mentions.  That's that Bridget might've thought that Andrew overheard her arguing with Abby that morning, and that he then would've fingered her as the murderer immediately when Abby was found.

If I were "the girl," and I had done something as improvident as murdering my employer's wife, and I could escape into a very tight-knit community of servants and working-class folk which could hide me and/or get me out of town quickly, I'd have done that, and not have hung around a minute more than necessary.  A simple lie like "Oh, Miss Lizzie, I've just gotten a note meself, and I must be bringin' this bag over to me cousin Seamus!" could've covered Bridget's exit (with a few possesions), if Lizzie was even mildly interested in where the girl was going.

Opinions?

I tend to agree with you Bob about this, but it was an interesting take on the case. I preferred to read of a Bridget who was upset with her employers than one that got caught in bed with Lizzie (ala Hunter).

I also really liked her take on the gender/working class issues here. Yes, indeed, why WASN'T Bridget suspected? Why pin it all on the "lady" of the house when there was another person there too. And why go to such lengths to protect Bridget ---making sure she was safe and had work and such. I wonder if she was a whiner or someone who demanded to be protected, as opposed to one who was looked at as one who should be protected. Either way, it plays beautifully into Gage's argument.

I also greatly admired her writing about the misrepresentation of Lizzie's emotional life after the murders and during the trial. Compare that to the suspicion that immediately came her way when she told the police "she is not my mother".

All in all, while not necesssarily subscribing to her theory of the crimes, Gage's insight into the life and times of Lizzie and Bridget was well done.

Bridget Sullivan was NOT suspected because the police had the word of Lizzie: "It wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". The Police checked them out anyway; they've heard it all. Also, the alibi of Uncle John and Emma was also checked. Though not mentioned in any book I've read, I'll bet that Uncle Hiram was also checked out (his quarrel w/ Andy). They say about 50-60 suspects were checked out. "Where were you when AJB was murdered?"

Mr Brayton and Joseph Carpenter were the prime suspects. David Kent's book mentions why. One was cheated by Andy, the other cheated Andy and was caught.

Its been many years since I read E Radin's book. I think he pointed at Bridget because she was the only other known person in the house. Like E Pearson, he presented a one-sided portrayal of guilt (to balance the known legend?).

Like the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, the police often pick the closest person as a suspect when no other is available. Maybe its a very common occurrence? Radin tells of many murders by disgruntled employees; read your newspaper for more recent examples.

Bridget's alibi was that she was washinng windows and taking a nap. No one saw her doing either when the times of the murders occurred. We have only her word for it, while Morse was seen by others and had taken note of the particulars of his journey. He provied facts that could be verified. Bridget, on the other hand, was taken at her word.

NO! The Kelly maid (and Ellan Eagan) testified they saw Bridget out in the front yard around 9:30. This may be in the Official Documents. But Bridget was eliminated as a suspect almost from the start.

The same lack of evidence against Lizzie also applies to Bridget.

The Kelly girl, Mary, was questioned by the police and appears in the Witness Statements is this manner: "In the morning, shortly before the murder, Dr. Kelly’s girl, Mary, was talking to Bridget over the fence, neither saw anyone in or around the yard." (p. 8 )

That's it. The sum total of Mary's "testimony". She does not appear in the Inquest, Prelim, or Trial. She was never sworn in or testified under oath. We only have Bridget's sworn testimony that she was speaking to Mary, but she is not pinned down as to the time this talk occurred.

If you can find out where this testimony comes from I would very much appreciate it. Pinning down Bridget may be an excellent topic for discussion here. Thanks for raising it to my consciousness.

I had to edit my post because when I put the 8 in parenthesis it made a smiley face! I had to put in a space after the number to make it go away.

(Message last edited Aug-1st-03  6:43 PM.)

I'm with you, Stefani.  While I don't subscribe to the theory, it was a well written and thought provoking piece!

The only person I know of that testified at all that they saw Bridget outside was Mrs. Churchill and that was that she saw Bridget rinse 1 window of the parlor.  Other than that, from Bridget's alleged chat with Mary on to being seen rinsing a window, no witnesses.  I wonder why those windows weren't examined closely to see how clean they were? 

Ray, when I sent you over to my suspect list at the LABVM/L I admitted there were probably 41 or 42 suspects documented there.  I think you did go and look and I appreciated the effort. 
But then you started to say there were 50 suspects checked and now months later it has escalated to 60.  Just to set the record straight, those were not my numbers.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/SuspectsList.htm
Please note:  3 pages of characters.

The bottom line as well on Bridget *sightings* is that there is no statement or testimony on record which survives from Mary Doolan or Ellen Eagan....  About Bridget or anything else.
Ellen Eagan is listed in the Witness Statements as Allen Eagan, but there is no statement. 
[Edit here:  Also there is a blip about her in the Evening Standard* newspaper as to her short stay on the witness stand.--
*It's not in the Evening Standard;  the blip is in the Boston Herald & The Boston Daily Advertiser, Aug. 11, 1892:  See Rebello, pg. 127-8]

Bridget was seen about 10 a.m. on the front of the house by GeorgePette and around 10 throwing water on the side parlour window by Churchill.

(Message last edited Aug-2nd-03  3:35 AM.)

Inquest
Churchill
127

Q.  How long should you say she was out there, that you saw her washing windows?
A.. I cant tell. I stepped into my bed room for something, I saw her throwing water up on to the parlor window.
Q.  She was washing the parlor window then?


--Hey was Bridget rinsing windows sooner than she said?  She had to come inside to get a *dipper* to throw water on the windows, and that was much later than 10.
Does Bridget throw water up out of the bucket itself before she washes the window or does she just stick the brush in the water and start?  See, if she throws the bucket of water up first, then why would she need a dipper...why not throw a second bucket-load of water up to rinse?

Meanwhile isn't there water and dirty footsteps all around the outside of the windows?

From my timeline, which is not set in concrete, I have Bridget with the dipper rinsing windows around 10:10 to 10:15.  Yes, throwing the water up with a bucket would probably get the job done quicker, but, what alot of water splashing around!

Between the heat and the sun I think most of the water on the ground would evaporate, but, there would probably be at least a few muddy footprints on the driveway side where there was no grass. 

There's always a problem here with the timing of the windows.  If Bridget was in *rinse cycle* already at 10 how come she doesn't get inside until 10:20 [Prelim.17], and only gets 1/2 of one interior window washed by the time Andrew arrived 10:35-10:40?

*Pettee, T. 645, said he saw Bridget with "Pail, dipper and brush" at 10, so she must have been in rinse mode.

--So this whole big darn job of washing the windows really only took about 35 to 40 minutes outside and maybe17 minutes inside. 

That's not much of a motive.

(Message last edited Aug-5th-03  7:05 AM.)

Yes, I agree, there is a problem with the timing as no one can give an exact time for where they were or what they saw, its always about whatever time.  Pettee says the same thing, he saw Bridget about 10, that gives us that leeway for a few minutes before or a few minutes after 10.

Pettee also says that Bridget was stationary in front of the house, which is the west side and possibly the only side with any real shade.  Maybe she was taking a well deserved breather in the shade before going into the house to start with the insides of the windows? 

It's my understanding that Pette sees Bridget standing still in front of the door area and then within a minute or so Churchill see's her throwing water up on the parlour window, on her side of the house.  So to me she is 1/2 done throwing water on windows outside, having started with the sitting room windows and following her washing pattern around the house from south to north.  She would need to complete the Parlour and the dining room windows outside before she put away her stick and come inside.  (If she cleaned any windows).

Let's figure out why she paused there.
To be seen and noticed, which she was?  She managed to be seen by two people around 10--too bad that's no alibi for 9-9:30 (Abby) or 10:45 to 11:10 (Andrew).

As I stated before, I really wish one of the police officers would have checked the windows for signs of recent washing, we'd have a definitive answer then.

All I can come up with is that Bridget just got done scrubbing windows and toting buckets of water around.  She just rinsed the windows on the south side of the house, probably in direct sunlight and wanted a breather in the shade.

Unless Bridget was in cahoots with Lizzie, she'd have to make some show of washing the windows, Lizzie knew she was supposed to wash them and so did John Morse. 

It's not much of a break if within a minute or 2 she is seen working again around the north side of the house.  That's all I can say about those sightings which are basically at the same time.

Could that have been why Bridget's break was so short; because she was noticed doing nothing?  Fear that the word might get back to Andrew? 

Through this thread we have sort of figured out that it was only about an hour's job to wash the windows.
40 minutes outside and possibly 20 minutes inside.
At almost twice Bridget's age and ill at that, I have sweated in Florida heat doing harder work than that for an hour, without killing anyone.

Also, Mrs, Churchill says that it is a pretty common chore at the Borden's.  She seems to think it is once a week on Thursdays.
Bridget claims it is a once a month or maybe twice a month job.
Between them, (Since Bridget is not quite an unbiased witness), maybe we can average it to every 3 weeks or so.  If Bridget has worked there 33 months (please check my math) that's 11 times Bridget has washed the windows without snapping.
I think this is a flaw in this theory.
But I'm willing for a better motive!

Oh, I totally agree!  Now if Abby had told Bridget to go shovel out the stall in the barn because Uncle John had stored a horse in there overnight, that might be a different story! 

LOL.  That would do it for me too, Susan.

The FLAW in this is its derivation from the E Radin book of 1961 - over 40 years ago! It ignores the books of Spiering, Sullivan, and most of all, Brown (who solved the crime in theory).
The same lack of evidence that freed Lizzie applies to Bridget, etc. Bridget also had no motive of inheritance. We do know she liked Mrs Borden, and left this place as soon as possible.

Picking up other peoples' work can be an improvement. Is that true here?

I disagree totally with this opinion. I have spent time in a barn as a youth; it doesn't smell like the great outdoors. But you would be in the shade, and out of sight of the boss. Unlike the window washing. Can we use a little common sense experience?

If I were Bridget I might be more inclined to do violence to Lizzie and Emma than Mr. and Mrs. Borden. I would be deeply insulted to be referred to as Maggie instead of my real name. I think I could only take that so long.

Here's a thought. Bridget meant to kill Lizzie but because of her nearsightedness, killed the wrong woman. She couldn't have confused Andrew for Emma, could she?

Ray, that was a joke, I'm at a loss with the idea that Bridget's motive to kill the Bordens was because of window washing.

I have spent time in a barn in New Jersey years after the animals were ever in there and in summer yet, it stank to high heavens in my opinion.

If Bridget was indeed told to go work in the barn, I think she would feel that was beneath her station as she was a maid of all work for the house, not the yard.  She possibly could have had a grudge then. 

Yes and I was thinking that she was Mrs. Borden's maid and had not the care of the family members rooms or anything to do with them other than their
laundry, meals and dishes.
Taking care of Morses horse would bother Bridget of course of course.

Same can be said for a Vinnicum Morse??

