1. "Grand Jury"
Posted by celticturtle on Oct-18th-02 at 11:10 AM

I am searching for information regarding the Grand Jury on the Borden Case.  I have found one reference to my ggggrandfather Henry S. Lovell (of New Bedford) being on that jury.  Is there any way to confirm this.  A source perhaps. 

Welcome to the forum, CelticTurtle!  There is a listing of who was on the Borden jury on the Lizzie Andrew Borden Virtual Museum and Library site, here is a link to it, if that helps?  I didn't see the name on the list, was your ggggrandfather perhaps involved in some other way with the trial?

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CastofCharactersP2.htm

Scroll down the page, in the lower righthand corner is the jury.

Page 178 of Len Rebello's "Lizzie Borden, Past and Present" lists the 22 members of the Grand Jury.

Amongst them is "Henry S. Lovell, New Bedford"

The sources cited are "The Fall River Daily Herald" newspapers of various dates in Nov. 1892 and the "Country Gentleman, Vol. LVII, September 8,1892. 675 col 2."

If this man was your ggggrandfather did he keep a journal....not that he would have violated his oath of secrecy about the Grand Jury doings but that didn't mean he couldn't have followed the trial and perhaps had an opinion about that he could have spoken about. 

Not to my knowledge. Sylvanus Henry Lovell (later known as Henry S.) (1829-1896) son of Sylvanus Lovell, Jr. and Johanna Briggs; was a grocer and a restraunteur of New Bedford MA.  He is not a near relative of Lizzie Borden's 3rd cousin Leander N. Lovell.  He married Eliza Ann Dunham dau. of Samuel and Mary Dunham. 

There's a group picture of the Grand Jury in Porter's "History of the Borden Murders."  It's opposite page 140.  Have you seen it?  If so, have you been able to identify your ancestor?  If not, maybe somebody can post it for you to examine.  (I'm without a scanner.)  It's a good clear picture.

Thank you for this information.  I have not seen this photo.  I have one identified photo of Henry S. Lovell as a young man.  I would like to try and identify him in his later years. He might match some of the many unidentified photos I possess.  Thanks, again.

Thank You Kat.  Attached is the photo of Henry S. (Sylvanus) Lovell and his bride Eliza Ann Dunham.

Thats a great shot! So clear. Curious about the ladie's left upper arm-is that black band just part of the dress yoke decoration? Or is it a mourning cloth? Great grandfather very handsome young fellow-resembles Ethan Hawke!

That looks like lace, there are two sets of it on the
sleeve. And I agree about the grampy being a good looking
young thing.

I am not sure his looks made him all that great a catch.  The few pieces of the puzzle I have may indicate some character flaws.  Eliza styled herself a widow for at least the last 16 years of their marriage and lived in NYC and Danbury CT with all the children.  As far as the dress. It's a lace piece on the sleeve and I took liberties with the photo to fit the size requirements.  Thanks for the compliments.

Well don't leave us hanging! What were the character flaws? (I'm the queen of character flaws/less-than-a-good-catches!) Sorry for being so nosy...

Yeah, don't leave us hanging! It is amazing, even talking
about a man from 100 years ago I have the same taste as now,
good looking but hard to handle!

What were his character flaws?  He was a MAN f'Gawd's sake!  Does he need any others?

Any idea when this picture was taken?  It might help to pick him out of the grand jury lineup if we knew about how many years later the jury pic was taken.

Thanks, Kat!  (Sorry to post three times in a row, but I'm responding to three different messages.)

This photo was taken about 1851.  Eliza is 17 and Henry is 23.  He was born in 1828 so I figure about age 64 in the Grand Jury photo.  As to his character, I don't know how romantic we can make it sound but he apparently bilked his aged in-laws for their whole estate even making wills and his own personal debts mysteriously disappear.  Just the sort of person I would love to have judging me.  Maybe a guilty conscience influenced his vote.

In the group photo I'm going to say that he looks like
the one in the back row in the center, number 5 from the
left or the right. He has a similar shaped forehead & has
his hair parted the same. I was going to say the last one
on the front row, but he looks too young to be in his 60`s.

I am thinking this photo of Eliza and Henry may have been reversed from the original as I would think the 1851 method of photography would produce a DAGUERREOTYPE which is not what I have.  The watch chain Henry is wearing is backwards from the usual orientation.  Look at the jurors and you will notice the right to left orientation.  It's only speculation as Henry may have been left handed, yet it might affect the hair part.  So far I haven't settled on a paticular juror.  I have been studying pictures of his sons. 

