Poison- Does Lizzie Fit The Profile?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:09 pm

"LET MISS BORDEN SPEAK.

What She Owes to the Memory of the
Dead and Her Own Reputation.

(Providence Journal Editorial.)

With the proceedings at New Bedford yesterday one of the most celebrated criminal trials of modern times comes to an end. "

..."Arguments about the monstrosity of the crime, of the absurdity of imputing it to the daughter of the murdered man, are of little value. The workings of the human heart, like the decrees of fate, are inscrutable. Men and women of apparently blameless lives have many times in the history of the world become of a sudden little less than fiends. It is not so very long since a respectable woman, the last person in the world whom her friends and neighbors would have suspected of such an act, poisoned her children in cold blood for the sake of the money which the insurance on their lives would bring. And it is not inconceivable, however revolting the thought may be, that one situated as Miss Borden was, surrounded by a sordid atmosphere which choked out natural affection and stifled innocent tastes, living after a glimpse of the outer world in the narrow and squalid circle of petty avarice, dowered with the sour and self-concentrated Puritan temperament, should be wrought to a pitch of unnatural frenzy and endeavor to free herself by a deed for which the most hardened criminal might shrink. Moral wrecks enough have been wrought elsewhere by the same conditions, although the usual end is insanity or suicide. The question of motive may be barred out legally, but it cannot be made inoperative ethically."
..........

There were at least 3 infamous poisoning cases preceding the Borden hatchet murders. These were Lydia Sherman, in New York, 1850's & 60's; Sarah Jane Robinson in Boston, c. 1885+; and for the next 30 years or so, Jane Toppan plied her poisoning trade around Boston and Cambridge.

These ladies were of humble origins, with rather low class forebears, marrying and having babies and killing them, and the offspring of their husbands previous marriages and their husbands as well- including relatives of their husbands! They just don't stop! They can't stop.
Jane Toppan did not marry, but she wished to. She coveted her foster sister's husband and killed her to gain him him, but he wanted nothing to do with Jane.
She was a trained nurse and had plenty of opportunity to indulge her strange compulsions.

Each woman was somewhat charming and could talk their way out of things and no one ever really was suspicious of the people dropping dead around them.
They killed people they knew and reveled in the thought or the sight of the death throes of their victim. Witnessing the suffering gave them a thrill.
Some did gain financially, but squandered the money because the money was not the real motive. They held human life in no regard whatsoever and that meant they could kill for little reason whatever. An inheritence would just be an added bonus.

I don't think Lizzie fits this *profile*. I don't see her as a sadist, slavering over the agony of her victims. She seems strong enough to me to weild a hatchet, but not weak enough to use poison. I could see Emma using poison, actually- mainly because I don't know enough about her. Poisoners do usually enjoy a good reputation- which Emma seems to have had.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:33 pm

Harold Schechter, Fatal, pg. 58, Pocket Books, 2003:

"Recent criminological research teaches that shame and humiliation are common factors in the genesis of malevolent personalities. Children instilled with self-loathing - a sense that they are worthless, the lowest of the low - may grow up to be adults fueled by baleful impulses. Besides a lust for revenge - for getting back at a world that has treated them so contemptuously - they are filled with a pernicious need to prove their superiority over the rest of humankind. They are possessed, in the words of one criminal psychologist, 'by a demonic compulsion,' driven to show that they are people to be reckoned with - beings endowed with formidable, even terrifying, powers. And what power is more fearsome, more godlike, then that of holding a human life in your hands - of dispensing death on a whim?"

--If Lizzie was the victim of some familial abuse, which contributed to her fury and propelled her to kill later in life, maybe it happened at Ferry Street amongst all those adults there. It might take a monster to *create* a monster- so who could it have been?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:00 am

Trying to start a poll.
We'll see.
I think it can be done in "Edit" mode, if there is an attachment.

Oh well.

clickonpic
Harry's right.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:32 pm

Here is an informal poll:

Did Lizzie try to buy Prussic Acid on Wednesday?
Do you have a reason for believing she did, or for believing she didn't?

Lizzie is alibied by the late Abby Borden for Wednesday- she spoke about Lizzie being home all day to Morse and to Mrs. Dr. Bowen.
But Bridget will not commit to seeing Lizzie beteeen breakfast and dinner Wednesday.
Does Lizzie fit a casual profile of a poisoner?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:31 pm

The way I look at it is that if I can believe Lizzie killed her parents with a more masculine murder weapon, the hatchet, then I can easily see her trying the more feminine, poison. But as to whether she actually tried to purchase Prussic Acid the day before the murders.......hmmmmm, I used to just swallow it whole as part of the Lizzie legend, but now am not so sure.

Abby stated that Lizzie was in all day Wednesday and then we have Eli Bence and his 2 cronies stating that Lizzie came into the drug store in an attempt to procure Prussic Acid. Thats a 3 to 1 vote for guilt. Abby never stated how she knew that Lizzie was in all day and I don't know how difficult or easy it would be to slip out the front door of that house and back in again undetected? Then there is that story about the female detective who apparently looked like Lizzie who was going around town trying to see how easy it was to purchase poison or not. Thats a 3 to 2 vote for guilt.