There's a new film based on the infamous and long-lived (up until 1996!) Magdalene nunnery in Ireland, where unwanted, or pregnant, or rebellious young women were delivered into tortured servitude, doing laundry.  These unfortunates were known as "Maggies!"



(Message last edited Aug-6th-03  10:19 AM.)

Do you think thats possibly where Lizzie and Emma got the idea to call Bridget "Maggie"?  I could never quite figure it out.  Was the name to degrade her?  Romanticize her?  Or, just some fond nickname?  Was Bridget's middle name Margaret?  Was it her Confirmation name?

Lincoln said something along the lines that all Irish men were called "Paddies" and the women had a like name, possibly Maggie.  Maggie doesn't sound very Irish, not like Bridget, or Bridie, or Coleen or Kathleen.  I wonder why Lizzie and Emma didn't choose something else? 

I know that Christopher McGovern, who wrote the LIZZIE BORDEN musical, titled Bridget's solo "The Maggie Work," as if "Maggie" was a common appellation for the Irish girls employed for housekeeping and cooking.  I've never bought this idea that the Borden sisters were so insolent that they insisted on calling Bridget by a previous maid's name.  "Maggie" always seemed like a nickname to me. 

Once again, though, it's neat to suppose.  I still get hung up on Bridget's "I'm going to have one" and its multiple translations through the decades.  Do most of us feel she was saying "Yes, I'm going to buy/get me a yard of that cheap cotton fabric you're talkin' about, Miss Lizzie?"   

I once read that the Ford Model T was called the "Tin Lizzie" since "Lizzie" was a generic term for a serving girl or maid.
Some said that "Maggie" was the name of a previous servant, besides Bridget's middle name.
Wasn't there a custom of people using their middle name for the public, and the first name only among family and friends?

I don't think "Bridget" is particularly Irish so much as non-English. You will find plenty of Brigittes and Birgitas on the European continent. Maybe somebody could look up this saint's name?

If "Some" said Bridget's middle name was Maggie they are not correct. She had no middle name. 

She was born in March 1864, (some say 1866) to Eugene and Margaret O'Leary O'Sullivan in Billerough, County Cork, Ireland. She emigrated to the U.S. in 1883.  There is an extensive article on her in the April 1996 LBQ by Riobard O'Dwyer in collaboration with the current editor of the LBQ, Maynard F. Bertolet.

Interesting her mother's name was Margaret.  Perhaps called "Maggie"?  If so, Bridget may not have minded.

I have to smile; my mother's middle name is Margaret.  My grandmother often called her "Maggie-Margaret".

My mother's name was Margaret.  Her ancestors were also from County Cork. You would never have dared call her Maggie.  She detested the name.  She didn't like Peg either.

It certainly wasn't meant as a compliment to Bridget to call her Maggie. I would love to know what Bridget called the "girls" behind their back or beneath her breath.

Thanks for the info, Harry!  As always, you come through.  So, you think Lizzie and Emma meant the name as a tool to degrade Bridget with, like "you are so unimportant we can't even be bothered calling you by your real name"?

The Maggie business has always driven me nuts, Bridget says it didn't bother her to be called that, but, its only by Lizzie and Emma.  Was it possibly because Bridget was their servant; the elder Bordens, and anything to do with them the girls detested by choice? 

We think alike on that Susan.  I think Bridget genuinely liked Abby and that must have P.O.'d  Emma and Lizzie no end.

While Andrew was gone for the day Abby had at least one person there who didn't despise her.

The Maggie thing is to keep Bridget in her place and to let her know that even if Abby likes her she is still a maid.

They say great minds think alike!  Oooo, that makes whatever percentage of Irish blood I have in me boil!  As if the poor foreigners who emigrated to this country in the 1800s didn't face enough indignities and then have to deal with something like that?

I can see Lizzie being very manipulative about it too, being very cordial with Bridget and allowing her to think she has curried some favor with Lizzie just to have it dashed with that "Maggie"! 

  In an effort to learn why Bridget was called "Maggie" by Lizzie and Emma, in early April, 2001, I wrote to Mr. Riobard O'Dwyer, a Genealogist who resides in Ireland.  Mr. O'Dwyer and Mr. Maynard Bertolet wrote an article about Bridget in the Quarterly (as noted by Harry in a previous message to the board).
  The following is Mr. O'Dwyer's reply:
  "Bridget Sullivan was baptized on March 17, 1864 by Fr. James Irwin, P.P.  Her parents were Eugene Sullivan and Margaret Leary of the townland of Billerough in the Allihies (Copper Mines) Parish, Beara Peninsula, County Cork (South-West).  Godparents were Denis Sullivan and Catherine Leary.  BRIDGE IS GIVEN ONLY THE ONE CHRISTIAN NAME IN THE PARISH RECORDS.  THERE ARE NO CONFIRMATION RECORDS FOR THOSE TIMES."
Yours sincerely,
Riobard O'Dwyer (Genealogist)

A nickname for Margaret is "Maggie" or "Peggy".  Girls named Marjorie are also called Maggie," or "Margie."



Bridget had several children. None were named Margaret or Marjorie.
None of the previous maids employed by the Borden were called "Maggie."
According to several ancestry groups I contacted in Ireland, "Maggie" was not used as a nickname for a maid, or any other household position held by Irish women.
Ancestry groups in this country, agreed that this was alsothe case on our shores.
It appears we have another mystery in the Borden saga . . .
My wife's name is Marjorie.  Do I call Her Maggie? - - Not unless I want to cook my own meals.

Oh, Bill, you're so cute!

Thanks so much, William!  So, it sounds as though Harry and I might be barking up the right tree afterall. 

"I KNOW, BOB, I KNOW! BUT WHAT CAN I DO? I'M CURSED!

What do you mean *Bridget had several children?*
Do you mean she had several sisters?

I wasn't there, but maybe Bridget referred to "Lazy As" (watch that sibilant!).
Your turn.

I think it was E Radin who did not mention anything about Bridget's children (newspaper policies of that time).
I believe it was a later book that mentioned "Bridget's children".
Did L Rebello's book document this?

We have a thread around heresomewhere entitled "Bridget's Babies".

Yeah, right, siblings:Denis, Timothy, Mary, Johanna, Catherine, Ellen, Mary #2 (first one died) Philip, Johanna #2, (first one died). (Priv. comm. Naomi Farthing Sullivan, Ancestry.Com.)
Mrs. Sullivan's husband's great aunt was Bridget Sullivan.

(Message last edited Aug-8th-03  11:25 AM.)

Thanks so much, William!

But did the Bridget Sullivan of BUTTE MT (NOT Boise Idaho) have any children?
Not that it matters towards solving the case, but sheds light on her character. Certainly there was never any scandals about her?

(Message last edited Aug-11th-03  8:00 PM.)

Huh? Where did you get Boise from?

Here is the bio of Bridget from the Knowlton Papers:

"SULLIVAN, BRIDGET ? - 1948: born in Billerough, County Cork, Ireland, daughter of Eugene and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan. Emigrating to America circa 1886, she was first employed as a scullery maid at the Perry House, a Newport, Rhode Island, hostelry. She remained there about one year, then relocated to South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to join relatives who had settled there. Employed by the Smiley family as a domestic servant, she remained in Pennsylvania until circa 1888, when she moved to Fall River, Massachusetts, there obtaining a position as a cook in the household of William Reed. She was subsequently employed as a domestic by Clinton V. S. Remington until November of 1889 when she was hired as servant to the family of Andrew J. Borden. In that household, she was frequently referred to as "Maggie," it apparently having been the custom of the Misses Borden to refer to their domestic help by that name. Her responsibilities there included cooking, cleaning and ironing. Attending to those duties the morning of August 4, 1892, she was one of the last to see her employers alive. She took leave of the Borden household shortly after the murders, residing with friends in Fall River. At the time of the Borden trial, she relocated to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where she was employed by jailkeeper Joshua A. Hunt. She provided key testimony at the inquest, preliminary hearing and final trial. Most likely seeking to disassociate herself from the tragedy once her responsibilities were through, she appears to have looked west. It has been suggested by a relative that having acquaintances in Anaconda, Montana, caused her to relocate there. Legend suggests that she returned to Ireland prior to settling in Montana, the trip to her native land financed by a sum of money provided to her by Miss Lizzie A. Borden. No evidence as yet has surfaced to authenticate or disprove this theory but it is known that she was residing in Anaconda, Montana, by 1897, employed as a domestic. A marriage certificate was issued to John M. Sullivan, a smeltman, and Miss Bridget Sullivan in 1905. Her year of birth was here listed as 1871, paring five years from the age she testified to at the trial, testimony she qualified with the statement that she was only aware of how old she was because she had been so informed. Following her marriage, she continued to be employed as a domestic, living the remainder of her life in virtual obscurity. Circa 1942, in declining health, she moved to Butte, Montana, to reside with a niece. She expired in a Butte hospital and was interred with her husband in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Anaconda."

Funny.  Four women living in that house @ the time & none of them (that we know of) ever had a child.

You know, that is an odd observation.
Thinking on it , it seems like some people are just not destined to pass on their genes.
Especially if two of the women condoned murder!
It's also ironic that Andrew made, and would not spend, all that money in order to pass it on to his family/heirs, and it didn't go any farther than that next generation and then was disbursed by those spinsters far and wide.
The whole thing seems wasteful, and maybe thrifty Andrew would agree.

Thank you for pointing out my lapse of memory. I knew it started w/ "B".

It was either in the Brown book or an A&E special where they mention the fact that it was customary to call all Irish maids "Maggie" at that time. While there is no explanation of the origins, it was not uncommon during that period for the "Upstairs" folk to re-name their servants if the name was considered too difficult to pronounce or even "too fancy for their station" so the origins of "Maggie" may have been a bit old by Lizzie's time and already habit.(perhaps the first Irish maid in Fall River was named Aoife! ) I don't think Emma & Lizzie called Bridget "Maggie" with any malice. It was most likely by then a common, but unofficial, "title" given to Irish maids, like governesses being called "Nanny".

The problem with that is that Andrew and Abby called her by her proper name, Bridget.

Aaah.  I forgot about that. It's been a while since I've gone through my books. Off the cuff, maybe Lizzie & Emma wanted to feel like they had their own servant? Or maybe it was a way for them to distance themselves from Andrew & Abby? Or simply irritate them. I find the family dynamics so fascinating.

Morse at Inquest:
Q.  Tell me please, as near as you can, who you saw there that you can name, when you got into the house?
A.  Why, the first two that were right together, were a man named Sawyer, and this servant girl, Bridget something.
Q.  Maggie we will call her.
--It's Knowlton who says *we'll call her Maggie*, which surprises me.

In the Prelim. Morse calls Bridget "the servant girl".
Morse stayed with the Bordens a year in 1875, but Bridget was not there then.
I would think in society, or court, the maid would be referred to as *the servant* or the *work girl*, if referred to openly, outside the home.
Just my opinion.