Keep in mind the photo only shows 19 men.  There were 22 on the Grand Jury. Odds are in your favor he's in there but its not a certainty.

Here's a mirror image of the photo if that will help.

That looks like a wedding ring on Eliza's top hand,
now I'm getting all confused. This would be the 'correct'
image, correct? You know, to be in their direction you
get up & turn around with your back to the pic? I guess
even the other way he might have changed his part over
the years.

This forum has helped me study the unnamed photos I have with a new prespective.  Attached is a photo taken Dec 1 1883 that I had mis-identified because Eliza's claim of widowhood in 1880.  My cousin has proof that Henry was alive until 1896.  So I think this photo may be him after all. 

The pocket on a man's shirt, jacket, vest, etc. is normally on his left side like it is in the mirrored image.  At least that is way it always has been as far as my personal experience.  What it was back then I have no idea. 

In the mirror photo the watch would appear to be in that pocket on his vest.

Going by this picture I think he looks most like
the man on the front row third from right. I change
my mind often don't I?

That's the way I have been leaning.  I hope to investigate the sources and seek the detailed caption to this photo.

Thank's for your input.

But still, he looks so much like the first one on the
right in the front row, but it seems like that man looks
younger than his 60`s, but then again....................

Well, if it means anything, I think he looks like the guy thats 3rd from the right in the front row.  How exciting, another Borden mystery! 

He looks like him also, but still that one on the end looks so much like him, but he looks younger than his almost/around 64 years
during the trial. Going by that young picture I could have sworn
he would be looking like the one in the center of the back row.
This is hard!

The watch and chain is properly depicted for a right-handed man.  My father and grandfather wore their watches as shown. They were both right-handed.  This isn't carved in stone; I have known a few right-handed men who carried their watches on the other side.

What really convinced me the picture was correctly shown was the typical manner in which the woman had buttoned her dress. Men and women button their garments on opposite sides.

I think the wedding ring on the left hand sells the mirror image for me. 

I was looking in my local newspaper & in the engagement pics
the men are to the left. I don't know if this is always
true in other pictures, thinking about the couples in my family
album, I'm remembering the men are on the left side.
Maybe it is like the way ladies are sposed to walk on one side of
a man. I cant remember which side it is right now............

Is your ancestor any relation to James A. Lovell? 
I thought there was a resemblance, with the droopy upper eye-lids, which I think is kind of cute.
This astronaut  was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1928, and went to Univ. of Wisconsin & Harvard.
I 'm not being facetious...I really do think they look similar.

The connection, if any would be distant.  Henry's sons had no issue that we have discovered. 

Women on the left side; this allows the man to use his sword arm.
At least that's what I am led to believe. The same reason a man mounts a horse from the left side: his sword is on his left side.

So 'ladies on the left' is for photographs also? That
would make the correct view the flipped one.

Actually, I believe that when couples are walking outdoors, the man is supposed to walk on the curb side of the woman, which varies, depending on which direction they're headed.  That's because in the old days there were puddles and such in the street, and the horses would splash the clothing of people walking nearby.  The man was supposed to be willing to take the brunt of this so that his lady could remain unsplashed.  Balderdash I know, but it's what I've read in a number of sources.

Edisto, have you read the other, less savory reason that a man was supposed to walk on the curb side?  I've read that in olden times, I believe it was in Europe, people would throw the contents of their chamberpots out the window crying, "Garde loo!" (sp?)  The idea was to throw it towards the street, the man would surely be the one to get hit! 

Ya know, I really wouldn't feel too ladylike if the man I was
walking with took the chamberpot slosh for me.

That was a wonderful conversation about inverted photos.  It must have happened often and still happens when dealing with historic subjects.  The post card the Sutter's Fort in California sells of Patty Reed's doll she carried on the Donner Party Expedition is inverted also.

I wonder if the Fall River Historical Society doesn't have the Grand Jury photo with the names as to position listed in their document file.  Maybe someone who lives close by there could stop in and see.

I know that the subject of the jury discussion was secret but don't know why the names of the people would be, especially if they took a photo of at least most of them. 

Perhaps if your ggggrandfather was somewhat a scoundrel as you indicate, he had a change of heart late in life and was the one hold out, it is said there was one man who voted against indictment... because he thought her innocent.  Or maybe it was the other way round, he voted against indictment because he was still a scoundrel and thought her innocent yet wanted to convict her, then he really would have been a scoundrel.