The family was mysteriously ill that week, possibly summer complaint, but, what timing for that to have happened. Abby thought that they were being poisoned, why? Who could have slipped in the house and poisoned the family? Poisoned Baker's cream cakes aside, would Dr. Bowen believe her if she dared mention she thought it originated in her own household? He pooh-poohed her poison worries and didn't seem to take her very seriously. And all we have is Lizzie's word that she was sick too, Andrew and Abby vomited all night long, Lizzie stated she never vomited. Bridget vomited the morning of the murders, part of her sick headache? A drinking binge from the night before? Summer complaint? Or possibly more poisoning going on? Would Andrew and Abby been sick later on if they hadn't been killed that morning?

Then we have Lizzie's gloom and doom scenario for the family that she told Alice Russell about, father's enemies, poison, robbery, someone will do something, sounds like a set-up for something that Lizzie knows is going to happen soon, perhaps even the following day.

I'm still not 100% sure, but, I lean more towards that Lizzie did indeed try to purchase poison that day.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:15 pm

This is one of the things in the Legend that is easy to go back and forth on.

If the Bordens and Bridget had been sick from poison it certainly wasn't from prussic acid. I think if Lizzie had been able to obtain prussic acid, she herself, would have been at considerable risk from its effects. It requires very careful handling and even its fumes can be quite toxic if not fatal.

But the real problem I see here, and I may have mentioned it before in another post, is that if Lizzie was killing for money then it was imperative Abby die first. That would mean poisoning Abby first. So she could not put the poison in the food or drink shared at the table. She would have to get Abby to eat or drink something by herself. Then she faces the same problem of where Abby's body would be lying dead from poison.

"Here Mrs. Borden, it's too hot to be making that bed. I just made up some cold lemonade, won't you have a glass?"

Then Andrew comes home. More lemonade?

No blood, no gore but one really BIG problem. How do you explain two people being poisoned. Certainly nobody from the outside came in and killed that way.

Just fooling around with the scenario but you can see the problems.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:33 pm

These are interesting reflections, you guys.

Also I was thinking that the old folks were sick and there was talk of poison Wednesday when Abby went to see Dr. Bowen. Yet that is the same morning that Bence and crew say Lizzie came in to buy prussic acid.
It seems very foolish to attempt to buy poison in one's near neighborhood within a few hours of a cry of poison to the family doctor.

As Harry points out this is a volatile solution and more likely to kill the user than their intended victim.
It doesn't seem to me to be a *poison* of choice.
I suppose it could be, if someone knew absolutely nothing about poison.
Or maybe everything about poison?
If Abby, and only Abby was meant to die by prussic acid- the scheme might work. Not everyone can smell the odor of it- less than 1/2 the population at least- and maybe only 1/3.
Therefore, Andrew could not have been considered a victim at that time, tho maybe his murder was planned for later and by another method.
Abby's cause of death then might have been expected to be misdiagnosed- due to her weight and the heat and possible dehydration from the persistent vomiting Tuesday into Wednesday.

Maybe there was another poison at work and it's purpose was to weaken the older folks for the real kill.

My problem has been always that people do not usually switch methods or M.O.'s.

I think I could believe Lizzie slipped out to buy poison, if it had been anything other thasn prussic acid. Maybe that is my stumbling block.
But now I see if there was only going to be one victim, Abby, it might make more sense.
But still the switch to a hatchet makes it seem like 2 different people.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:47 am

That point had been made by the authors before, that an amateur would go for the deadly Prussic Acid, not knowing that it wasn't readily available. Someone in the know would have gone for the easily obtainable Arsenic. Thats one of the reasons why I could see Lizzie trying to buy it. Besides being deadly, I wonder if that smell of bitter almonds would be a reason for choosing it over others. Yes, not everyone can smell it, but, the idea that it might smell more like a food product might make it appealing to someone who didn't know that a few whiffs alone could kill you.

Maybe Lizzie was toying with her victims, laced their food with something like Ipecac syrup, possibly for the weakening effect of the vomiting? Maybe a test to see if they would notice something strange in their food?

That is a good point about not switching methods, but, what if there was a catalyst that changed things like Uncle John's visit that necessitated immediate death for Lizzie's intended victims or her plans would go awry? It sounds like if she was poisoning them, she didn't know enough about it, what to use and how much to dispatch them quickly without just making them sick. If she couldn't come up with what may have been her idea of the ideal poison, what would she do or use next?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:23 am

Maybe Lizzie was, for a while, enjoying playing with the health of the family. It would certainly fit with a need to feel power and control, and doesn't go against her shoplifting, either.

If she did go out that day, it would be as impulsive and awkward an act as her visit of foreboding to Alice.