Bridget is called Maggie that once in front of Morse at Inquest, and they do not refer to *Maggie* with Morse ever again (in Prelim. & trial)
By the Trial, Morse seems to have become politically correct AND conscious of her real name, as he calls her there either Bridget or Bridget Sullivan.


-BTW:  What is *AOIFE*?  That sounds interesting.

(Message last edited Aug-12th-03  5:00 PM.)

"Aoife" is an old Gaelic name from Irish & Scottish mythology.
It's pronounced "EE-fah". That's why I could see some employer saying, "Good Grief! We'll just call you Maggie!":lol:

One thing that may be a factor is that the Bordens were "nouveau riche".  Andrew & Abby both came from a working class background that was down-to-earth; they were used to relating to people in a less formal manner, & probably more inclined to see Bridget as perhaps not an equal, but not so far below their own status. 

Lizzie & Emma, however, grew up in times where the middle class was increasingly becoming upwardly mobile.  Status was important to them.  As Alice said, "they would have liked to have been cultured girls".

I sort of compare it to the yuppie generation of today, where a lot of young people were able to achieve high levels of education, had many opportunities to increase their wealth...in turn, they developed a taste for things that had previously been identified with the upper classes; fine cuisine, big homes, designer this & that.  Snobbery does sneak in there, altho less obvious than in 1892.  However, whereas the yuppie generation adopted a "PC" standard of behavior, no one thought much about offending others 111 years ago.

One of the questions to Len Rebello was whether he was satisfied that Lizzie was a shoplifter.  He answered in the affirmative and gave a reason that it was basically the women who knew Lizzie who claimed this about her.
[pardon my paraphrasing of my understanding of what he replied].

I've never been sure of this aspect of her character, but I suppose if she could kill she could be a shoplifter.

On Dr. Phil this evening he had a phone call from a confessed shoplifter.
She was 52and admitted to doing this for about 10 years.  I think when people admit to something like that they are also probably fibbing as to how long they had been doing it.
Anyway she said Dr. Phil's assessment (In his book, which she claimed she stole) was that there is a sense of *Entitlement* involved.  She seemed to subscribe to this theory as she thought it pertained to her.
He and she both admitted it was probably an ADDICTION, and that the woman probably has an addictive personality.

I'm trying to see Lizzie through this angle, and I wondered what other's here thought about this- whether Lizzie possibly had this aspect to her personality?

I believe a sense of entitlement was a major part of Lizzie's world.  I'm sure she compared her lifestyle to those of her ladyfriends' & felt deprived.

Her shoplifting could also be a cry for attention; acting out.

I've heard habitual shoplifters get a kind of high from doing it & getting away with it.  That's all part of addictive behaviour.

I don't disagree with the opinions given.
But there is one other possibility. Lizzie died of a disease associated with eating lots of rich fatty foods (gall bladder). Could she not also had hardening of the arteries and "senior moments" (memory lapses)? Please don't assume the worst for the actions of older folks.

Over a dozen years ago some senior citizens were hit and killed by a car when crossing a road. The spot was on a curve that went downhill; cars normally picked up speed. The young driver said she honked her horn but they didn't get out of her way. She was not charged with anything. I DO know that old and gray usually means "hard of hearing". So do take the person's age into account when reading about the past actions.

I have come to believe that the concept of entitlement is the key to understanding Lizzie's personality.  You hit the nail on the head, Kat, in my view.  I believe that Lizzie really believed she was entitled to take what she really thought was her "rightful" place in society.  To me, this gives both the motive for her to commit the murders and also explains why her sense of guilt was greatly diminished if not absent altogether. (I think she did it).  I found a very interesting bit of dialogue that I think gives away her sense that she felt dis-entitled in her family circle and thus had to do something to increase her prestige. 
Lizzie at the inquest p. 47, 48:
Q:  Do you know something about his real estate?
A:  About what?
Q:  His real estate?
A:  I know what real estate he owned, part of it; I don't know whether I know it all or not.
Q:  Tell me what you know of.
A:  He owns two farms in Swanzey, THE PLACE ON SECOND STREET and the A.J. Borden building and corner, and the land on South Main street where Mr. McMannus is, and then a short time ago he bought some real estate up further south that formerly he said belonged to a Mr. Birch.  (emphasis added, RK)

What a curious way to refer to one's home--'the place on Second street'--why not, "and then there is our home, of course,..." or, the house that father bought and our family moved into..." or something like that.  But no, Lizzie calls it "the place."  I think this implies a fundamental existential problem in Lizzie's self-awareness.  She feels disengaged from "the place" and "those people." (my term, RK).  Curiously, a few questiions later, Lizzie does talk of  "Grandfather Borden's house on Ferry street," but she does not refer to her own home in a personal or relational way.  I opine that she never really felt "at home" in that house and with that living situation (with Abby as stepmother)

P.S.: I forgot to mention the very interesting phenomenon of Lizzie changing her name.  This is (to me) a significant indicator of dissociation from the past.  One's name is such a powerful identifier--maybe "Lizbeth" wanted to claim a life to which she felt entitiled but which had been denied her in her former circumstances (unless she took action to change all this????)

robert harry:

that's an excellent analysis.  what you refer to in her inquest i had completely missed.  and i agree -- it shows a curious detachment to her home and also to the whole horrible event.  this is the kind of thing that i am always looking for in her inquest.  i sort of nurse a little theory that if anyone can ever completely "unlock" her testimony you've got the solution there.

i tend to think that lizzie was lacking something in the moral makeup that enabled her to do what she did -- and then discount it as something that was necessary for her to do in order for her to get what she wanted.  this fixation she had on animals -- not just the stories, etc., but her gift in her will -- do you think this actually figures into it?  emma is supposed to have said something about lizzie's love for animals that proves a good heart -- but i think it's the other way around.  it is cynical on my part, but i know it is sometimes true, and it fits lizzie borden so well.

as you say, her name change -- the way she tries to assume another identity -- that's all part of her progression, isn't it? 

what do you think about her funeral arrangements?  quoting from lincoln's summation:

"a handful of those most likely to attend were invited to the house for funeral service, and almost all of them came -- not all, one hopes, out of sheer curiosity.  they found no coffin.  instead they heard a brief announcement that the funeral had been held the night before.  after brief, unattended services at the undertaker's, her black-draped coffin had been carried by night to Oak Grove, where it was laid in the grave by black-clad men, Negroes chosen so that no even the pale gleam of a face or a hand might betray the secrecy."

on the surface you could say she wanted no gawkers, but the symbolism is irresistable.  it's as though she's saying she had never existed, or that her life had ended long ago.  it seems very pathetic and ashamed.

Rebello, 319+

"Services Are Held for Lizzie Borden / Woman Freed in Famous Fall River Murder Case is Buried at Noon / Few Friends at Funeral / Coachman, Chauffeur and Another Employee of Wealthy Recluse Are Among Pallbearers / Nine Cars in Cortege," The Evening Bulletin, Providence, RI, June 5, 1927: 5".  [Quote me no Lincoln, even if you're feeling poetic, please] 

"Pallbearers for Lizzie A. Borden: Frederick Coggshall, coachman; Norman Hall, gardener and former employee of Miss Borden; Edson M. Robinson, cousin to Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie Borden and benefactor of Miss Emma Borden's estate; Ernest Alden Terry, chauffeur for Miss Borden and benefactor of Miss Borden's estate."

"Old Employees Are Bearers / Seclusion Marks Burial of Lizzie Borden in Family Plot / Few Intimates at Grave / Expensive Floral Pieces Abound," New Bedford Sunday Standard, June 5, 1927: 2.
...

"Note: Lizzie's funeral was private. Services were conducted by Rev. Edmund J. Cleveland, rector of the Church of the Ascension. Only relatives and a few intimate friends attended the services. Mrs. Alfred G. Turner sang, 'My Ain Countrie' at Lizzie's home and was told not to say anything about where she had been."

......................
That dratted Lincoln.  Anyway, you all came up with some pretty well-written explanations as to Lizzie's probable aberrant personality.
I usually swing back-and-forth on this question, and I will admit I was the one who got to pose that question to Len Rebello.
You-all may have swung my vote your way...at least for now.

You know, Haulover, it was really your ongoing and very perceptive analysis of Lizzie's character through the Inquest that stimulated my thinking. I absolutely agree that the Inquest statements are crucial. If only we could submit them to an analysis similar to the kind now being done by some psychologists who can "read" a person through quick, almost unnoticed expression changes and voice inflections.  Maybe we should pursue this further, especially for the upcoming symposium now being discussed.  Why not think of getting literary analysts and experts in human communication to take a new, in-depth look at the Inquest.  BTW did you notice in the section I quoted above that Lizzie is up to one of her favorite old tricks, when she is asked about real estate.  And she says, "About what?" --a delay tactic. So he says again, "about real estate." Also, she refers to her father in the present tense...he "owns" this and that property, and "the place on Second street." Again, there is fodder for rumination.  Dang, I could go on and on but must sign off--Now I am going to have to re-read that Inquest with a fine-tooth comb, and I do NOT think that Lizzie is delusional from bromo-caffeine. I think she is "giving herself away" without realizing it

Loved your analysis, Robert Harry.  Lizzie does seem so disassociated with certain things.  The only armchair psychoanalysis I could come up with for Lizzie's behavior was that she was a sociopath.  They view people as objects and do things and have no guilt after having done them.  I don't think that that is quite it though.  I'm curious to hear what others think what it may have been that was at the root of Lizzie's character. 

Thanks, Susan.  I know it's probably impossible to psychoanalyze someone over one hundred years later, but nonetheless, some pretty impressive work has been done with analysis of historical figures (i remember an analyst's work on Luther, for example).  Nonetheless, we can still look for real clues through Lizzie's traits and responses.  Granted, she was exhausted and medicated, but we do have some material to work on.  And we have Lizzie's own assessment of herself about her behavior at a women's group meeting--how she felt distant and her mind wandered, and "all the girls were laughing," and someone said, "Lizzie, aren't you going to speak?" (I am quoting from memory and am aware it might not be accurate--I believe it is from Alice Russell's account of the "doom and gloom" conversation the night before the murders.
I agree with Haulover, Kat and others that the most crucial murder was Abby's.  I think that Lizzie may have murdered her father as an "act of mercy"--to spare him the grief of losing his wife and out of some wierd notion on Lizzie's part that he would rather die than see Lizzie living a life unfit for her (delusions of grandeur on Lizzies part?)  Again, these are not dogmatic statements, I am thinking aloud. Thanks for listening.

Isn't this another example of "not letting the facts get in the way of a good story"? Its far easier to make it up than to do the legwork for eye-witnessing the news.

When you read a newspaper, note the difference between "news" (something that just happened) and a "feature story" (something from the past or what may happen). Opinion or hidden advertising lurks in feature stories.

The evidence from Radin's book is that Lizzie (more than Emma) did have a normal social life. But she could not really keep up with the Joneses.

Its best to read the 8 or 10 books, and take notes in a bound notebook. For easy reference in the future. Was AR Brown's book correct in this again?

AR Brown's Part One, Chapter 6 says the Preliminary Hearing was convened to determine "probable cause". This transcript was sequestered immediately after Lizzie's trial and conveniently "lost" or "misfiled". Are we missing this VITAL INFORMATION taken just days after the murders? What testimony was so important as to cause its total elimination?
Page 96 discusses the meaning of "any new phases of police investigation". Brown suggests this is to hide the dealings of Lizzie's lawyers.

Yes, I too think it would be pretty difficult to do, but, a trained professional might be able to get a grasp on what it is that makes Lizzie tick.  Just around the murders Lizzie sounded like she was in a deep depression that she couldn't shake off.  I'm wondering if with today's medications for anti-depression if they would have helped her and we would never have had the murders to read about? 

Huh? We have quoted from this "lost" document hundreds of times on this forum.

The copy from the Jenning's "tub" was donated to the FRHS.  Daily descriptions, testimony and quotes appeared in the newspapers of the day. Column after column.  Porter prints the closing arguments in his 1893 book.  Rebello (p 161) says that "26 out-of-town reporters and at least 10 local reporters" covered the trial. It was open to the public and well attended.  Nothing secret about any of it.

True, there is no official court record but to say it is lost is a stretch.  That's the problem with Brown. Everything is a conspiracy, everyone's a crook.  Hogwash.

Harry has determined that the main 2 things missing from the Preliminary Hearing are Kieran's testimony (probably on measurements) and the transcript of the reading of Lizzie's Inquest testimony into the court record.
That has been recovered by the fact that the Prosecution sent that to the Evening Standard and so we have that to add to our cache of documents.

I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the Preliminary without having read it, or know how it was generated.

I once read that the Ford Model T was called the "tin lizzie" because "Lizzie" was a generic name for a serving girl.
Maybe the wealthy heiress wanted a more upscale name?

I once read that Licensed Professionals would NEVER try to diagnose a personal problem without meeting that person and talking to them. Anything else is just a cheap trick, or "feature story".

We've gone into Lincoln's assessment of seisures.
We've talked about Hypoglycemia, and that it seemed Lizzie hardly ever ate.
We discussed *Sonic Sensitivity*, where certain frequencys might have affected Lizzie's demeanor at times...maybe a hum from the mills.  Some people are more susceptible to that than others.  (Maybe Jose Corriera?)
We looked at available records of people who knew the Bordens and Lizzie who gave their opinion on whether there was *insanity* in the Borden or Morse family.
We've learned quite a bit about Lizzie's reputation for being odd.

Would it help if we all gathered this stuff up (the citations) and put it in one place?  [Privy]

--As for Lizzie being a sociopath, I used to think so, early on...but now I think, in the absence of further murders or really rotten behavior, that she was probably something less than that, but still an *outsider*.

The computers have been acting up these past few days!

(Message last edited Aug-14th-03  5:19 PM.)

The Preliminary Hearing examines Probable Cause. This is what AR Brown could not locate when he published his book in 1991.
Is this still true? Who found it?

(Message last edited Aug-14th-03  5:20 PM.)

Ray, I don't know why a trained professional giving their assessment on Lizzie would be considered a "cheap trick".  Lizzie can't very well answer for herself at this point in time and what they may be able to tell us from the materials at hand could point us in the right direction.


Yes, Kat, I think it would be good to have all those things in one place.  Thats the odd thing with sociopaths that I was reading, they are not all violent, some go through life never doing anything to attract that much attention to themselves outside of people viewing them as odd and different.  I don't know if there was anyone else in Lizzie's life that riled her up or stood in her way like Abby and Andrew, so there may not have been a need for more murder.  I'm still just mulling this over, I don't think its quite it, but, it feels pretty close.

Do you remember who that doctor was on that one Lizzie show who said that in his opinion Lizzie's behavior indicated sexual abuse?  He had curly hair and an accent, darn, can't remember his name.  Wish we had someone on the forum who might be able to put 2 and 2 together for us. 

It is a "cheap trick" for any number of reasons.
1) This "professional" did not personally interview the subject.
2) This "pro" did not follow personal confidentiality.
3) This "pro" only used tertiary or secondary sources.

Yes, they can make an "educated guess". But there are a lot of changes in the culture from a century ago. Girls who live their life with their parents before marriage. Dowry laws, etc. Why didn't they try analyzing somebody who isn't that famous, or from 500 years ago (such as those teenage girls who were bewitched in Salem Mass)?

I agree with Susan.
Ray, you're leaving out our brains & intellect in your summary.
Meaning we all can analyze these findings for ourselves, as we would know more of the background of the charaters than just about any other group.
We can utilize this kind of *autopsy* of Lizzie and make up our own minds.

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211

"What Andrew Jennings decided to sequester may turn out to be as important as what he decided to reveal."

This collection was, in part, donated to the FRHS, in 1968, with some items requested returned to the (Waring) family.

Ms. Ashton, author, had a look and made some notes.

--Apparently deMille (1968), and Ashton (1992), had access to the *Hip-bath Collection* which included the Preliminary Hearing.  I don't know about Brown.  (I thought Radin had had access too but I can't rember offhand where I know that from-- that was 1961...)

--From LBQ October, 2001, article by Maynard Bertolet:
"Fortunately, from Miss White's as-reported preliminary trial testimony, we know for a certainty that she made only two copies of her notes (i.e., one original and one carbon copy), and presented both of them to District Attorney Hosea M. Knowlton.  Mr. Knowlton kept the original for himself and passed on the carbon copy to Andrew Jennings.  The Andrew Jennings carbon copy eventually ended up at the Fall River Historical Society, where it is today."

--Jennings *sequestered* his copy, which was the defense copy, and it has his notes in the margins.  Remember we are using a defense copy...less likely to have been pruned, or tampered with.  The *chain of evidence* seems complete here with this document.

Has anyone on this forum ever seen Jenning's original copy or even a photocopy thereof?  How exciting that would be to hold those documents and to see his handwritten notes in the margins, to get a peek inside his mind while the Preliminary was going on. 

What we have in hard copy (expensive!) is the photocopy of Jennings copy, but it may be removed once, I'm not sure.
His writing is mainly illegible, smudged or transparent in places.
His notes in the margins are mainly *in reference to* what's there.
His notations on the back of the previous page Are interesting, but pretty hard to read.

Ah, but it must be so cool to see that!  I wonder if Lizzie ever did look over her lawyer's paperwork?  Might be a cool project to undertake to see what Jennings had scribbled. 

I was very interested in that too...but I'm not good at reading other people's handwriting.
Well, I am if I have many examples...
I thought at one time that Sherry would get into it with me but it didn't happen.  She was pretty good at it.

So did the two of you manage to decipher any of it?  I think it might be fun to give it a try. 

Brown addresses the Preliminary Hearing in his book, pg's 95-98, and *quotes* from it.  It's the section where he lists the source documents.
It appears he had access because he talks about in in his book.
He goes on to say he will compare that hearing with the trial.
I don't know if this helps you.  Maybe you can take a note of this.  Do you still have your volume of Brown?

Yes, Susan, those notes on the Preliminary hard copy are fun to try to decipher.  Most of the time, as Kat says, they are just repetition of the ongoing testimony.  But they do allow you to see the points that Jennings focuses on -- he marks them with a cross, or re-writes phrases from people's testimony in the margins or facing pages. Sometimes there's just single words like "hatchets, axes, dress, etc."

On the top margin of page 17, though, there's a notation that doesn't fit with the accompanying text. Jennings appears to have written: "L says while she was sprinkling her clothes in the kitchen she saw B in corner of yard near street talking with a girl - I think Dr. Kelly's girl".

First of all, would Lizzie really have been able to see the corner of the front yard on Kelly's side from the kitchen? And was this a private exchange between Jennings and Lizzie right at the time Bridget was testifying? If so, what was the point? If you check page 17 you can see that Bridget's testimony at that particular point dealt with locking the cellar door, wash day, the time it took to wash the windows etc.

Maybe Lizzie was just trying to tell her lawyer that Bridget wasn't quite as industrious or vigilant as she was letting on? Who knows?  Just something more to ponder, I guess. 

Thanks, Diana.  I have the Preliminary in pdf. format and feel blessed for that!  Must be cool to see Jenning's notations though!

Lizzie saw Bridget talking to the Kelly's girl, really?  See, some little new tidbit in there.  I had to check the photos on the LABVM&L site and reaquaint myself with that side of the house.  There were 2 windows in the kitchen on that side and I guess if Lizzie was checking where Bridget was at and what she was up to would be able to see her along the fence there.



Maybe Lizzie knew that Bridget had stated already that she spoke to the Kelly's girl and wanted to substantiate her story.  In other words, Bridget was telling the truth, she was outside at that time talking to the neighbor's servant. 

Thanks a lot, Susan.  It does appear from that picture that Lizzie would have had a pretty good vantage point from the kitchen window.  I went through some testimonies to try and find out exactly when Bridget was talking to Dr. Kelly's girl, Mary. 

In her trial testimony, Bridget says: "Before I started to wash the windows as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's girl appeared and I was talking to her at the fence."
So that puts it at about 9:30, right? 

And in his closing argument at trial, Robinson says: "Bridget was outside talking with the Kelly girl, over there on the south side, away off at the corner.  She said plainly and decidedly that there was nothing to hinder anybody going right in." (trial,1721)

Except that locked front door and Lizzie in the kitchen, I guess.

If they didn't used screens and left the windows open, it would be easy for Lizzie to look out.

You're welcome, Diana.  The time sounds about right.  I was thinking that the Legends movie may have had something, Lizzie's bedroom windows also faced that side of the yard and Lizzie may have looked out those instead and saw Bridget chatting.

I still wonder why Bridget didn't wash those kitchen windows too?  The only reason I can think of myself is that the kitchen was more of a family room and not a public room and any guests to the house wouldn't really get to see the kitchen or the dirty windows?  But, they needed to be cleaned at some point in time, why not that day?  Hmmmm. 

Emma at Trial, about the dress-burning incident:
1543:
Q.  What was the condition of the kitchen doors and windows at that time?
A.  They were all wide open, screens in and blinds open.

--Of course that was Sunday but we might assume on Thursday the screens were still in the kitchen windows.
(Also we should remember that Bridget did not wash the kitchen windows Thursday, for whatever reason.)

And yes Diana, that sounds about right for the time Bridget met up at the fence with Mary Doolan.  And that was right after Lizzie did come to the screen door and ask if Bridget was going to wash windows now (And there is Bridget standing there with her window-washing-stuff!)-- so we know Lizzie was in the back hall area adjacent to the kitchen at that time.

Meanwhile Abby has dissappeared from the planet.
Of those of you who think Abby was killed after Lizzie was at the screen door at about 9:30, and who think Lizzie might have done it, where do you think Abby was from 9-9:30 a.m.? And yet still be found in the guest room...

(Message last edited Aug-20th-03  9:02 PM.)

As Lizzie said, "That has always been a mystery to me."  I can't fathom what else Abby could have been doing up there when most of the work was supposedly done and all she had left to do was to put on 2 new pillow cases?  Unless Abby had more to do in that room than Lizzie or Bridget told about or knew about.  For all I know, Abby may have fumigated the mattress that Morse slept on or decided it was time to go through and clean out those drawers in the bureau?  Is it possible that Lizzie detained Abby from going up there with those pillow cases until she was sure that Bridget was out of the house and occupied? 

My question is about that famous picture of Abby face down. It shows her shoes (looked like men's shoes to me; ladies fashions changed around WW I?). Are those the kind of shoes Abby would wear around the house, or if she WAS preparing to go outside?

What was the custom then. (Not likely to be known today, except that no one commented on her shoes then.)

I know some women who only wear slipper when inside, slip-on mules. But that's a personal choice.

Not to be gross, but in those days weren't lice and bedbugs common and part of everyday life? Cleanliness, daily baths, could NOT have been a Borden household habit. (Wasn't that one of Lizzie's complaints?)

Yea I picture Lizzie *detaining* Abby upstairs by gagging her and tying her to a chair!
I don't know why I picture this but I always do when trying to find a way to keep Abby in the guest room that 1/2 hour.

That quote of Lizzie's about "That has always been a mystery" is my favorite line she ever was recorded uttering!

That's a good question.  I was looking at those feet recently and I always note first and last that her shoes look custom made for her as one shoe is longer than the other.
Or maybe she has on 2 different shoes?

But either way, ARE these *outdoor* shoes?
Abby supposedly said she was going out to get the meat and we know she grocery shopped almost daily.  She could have been ready to go.
Do we know if she had on a dress which was decent for outside, or only the implication that she should have changed her dress, saying something along the lines of *This is good enough*.  Maybe it was good enough?
And Lizzie's just being a snob, denigrating Abby's apparel after her death, when it really was OK...
So in the photo, according to Lizzie, Abby must have been dressed in preparation of going out?

Inquest
Lizzie
80
Won't you change your dress before you go out?" She had on an old one. She said: "No, this is good enough." That is all I can remember.
Q. In this narrative you have not again said anything about her having said that she had made the bed?
A. I told you that she said she made the bed.

Well Lizzie had fleas!  At least she said she did.

Nice find Kat.  I must have seen that photo of the shoes a hundred times yet never noticed the size difference. It is substantial.

I don't think it's one of those optical illusion things like the arms on the sitting room sofa because the photo was taken from directly behind and there is no great space between the shoes like in the sofa arms.

Another thing I always wondered about was whether Lizzie ever saw the crime scene photos.  Would have been interesting to see her reactions if she had.

  Abby trussed up like a Christmas turkey! 

I think Abby's boots look like perfectly good inner and outer wear.  I don't think anyone would have seen Abby's shoes, so, along those lines it wouldn't matter, but, she would know.  But, as low heeled sensible walking shoes, yes, good choice.

Victoria Lincoln would have us believe that because you couldn't see a woman's feet, footware really didn't matter that much during those times, which I think is hogwash!  Then as now, I think women have always paid attention to their footware, especially when leaving the house. 

Unless you know the effect of a short focal length (wide-angle) and the effect on perspective (aka distortion), do not make any claims as to what you see in a picture.
That never happened, else it would have been documented decades ago.

Are you talking to me?
What never happened?
Perspective in that photo was Harry's thing not mine.
This is really reaching back, for you....

If one shoe was closer to any wide-angle lens it would appear larger due to perspective. This is a well-known fact.

It looks like two different sizes to me.  It looks like it was shot straight at the body, no angle.  Think what you want.

I can think for myself and my eyes are fine.

The shoe wasn't just bigger it was slimmer as well.  You didn't say  what "never happened."
I didn't describe the whole scene because anyone can easily go there and look.  I think you are making premature determinations.  I don't always post everything about a topic upon which I am remarking.  Use your common sense please and then you can go find out more yourself...and make up your own mind.

BTW:  Talk about seeing- -I have now officially clicked on text to be 2x larger.  EEKkk.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime%20Scene%20Photos.htm


(Message last edited Aug-28th-03  6:57 PM.)

Thank you for your posting! YES, the right shoe looks narrower and longer than the left shoe. The shoes are too close together for a wide-angle perspective. (Shows how memory can play tricks on you.)

That apology being made, the fact could be that Thrifty Abby decided to use up another shoe? Men's feet are usually wider than womens, but a heavy Abby could have had bigger feet. Doesn't this happen in life, where people's feet can grown a size? The effect of weight as well.

But could that right foot be about 2" longer than the other? Unless a loss of toes, I don't think so. What do the others think? Any experience in this? Any orthopedic shoe users?

That was my rough estimate of the difference in length. Any others?

I might have thought she had on two different pairs of shoes (note my remark), and it's still possible.
But when it was pointed out to me that Andrew & Abby had had their teeth done, and that wasn't inexpensive, I thought Abby maybe had her shoes made to order.  The whole family may have.

i'm still not sure about this.  i know if you literally measure the shoes they appear different lengths.  however,  let's think about this.  does this have to do with the difference in the way the feet bent when she fell over?  could it be that the right shoe is showing full length -- while the left is not because so much of it is folded under someway?  the right is heel to toe and upright without weight on it?  whereas weight of the body catching the left in some way has shortened it?  this could also make it appear wider?  i don't mean optical illusion like with the sofa.  i mean physical condition due to the way the body fell. 

If Abby had two different sized feet or there was some abnormality about one of them, wouldn't it have come out in the autopsy report? 

Dolan lost his notes from the "partial" autopsy at the house.
His second autopsy was on the 11th and that's when he finally found the gash in Abby's back.  I don't think he looked at her feet.

Yes, thats true, the main point of the autopsy was the wounds.  But, he does go on to examine things such as Abby's ovaries and such, which had nothing to do with her death.  I'm thinking that if Abby had a markedly different foot, there would have been some notation or remembrance of it, just my opinion. 

I used a ruler to measure the length down the middle of each. The right shoe seems only about 1 mm longer than the left shoe; 20mm against 19mm as a close guess w/o ruler. This could be due to the slant of the left shoe, and the fact that the right shoe is slightly closer to the camera lens.

In other postings people speculated about the shape of a sofa that was photographed at an angle to the camera.

Custom made shoes were the order of the day before the Civil War, as were symmetric shoes. Southern spies were often discovered by their shoes, and Northern spies by their "crooked shoes" (different for each foot). The great increase in capitalist manufacturing after the Civil War made store bought shoes the norm. (I suspect that "crooked shoes" allowed a more economic use of leather.)

Have YOU measured your own feet with a ruler? Are they exactly the same length? Not to mention bunions or corns, which could require a wider width. Any pictures of her bare feet?

Are we straying afar from the basic question of: who dunnit?

I was thinking the same thing, that Dolan looked around the bodies, but it was all on the inside, even their mouths, maybe even the hernia (I thought that's how he missed the gash).  He does note Abby's bruises but as you say, those are related to the crime wounds which seem to be his main objective.
Also he makes no note of livor mortice in the case of Abby, an exterior sign.

Yes, Ray, I just did.  They are the same length and width and I have no corns or bunions or plantars warts or heel spurs or anything to throw them off.  I can buy shoes off the shelf in a shoe store and don't need anything specially made.

My point about Abby's feet was that if one was markedly different, a different shape that would require a specially made shoe or was noticably longer, I think it would have been noticed and put in the autopsy notes.

As far as I understood it, this forum is for the serious discussion of the Borden case and all that goes along with it.  Abby was a Borden by marriage, she had feet, they were on her body when murdered and showed up in the photo of her dead body.  Why is that getting so far off the beaten path?  What if Abby actually did have say, a club foot or something.  Couldn't we discuss it? 

I can totally understand why Dolan looked in Andrew's mouth due to his facial injuries, but, why was it so important to know the state of Abby's teeth?  Unless her denture plate fell out or something?

I understand that that is how an autopsy is done, all the internal organs are checked, why, I'm not sure?  Abby could have had pancreatic cancer, but, it was obvious that the wounds to her head killed her, why check elsewhere?

We have all this info from the second autopsy:

Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height. No stiffness of death, owing to decomposition, which was far advanced. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. No marks of violence on front of body. On back of body was

FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over his spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

Dolan talks about the condition and exterior of Abby's body, I just figure if there was something really different or wrong with one of Abby's feet it would probably be listed as something like abnormality of left foot. 

The livor mortice reportage would be crucial to an external examination as to forensic findings dealing with time of death.
I still think if he left that out he didn't examine her feet or else he didn't have that recorded.
He may have looked at things that didn't make it into the official report because he lost his notes.
I admit a club foot or some obvious abnormality might be considered important because that might affect Abby's ability to run or get away.
We will never know, I guess.
I do have a feeling that there were physical abnormalities and possibly mental abnormalities in the Borden family, but it's possible they were of a type people lived with back then because they couldn't do anything about it and it was just accepted.

First, the protocol must be to make a complete inventory of the condition of the body; no half fast measures with your tax dollars.

The wound on the back was missed on the first day. That tells me that Abby was struck while facing away from her killer; she didn't expect it! Or turned away to shut off the conversation. Being hit in the back like that can "take your breath away" and prevent a scream.
Would an experienced killer of animals know that a chop to the spine would kill or disable an animal? Or just a lucky strike?

My opinion is that "livor mortis" was the cause of those "bruises" noted by the ME. (I'm not an MD, so I could be wrong. But blood does sink down when a person dies; that's how they can tell if the body was moved.)

Kat, even if your observation about the seeming length of Abby's feet were not 1000% correct, you did real good in noticing the apparent difference.
Just use a ruler to measure length and width. Neither Brown or Spiering have that famous picture in their books. And NOBODY ever mentioned that in print before!

I seem to remember Bill Pavao saying aomething once about the possibility of Abby wearing a man's shoe on one foot, due to bunions, etc.  I don't know if bunions on a fat sixty-something old lady's feet would even merit a second look at an autopsy following a homicide.

By the way, and DON'T read this if you're eating, but I wonder if it was noted if either of the victims had lost control of their bladders or bowels?  I just ask this in the interest of having as accurate a picture as possible of the condition of the bodies.

Actually I've wondered about that, especially about the sofa.
That's unavoidable, isn't it?  (Pun popped out...I'll take them were I can get them)

actually i was getting off the feet comparison as such, and i was looking at this "difference" as a clue to where and how abby was when struck.  i used to think abby was struck while standing.  a total "layman" changed my mind.  someone who knew nothing about this case looked at the photo and said she had to be down on her knees "because of the way both her feet and her hips are slightly raised." 

have any of you ever experienced a lightbulb going off by the observation of someone is NOT absorbed in it?

what i "see" is this.  abby is on her knees generally facing the direction in which she ultimately falls flat.  when the killer approaches, her right knee rests on the floor with her right foot resting just as you see it in the photo WITHOUT ANY WEIGHT ON IT.  she turns her head to look behind her as she starts to raise her weight on her left foot.  before she can stand, she is struck on the forehead and on top of her head -- and from there, she falls.  that is why you see that the upper half of her body is somewhat leaning to the left.  the upper back wound comes next, after she is lying flat.  she never moves again.  the excessive wounds to the back of her head are due to the "hardness" of her skull -- as opposed to the "thinness" of andrew's skull where it was struck.  i'm thinking the "position" (the difference in angle of that left foot) is due to this.  does this make any sense?

(or am i still scrutinizing the ocean horizon trying to "figure out" what infinity means?)

seriously, though, someone critique me on this theory.  which started with the shoes comparison but led me to something more important.

and i've been meaning to say this:  i didn't really "enjoy" lizzie on haulover beach, miami.  but after being back to work for three days trying to fix some of the weirdest problems i've ever seen (due to my "irresponsible" week-long absence) -- lizzie is looking strangely attractive.

The Abby-on-her-knees theory is not new, but the suggestion of the feet placement and the hips up as being due to that prior position is an interesting way to describe the attack.
I don't know if she has her hips up, bottom up in the air.  I'm not sure about that from the side view.

I also hadn't thought about the top-of-the-head wound as being second, with the back wound being third.
I suppose that's possible.
What does anyone else think?

I think the wound on the back near the spine is likely to be the first blow. Abby would collapse on her face, and allow the killer to stand astride her and rain the 19 hatchet blows on her head in a frenzy of hatred.
This implies Abby was kneeling down besides the bed. Tucking in the covers, or maybe she dropped somthing?

For a brief moment I was wondering if the back wound could've been first, as a kind of "howdy!"

Haulover, with all due respect (and a lot of it, too), I'm still leery about judging how the attack went from the position of Abby's body AS SEEN in the photos, as I believe she was prodded and shifted a lot before that photog showed up.

Also, could the forehead wound have been delivered with Abby kneeling, looking over her shoulder, as it were?  It was the left temple, above the ear, right?  Seems kind of hard to picture - please challenge me, though, if I'm misrepresenting here!

 

(Message last edited Sep-11th-03  4:56 PM.)

If deliverd from her rear, it suggests a left-handed assailant. Unless the head was turned.
"Can't be stated from the known facts."

Hi,new member here.after reading your theory on [POSITION OF ABBY WHEN STRUCK] I read that she was facing assailant when struck.As she had gone to change pillowslips it is very possible she was kneeling down at the time of the attack.Perhaps tucking in sheets.The bed is made on the photograph and therefore,why would she still be kneeling? On the other hand if she was facing the axe wielder would,nt you turn away to protect yourself and maybe fall to your knees in fear,which has also been a theory that Abby died of fear.My personal opinion would be that she was kneeling.But I do not like to opine where there is no actual proof.        

Haven't we found out that the bed was moved, and then moved back and tidied up before the photos were taken?  So, as forensic indicators, the photos are not much help, really.

If the killer was left-handed, how would he/she strike a glancing blow to someone's left temple leaving a gash or flap?  It feels, to me, like the killer struck Abby with a right-handed blow from directly in front of her.  Either the assailant didn't aim too well for that blow, or Abby ducked slightly to the right, with the result that the instrument hit her on the left side of the head, laying open the skull but not penetrating it.  I don't have any problem thinking Abby was standing, because I firmly believe we can't know from those photos exactly how Abby was positioned on the floor when she was first spotted by Addy and Bridget.

Hey, welcome, Jumel! - and, BTW, you know that the Abby shots are also missing a folded-up camp chair that was leaning against the wall near Abby's head, and which was moved before the photos were taken?   

(Message last edited Sep-11th-03  5:15 PM.)

The main thing about the murders is that there was no disturbance like from a struggle. Whoever hit them disabled them w/ first strike.

bob:

what i most wanted to emphasize (and i haven't seen much if any discussion on it) was the leftward tilt of her whole body.  it's subtle but it's there, isn't it?  (and i mean the view from the rear of the body.)  looking at her left foot was what got me started on it.  my thought was that if she were balancing her weight on her left leg (or foot) when struck, that might account for it and be a real clue to what we're seeing.  i also used to think she was standing when struck, but i've changed my mind.  would the body not have a more "sprawled" appearance?  as for the body being moved before the photo:  if so, wouldn't the pool of blood about her head bear some sign of disturbance?  i will say though now that i think about it, if dr. bowen felt for a pulse as he says (and i believe he did say the hands or arms were tampered with) then that alone could account to what i referred to as the "leftward tilt."  i understand what you mean about the leftside flap wound, but .....on the other hand, if the blow was intended for the top of her head and she moved her head at just that moment, i don't see how we can know where it might land.....but i do think that wound in and of itself is evidence that the killer is at a higher elevation and that the ones right on top of the skull are all part of the same "series" of blows.  your idea that if she is standing the upper back wound being first does make sense-- but that makes the flap wound more problematical.  this is where i'm with it now, anyway.  i'm thinking she never got off her knees.

what about this?  we're used to thinking abby "saw" her killer.  suppose this isn't the case.  that she never turned her head and that flap wound was struck from behind and above -- an ill-aimed attempt to hit the top of her head.

of course i'm speculating, but i intuitively think i'm seeing something i had missed or misunderstood before.  i don't think the poor woman was standing. 

you know how when you stand from a kneeling position, on one foot you put most of your weight and at a moment your toes are sort of curled under the foot?  think about that when you look at her left foot.

what has interested me in this post (about her feet or shoes) is how an observation about one particular detail can lead you into a different subject.

but stick with me on this for a minute.  you still think she was standing?  if so, give me a blow-by-blow description.

the hips and feet "up" is only slight and can be seen only from the rear photo.  someone convinced me of this, and i listened because it was coming from someone who hasn't looked at it for so long they no longer see it.  you understand what i mean, don't you?  let's at least try to narrow it down to whether she was standing or kneeling.  i used to say standing because the body is laid out so straight, but now i think i had it bassackwards.  if she fell flatly from standing, the body would have to be more sprawled.  wouldn't it?  tell me.

As Jumel stated, the bed was made...why would Abby be kneeling?
I thought that Abby was kneeling all along, until Stef and I re-enacted the scene so that I would wind up the way Abby did with the wounds she had. 
I placed myself on my knees between the couch and the coffee table.  A limited area I chose, actually smaller than the area Abby was found in but it didn't much change the outcome, plus, as Abby was of a larger size, I felt it was proportional to allow myself a smaller space.

Now, first thing I found is that in that space I could not turn enough on my knees to sustain the flap wound, which was first.  At 52, I'm 12 years younger than Abby and half her bulk.  I doubt her body was flexible enough to turn where mine could not.
So we have here 2 physical reasons that Abby could not have been kneeling.  Her size and the amount of space she had.

Some people tend to forget how long the hatchet was.  2 feet.  I doubt that flap wound could be accomplished in that small area from above, straddling the body.  The direction of the blow would have to come down and over/around the front of her face/ear/forehead area.

I think Abby was struck face on, received the flap wound, spun around, turning and falling, her hands going up to her face.  Since she dropped from her standing position she was next on a different level, lower than before and the back gash was probably delivered during her turning and falling. 

At this point I see no reason for her not to groan or moan or utter some wounded sound.  I think she did.  If she can fall to the floor (which would make a sound) she can certainly make a groan or yelp.
I picture the falling as more of a turning and crumpling tho.

As Bob G. says, the body was moved.  She was turned enough to look at her face.  Her arms ended up in a different postion and the attempt was made to put them back and the scene was compromised.

In the Preliminary Hearing (196), Dolan describes the sequence of photos:

#1 pic is of Abby *slightly* moved.
#2 pic is of Abby with the bed removed.
#3 pic is of Abby with the bed put back again.
#4 pic is of Abby downstairs.
#5 pic is of Andrew *unmoved*.

In the Bertha Manchester murder the young lady was found with her leg exposed to the knee and her dress ruched up somewhat.  That made the news!
I do think that it is entirely possible that Abby was made *decent* by Bowen.  She was a rich man's wife and it probably occurred to him other men would shortly be on the scene.
If not Bowen, then the killer too could have staged the scene.

Yes, I recall making a similar post quite awhile ago about someone possibly altering Abby's dress.  I did that experiment where I put on 2 long cotton skirts and did a few falls.  More often than not, the skirts would poof up and go up over the backs of my legs leaving one leg more exposed to about the knee. 

Haulover, I think Kat's post says it as well as or better than I would've in responding to your query!

***I think Abby was struck face on, received the flap wound, spun around, turning and falling, her hands going up to her face.  Since she dropped from her standing position she was next on a different level, lower than before and the back gash was probably delivered during her turning and falling.***

this was what i thought until fairly recently.  and then i changed.  i remember when you were kneeling, i was standing.  now i'm kneeling and you're standing. 

i need to go back to the evidence and start all over again.  i will not (as i'm sure you'll agree) waste our time with ideas/theories without sources.

Yes that's odd isn't it?
But I think it's also good to look at it from all directions and question everything.
(But it did take a re-enactment to find out what I think I know now.)
The idea of putting Abby decent came a long time ago when Harry and I were working on the Bertha Manchester C-D.

Yes, that sounds reasonable.
I once saw a movie on TV from an actual ambush from WW II (years ago). When the machine gun opened up one or two just fell in a clump. Maybe it depends upon the wound and condition of the victim?

All this is just speculation. It would be best answered, by opinion, from a coroner or ME from the police reports (confession of murderer). (NOT murderess, since the hatchet wounds suggest a man.)

The only way I can picture Abby landing in that position is if she had been on her hands and knees to begin with - possibly looking under the bed to make sure nothing was there that shouldnt be. It's also hard to imagine someone hitting her in that small space.
Would
Lizzie or any other genteel lady be able to inflict that kind of damage? And is it just a coincidence that the uncle happened to be visiting yet brought no baggage?

I think Abby, standing, was hit in the face, and as she turned and crumpled, it's possible she sank to her knees before falling on her face.
We haven't determined if her face hit something on the way to the floor to get those bruises.
Ray has mentioned facial livor mortise, but I would think that when Dolan recorded that he would have differentiated between a contusion  and blood-pooling in the face.  Also the description was not consistent, meaning all over her face, as the lowest point the interior blood would pool.

You may be right; I'm not medical. But current knowledge is better that 110 yrs ago.

Maybe that's why Abby was kneeling to look under the bed?  She was wondering where the heck J.V. Morse's luggage was?

I don't think he needed any luggage -- he wore the same suit of clothes until they rotted off. We've all done that, haven't we?

Hatchet wounds, of course, suggest...someone using a hatchet!

As regards Abby possibly standing, and then dropping to her knees - I just recalled, while reading this idea, that I sustained a wicked blow to the head from a cabinet some time ago and went right down to my knees, as if a string holding me up had been snipped.

the only problem with doing an experiment to determine what the dress might or might not do is this - you are NOT hitting the floor as dead weight like abby did and that no doubt makes a big difference id think

You know Susan, that was cool that you tried that and got some bruises for your art/opinion.
That reminds me that when Stef and I recreate this scene, I'll put on long skirts.  I hadn't thought of that.
I won't give up all strength and just fall uncoordinately, because I don't think Abby was knocked out into unconsciousness, until the 3rd or 4th blow.
I think she was stunned and suprised, and might not yet have felt pain.  There would be dramatic shock at that point but not a faint.
Is that how you conducted your experiment?
I think 2 people would get a really good result.

Ah, but do we know for a fact that Abby hit the floor dead or was she still living and possibly caught herself in some way when she came down?  The back of the skirts filled with air on the way down and when I hit the floor with my hands it caused an impact which stopped the skirts in their flight and they fell as they did.  If Abby fell as dead weight, there would definitely be an impact and I feel like the results would be pretty much the same.  But, this is just my opinion. 

i sure did, kimberly, until i learned how to dress.  it took about 35 years.  i remember a long heavy black coat i had for years -- the inside lining was in tatters and the cuffs were disintegrating -- before it FINALLY became a "cat bed."  seriously.  now i think about it everytime we talk about the one folded up under andrew's head.

Yes, you might give it a try, but, please, watch your wrists!!!  If they are not used to that kind of punishment you might hurt them bad!  The 2 skirts I used were cotton peasant type, very full at the bottom, the outer one was a heavier type cotton with batik printing on it.  The inner one that I used as a stand-in for a petticoat was a lighter, almost gauze type of cotton.  They are both ankle length.

I tried a couple of different ways of falling, the relax (dead weight) and let myself go, catching myself at the last minute fall.  Then the alive, ohmigawd I've been hit, fall where I was very tense as I was sure Abby would have been if still alive.

Just be careful with your wrists, please, but, I would love to see what you and Stef come up with! 

i don't have it together yet, but that's one key point i'm struggling with.  do the wounds support the theory that a standing abby went to her knees before she fell on her face?  if so, that explains the wounds on top of her head.  if all her strength was knocked out of her in an instant, and she fell headlong -- how could she have fallen so "neatly?"  the bed, the dresser (so near to her) appear completely untouched. this is the crux of this problem for me -- together with the strikes on the very top of her skull -- those i don't think the murderer "could have" or even "would have attempted" AFTER she had fallen on her face.

i guess my question is pretty simple, really.  according to the wounds, was it possible that abby was never on her knees -- or is it necessary that at some point she indeed was on her knees?  bob's cabinet experience is the most info i've managed to get on this.

let's be cautious with these "re-enactments" please.  (remember this:  if one of us suddenly stops posting and disappears, this is a clue.)

I'm of the she-was-kneeling school. I think she was kneeling at and facing the NW corner of the bed sort of like the red arrow in this drawing.



When struck the first time she half rose and turned to her left to avoid further blows and when struck again collapsed in more or less that position.

I like the kneeling position because it sort of leaves her helpless to defend herself in any way and remember reading somewhere that the assailant had to be taller than her.

Another thing to consider, although not likely, is that Lizzie before coming down stairs that morning slipped into the guest room and made it even untidier than it was to keep Abby there longer.

As a side note, I bought me a 3 pound bag of Bartlett pears today. They are small in size unlike what I've had before but definiely Bartletts.  Now I got to find a barn.

(Message last edited Sep-18th-03  11:08 PM.)

If she's kneeling facing northwest, then she might be able to see someone on the stairs, as someone on the stairs could see her.  She could hear the tread, turn her head and see the person approach.
If that is so, it certainly wasn't an intruder or billy borden, because I doubt Abby would stay on her knees if anyone but immediate family walked in.

Here's another theory of Abby's position. In Joyce Williams' book, page 54, she cites an August 8th interview in the Fall River Daily Herald that Dr. Dolan allegedly gave:

"...The medical examiner states that the only discovery of importance made during the thorough search of the Borden house Saturday afternoon was in the spare bedroom where Mrs. Borden's body was found. Out near the window drops of blood were found, which indicated the murdered woman had moved after the first blow was delivered. It is thought that the blow was the glancing one which has been described. The supposition is that the axe fell on the right side of the head, taking off the flesh and hair, and that the woman turned and reeled to the space between the dressing case and bureau (sic) where the mortal wound was delivered. After that the blows fell thick and fast. It is believed  that when she was approached, Mrs. Borden stood looking out of the window in this room, and her blood which stained it at this point bears out this view. ..."

Just something to ponder.

That is so weird.  While you were posting I had that book in my hand!  I got it out yesterday and it had slipped down the side of the couch cushion.  I dragged it out and was just sitting there with it.

That's your fine ESP working again Kat!

"Dr. Dolan says that the more he reflects on the small quantity of blood that was spilled, the more at a loss he is to account for it.  To him it seems utterly inexplicable.  Ordinarily, no matter how sharp the weapon used, the rooms would have been stained a crimson had such a tragedy taken place in them.  Even if no arterial blood made its appearance, and though the wounds were inflicted after death, the veins and brain would have discharged enough fluid and gray matter to have left their mark on the furniture.  But with the exception of the stains near the window and the thick pool about the head of the unfortunate woman, the chamber was as clean as though it had been freshly washed and swept.  Every time the axe fell it cut deeply, but there was no gush of blood from the frightful gashes.  The same condition prevails in the sitting room below, where Mr. Borden was butchered, and there was nothing to raise the suspicion that the murderer had cleaned anything, except the dripping axe."

--This is the continuing paragraph, almost word-for-word in this section, from the Evening Standard, Monday, Aug. 8, 1892, pg. 2, under headline:
"NOTHING BUT THEORIES" [all caps].

Why did the victims bleed so little or leave so little mess, according to this article?  Do we think there was more blood than seems to be described as "spots" here and "spots" there, as enumerated by Dolan in testimony?

I constantly get confused about the orientation of the house, but isn't the arrow pointing to the SOUTH west corner of the bed?

It's actually pointing at the NW corner of the bed.  North is to the left and west at the bottom.

It can get confusing and I have always been amazed at some of the trial testimonies where they orient themselves by north, south, etc. I'm not just talking about the police either.  Personally I have never thought in those terms and when I want to know a direction I check where the sun is setting. If it's on my left, I'm facing north. 

So, the idea would be that Abby's flap wound blow was delivered from behind, as she was looking out of the window?  Like, maybe, the killer aimed for the middle of the head, but Abby moved slightly to the right, and the weapon only slid down along the left side of her head?

Gee, that's an awful image.

I just wonder about the cleverness of committing a murder near a window, but if any of you have ever seen the very bloody film, DEEP RED, by the Italian director Dario Argento, (SPOILER) there is a cleaver murder about twenty minutes into the film in which the masked killer deals the Lithuanian psychic a fatal blow as she stands at the large picture window in her hotel room, gesturing for help.  As it's a movie, she dramatically crashes through the window from the force of the blow.  Come to think of it, I believe the killer earlier whacks into the poor woman's back, not unlike one of Abby's wounds, earlier in the attack.

(I'm not making this up!)        

Re: lack of "spurt" blood spots--I must admit, I was at first seduced by A.R. Brown's theory after reading his book.  Though I no longer subscribe to it, the ONLY thing he says that makes me wonder is that, given the relative paucity of blood spots, the murderer must have been "expert" at wielding an axe so as to kill efficiently (thus, this would support the theory that Billy Borden was an expert horse killer and had lots of axe experience).  However, wouldn't the amount of blood spewed depend on 1) whether or not the axe hit an artery, and 2) whether or not the victim was alive when certain blows struck?  Maybe, if Abby was already dead when she hit the floor and the murderer chopped her head, there wouldn't be any other mess than the mess that was there.  Likewise for Andy.  And if they were both dead before the murderer hit an artery (if he/SHE did), then there wouldn't be much spurting, right?  We need a doctor on this forum!!!

BTW, thanks, Harry, for re-orienting me in that house that is almost more laid out like a funhouse!!!

Yes, of course. But how then did they die? Of fright?

Is it possible that an experienced butcher first hit with the blunt edge to knock them out? Then when on the floor there would be less spurting upwards. It takes a practiced hand for this.

Look up "pole-axed" for killing cattle in olden days. One whack with an axed fells a 1500 lb cow instantly. (I'm not a witness.)

Looking for luggage and perhaps dust-balls??

I'm getting confused and I may be the reason you were confused about the directions in the guest room RH.
I am trying to see Abby kneeling facing basically west, or south west, say at the bottom of the bed.  Then she sees a person coming up the stairs or merely entering from the clothes press or from Lizzie's room.
I don't see much difference in placing Abby kneeling facing west and turning her head anyway to attract that first flap wound. 

As to Bob G:  I don't get what you're talking about. Do you think the flap wound was made from behind and that's why you place an attacker in the space between the bureau & the bed if Abby is facing the windows, SW or S.?

Autopsy:
"Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:

1.  Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull."

(Abby was 5'3" and Lizzie was 5'4")
........
Dr. Dolan's description in testimony, Preliminary Hearing, 103:  [adding the contusions and the back wound just because people don't have the Prelim.]

A.  Yes Sir. I should say also, on the left side, without any mark on the skull, was a flat scalp wound, a wound about one and a half inches wide, and two to three inches long, flapped backwards immediately over the left ear.
Q.  Any wounds on the face?
A.  On the bridge of the nose there was, what we call a contusion, that is, a black mark, and two over the right eye, and one a little to the left of the left eye--- I forget which--- the left eye I think they were over.
Q.  Only contusions there?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Were they such as might be made by falling?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Were there any other wounds on her you found then, or afterwards?
A.  There was one wound on the back I found afterwards, not at that time.
Q.  Where did you fine that?
A.  The lower end of the wound was immediately over the spine, about four inches below the juncture of the neck and the body. That then ran forwards, and to the left two and a half inches long.
Q.  How deep?
A.  Two and a half inches deep.
Q.  Cut through to the spine?
A.  It did not touch the bone, because it did not go down the full length of the blade; it made a conical wound.

And, Dolan, Prelim, 144:
Q.  What of these wounds on the head, in your opinion, if any of them, were given while the person were standing up?
A.  I would say the glancing scalp wound, which I spoke of, on the left side, that did not mark the skull; that flap drew right back.
Q.  Now you tell us of a glancing scalp wound on the left side of the head over the left ear?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You think that wound might have been given under what circumstances?
A.  While standing up, and facing.
Q.  That was not necessarily fatal?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  What were the dimensions of that wound?
A.  I think one and a half by two inches.
Q.  An inch and a half wide, and two inches running from front to back?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did it cut the flesh entirely off?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  If there was any supporting hinge, where was that?
A.  At the rear.
Q.  Exactly in the back, or toward the bottom?
A.  More towards the bottom; I think it was about medium. I would not say positively whether it was towards the bottom or above; I think about the middle.
Q.  Was this hinge practically the entire width of the wound?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  So the flesh would fly back, like that?
A.  Yes Sir, a flapping wound.
Q.  Now you were describing, in answer to my question, the wounds that she might have received when standing up; is there any other wound that you think of?
A.  I do not think so, sir.
Q.  In your opinion were all the other wounds given when the person was lying down, prone on the floor? Could they be?
A.  Yes Sir, they could be.
Q.  In your opinion, from what you saw, were they so given?
A.  Yes Sir.


--Because it had a hinge in the middle at the rear the flap wound seems a face-on wound.

I think Abby could possibly have been facing South or West rather than East-and-turning to recieve the flap wound to the left side of her face/ear area.
*The first blow is free* so how would that wound get blood drops behind that chair there near the window, on the lower wall? (On the East side of the window, but the West side of the bureau)

You have a good point - we don't know if the first blow killed Abby but at the very least it either knocked her out or stunned her. I would think the sheer force from the blow would be enough to knock her to the ground even if she were conscious and it would have happened so fast she would not have had the time to react by trying to catch herself etc. I'm basing  my thoughts on Abby having been on her hands and knees when it happened. I think it's fairly safe to assume the first few blows - if not the first one - had to have killed her or there would have been more blood splatters.

Yes, I see what you mean, if Abby was kneeling and just knocked to the floor from the force of the blow.  Its just that weird flap wound, it sounds pretty much like that had to have been given while Abby was facing her killer and head on, unless the killer was kneeling also?  When I think about it, I put myself in Abby's shoes, that poor woman!  Someone attacking you and you seeing them coming at you, not killing you immediately, even if for only a few seconds, the sheer horror of her last moments on earth, it just gets to me. 

Hi Kat I think Abby was on her hands & knees doing the bed and cleaning etc and when she received the first blow she went straight down like a tree - timber so-to-speak.

There were no disturbances or breakage to either room. That means it was sudden and unexpected. For another example, see the photos of the crime scene where Jeffrey McDonald's wife and children were murdered (even tho investigators tidied up).

Have you ever witnessed the effects when, say, two young boys fight in a room?

Good point Rays and I agree. I don't think Abby knew what hit her (no pun)

It almost seems like Uncle John set up an alibi - he conversed with people etc - on his journey. It's like he wanted to make sure people would remember seeing him. But what stopped him from walking back to the house later? How DID he get back to the house and at what time? From what I understand the Borden house was not that far from the relatives John went to visit.

Looks to me like it's the angle of the left foot that's making it look shorter than the right.

The fact that Bridget was seen does give her an alibi of sorts but it doesn't mean that she wasn't in on it.

i don't know what to make of dolan's view that there was "not enough blood."  it seems to me that he fails to explain the existence of the blood evidence.  it is fairly self-explanatory, isn't it?

i have always doubted this notion that the murderer should have been dripping in blood and the whole room covered with it.

the splatters or beads or drops of blood are (correct me if i'm wrong) primarily from the RAISING of the murder weapon -- not from splatters made by the wounds themselves when they are struck.

i think a long history of ill-considered opinions are in this subject and sort of built into the discussion of them.

what do you think?

If Dr. Dolan, the Medical Examiner, states his opinion that Abby faced her attacker and yet you do not agree, can you explain your own theory and why it is possibly correct over Dolan's first-hand experience of the scene?

JVM's perfect alibi was for his return trip. He didn't know what was going to happen.

I don't think ANYONE planned this murder. But Bridget, like any other employee and "foreigner", knew when to keep her mouth shut.
Like if Lizzie was reading in the kitchen when Andy came in, not up the stairs laughing. I can assure you that it is VERY career-limiting to dispute your manager in public. Or even in private; they know best. (The places where I worked are either out of business, or no longer there. So I guess they really "knew best".)

(Message last edited Sep-22nd-03  10:02 AM.)

I wouldn't dispute Dr Dolan's testimony, because I am not an ME or even read the written facts. Most writers won't quote these boring details, but summarize them. Something to keep in mind when writing!

Are you referring to Abby's murder, only, as *not planned*?  Because Andrew's murder had to be planned if the killer waited.

(Message last edited Sep-22nd-03  4:59 AM.)

NO!!! The killer waited for Andy because that was the purpose of his visit: to receive promised goods (little white box w/ cash). No deed since that would have been recorded somewhere. Cash leaves no trace.

Wait a minute.  Is Abby's death an unavoidable accident?
Yet the killer did stay and wait.
Do you seriously believe that he, in his acorn-sized brain, he wouldn't have a contingency plan that he might just have to eliminate Andrew if Andrew happened to take exception to the slaughter of his wife?
I think the minor mind is more cunning than you give credit for.  It's a survival instinct.
How can someone accidently slaughter two people?  It's absurd, sorry.

But aren't we talking about WSB, who had been committed to a State Hospital? I once read about the truly insane (who might start shooting perfect strangers). They don't flee, because in their mind they did nothing wrong!!! Fleeing implies guilt, and sanity.
You can look it up.

That kind of a person you describe would not know how to handle money, would not know how to take a trolley car, would not know how to buy new shoe laces, let alone show up at the Borden house and commit two murders which remain *unsolved*.
What you describe sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic, and that malady shows up by the age of 17-20. This WSB or whoever was much older that that.  He wouldn't have been walking around that *off-kilter* all those years, no way.

See Privy

(Message last edited Sep-25th-03  12:06 PM.)

There have been plenty of such murders in the last twenty years. One, in a Penna mall, was celebrated in a song "I don't like Mondays". The young girl (20?) seemed to have few serious problems before this.
Last week's news carried an item about two teenage girls. One was shot and killed by her friend, who then committed suicide (No. Carolina?). Sounds like something queer.

Again..????
The paranoid-schizophrenic doesn't last long out in society without being noticed/caught/confined etc.
Notice your examples died young and took themselves out of circulation.

There is Charles Whitman, but he died by cop, but he was like 22 or so wasn't he?
The oldest paranoid-schiz I can think of in modern day might be the guy who shot up McDonalds San Diego, and the guy who drove into Luby's restaurant in Texas and started firing.
Both these guys used guns tho...
I wonder how old they were?

I think we figured Billy (if existed) might be around 40 in 1892, according to the Brown et all. correspondence:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BrownControversy.htm

That's pretty old to be capable of being a violent criminal without society noticing sooner.

The guy at the McDonalds was James Huberty, 41 years old, and it was in San Ysidro, California.

George Hennard was the killer at the Luby's restaurant in Killeen, Texas.  He was 35.

Thanks.  Those ages are extreme.  Were they ex-military do you know?

James Huberty was a Vietnam veteran, from what I read, he was a very troubled soul.

George Hennard was born to a wealthy family, lived in a mansion and was a loner.  Thats about all I can recall from what I read off the top of my head. 

Funny you should mention the Charles Whitman case of 1966. HE was under psychiatric care at the time. He first murdered his wife and parents (as I remember) before climbing the University Tower in Austin (kept locked up since then). They found a large tumor in his brain when they did the autopsy!! I think his psychiatrist was sanctioned for not doing a better job.
In case you're wondering why somebody who was undoubtedly sane would "jump the tracks" and go crazy. Other diseases can cause this.

The other two cases mentioned were both individuals (who drank alcohol to excess?) who were financially damaged or ruined (because of their problems?) The guy who shot up McD was long on medications, and should have been hospitalized. But the Reactionary State Governments (starting with Gov Reagan) closed down many state hospitals to let these people congregate in SRO hotels in cities.
There was also the case of another released Calif inmate who killed his Mother and her friend, then walked around with their heads in a bag.

Did you know of any "funny adults" when you were growing up?

Yet someone knew these people were crazy.
And now there are drugs and therapy.  Did they have those things in 1892?  Didn't they use water (torture) and all kinds of weird things?

That's my point about Billy Borden (if exists).  He wouldn't have made it to 40 without being killed, committed suicide or put away for good.  A man cou;dn't just wander the country-side with a hatchet and survive in that mental state which you describe.

The only odd adults I knew growing up were alcoholics.

I don't remember much from decades ago. There was one old guy who lived a few streets away. He was said to have the mentality of a ten-year old, and was cared for at home, not a "snakepit". But he could be seen wandering around the neighborhood, until some adult called his home. I was talking about "sane" people who were "funny".

Well I considered these adults sane.  They were in the orbit of my parents or they were a relative or a neighbor.  They were all pretty intelligent.  As to *funny*, they were the alcoholics, I said.
If you want to know if I knew any mentally challenged adults when I was young, I'd say no.
When I was young I did have a mentally challenged friend in Cocoa Beach.  But we were only there a year.

Now challenged adults I know have had hardening of the arteries, senility or strokes.
The alcoholics are dead.

I knew some strange & sometimes violent people growing
up & a few now, it seems like their families try to protect
them from being punished. My friend as a child had a father
who was an amazingly violent drunk -- would beat his wife
and kids & threaten to kill the neighbors (in an apartment
building) and no one ever called the police, the family never
ganged up on him & tossed him out or anything. I've known of
people who were insane & they were free to roam. It is like
their family treats them like they are special & they should
be allowed to do as they please, even if it involves cruelty.
I think if Billy Borden did exist & was crazy it was possible
for everyone to cover up for him.

(Message last edited Sep-27th-03  12:17 PM.)

Weren't we talking about people who were considered w/in the bounds of sanity until they snapped? Alcohol involved? It does cause nervous and physical problems.

I don't know what you were talking about.
I'm just glad to see Kimberly posting!!!

Hi!!!!! I'm still here! I haven't gone to that big
guest room in the sky yet!

William S Borden no longer exists. His demise is documented in AR Brown's book, but not who did it. THIS is one reason why I find Brown's book the most credible of them all. And his chapter about the Bertha Manchester, too. Any other book cover these cases?

It is also quite possible that someone from a neighborhood who is not well thought of could become the prime suspect, and least likely to defend themselves with a good lawyer and an alibi.
Perhaps years of insults from the neighbors could eventually turn them in a wrong direction? I doubt that anyone with low intelligence could become a serial murderer. Committing a vicious violent crime, yes.
This is not to deny any acting after the fact to mitigate the penalty.