Lizzie, in so many ways seems to me so flat-footed and without grace in her lies; it's her good luck she lived in a less cynical time.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:12 pm

Maybe Lizzie intended that people think that two different people were involved. I lean to thinking that she did make the attempt to buy prussic acid. Why? The pharmacists made special mention of her eyes and the tone of her voice, not just her face and body type.[/i][/b]

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:51 pm

These are all good remarks. Thanks you guys!

As Harry noted earlier as a reminder, if one poisons the household, one cannot expect to be able to be in control of who died first.

If a major benefit of the time between deaths was to show clearly the line of inheritence, then poison is no good for that.

But I see your points also where you show Lizzie had a seemingly weird unconcern for how her actions would be construed:

Such as Her visit to Alice Wednesday night to prophesy murder
Her attempt to buy poison on a day the word poison was bandied about
Her contrivance of a note that supposedly got Abby out of the house
Her burning of her dress Sunday after being told she was a suspect.

Yes, I see that these actions can seem impulsive and very foolish, and improvisational.
The fact that she did do these things (probably) seems to show she had no advice!

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:08 pm

i agree with robert harry about the credibility of bence -- or maybe i should say, the believability of bence -- i give particular credibility to an eyewitness account concerning something specific. this also goes back to the question of how to judge testimony in general. there are several eyewitness accounts in the trial where witness is certain -- not that many but i can think of several. if a witness insists on positive memory of something, i would tend to give it priority.

bence used the phrase, "peculiar look."

i thought porter's view of it was interesting -- it sounds like there was a reputation, while no one had really articulated just what it was:

"Turning slightly in her position, she flashed a look at the Marshal, one of those queer glances which nobody has attempted to describe, except by saying that they are part and parcel of Lizzie Borden, and replied: "You need not read it."

i can't make sense of the attempted poison purchase, though. or much of anything she says or does.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:57 pm

Whether Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid on Wednesday, I doubt she was poisoning anyone in the family prior to that attempt-to-purchase.

"The art of the poisoner is habit-forming; once the secret dose has been successful, the poisoner is urged on by a desire to repeat [the] triumph." --Henry Morton Robinson, Science Catches The Criminal, from Fatal, Schechter.

Poisoners don't stop. In fact the most prolific serial killers and mass murderers in history were probably poisoners, either found out or never found out.

We have no accounts of this kind of attempt-to-purchase, on Lizzie's part, ever happening again, tho admittedly there was mail-order.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:51 pm

In this book Fatal, Herman Melville is quoted from Billy Budd. I thought this bit was interesting in comparing with Lizzie:

"Though the man's even temper and discreet bearing would seem to intimate a mind peculiarly subject to the laws of reason, not the less in heart he would seem to riot in complete exemption from that law, having apparently little to do with reason further than to employ it as an ambidexter implement for effecting the irrational. That is to say: Toward the accomplishment of an aim which in wantonness of atrocity would seem to partake of the insane, he will direct a cool judgment sagacious and sound. These men are madmen, and of the most dangerous sort, for their lunacy is not continuous, but occasional, evoked by some special object."

--Is this something of the way some see Lizzie?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:52 pm

Yes, that sounds to me like the view I have of Lizzie, calm, cool, collected and calculating. Some of her past acts hint at this inner madness, didn't Emma herself say that Lizzie was "queer"? And it obviously wasn't all the time, she functioned well in society once she learned how to play the game.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:01 pm

"From a clinical point of view, it would be illuminating to know precisely how Peter Kelley mistreated his children [Jane Toppan's father]. Though no specific details have come down to us, it seems safe to assume that they were subjected to some severe form of abuse. Modern research has conclusively shown that such brutalization is always a factor in the development of adult psychopathology. Sometimes the abuse takes the form of extreme corporeal punishment, even to the point of torture. At other times it is sexual. Or it may even be verbal." -- like yelling demeaning names at a child or constantly telling them they are worthless or that they are an incumbrance or they wished the child had never been born, etc. Apparently these sisters (Kelley) were given up to the Boston Female Asylum (for orphans), and by the age of 8 and 6, after their adult lives were studied later, it was found "they were rescued too late."

--Fatal, Schechter, Pocket Book, 2003.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:03 am

I am not suggesting this as a serious theory but as a just-for-fun switch on the poisoning angle. Someone--I think Kat--mentioned Emma as the more poisonous personality of the two sisters. What if Emma laced some food item before leaving for Fairhaven? Mission accomplished without anyone even looking her direction. Lizzie could be an intended victim and fall girl. And then Emma drops a hint at the train station that Lizzie really should try prussic acid for those seal skin capes. . .

--Lyddie

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:59 pm

Was Lizzie supposed to have tried for the prussic acid on Wednesday? I always thought she tried to buy it on Tuesday. If it was Wednesday, then no - I don't think it was her. There was that wife of an inspector going around then doing a sting operation on seeing if anyone would sell her prussic acid without a prescription. I would think it was that undercover woman Bence and others saw.

It's funny. But when you get famous or really popular, people will make up stuff that they've seen you or been with you just for some kind of glory. I think Bence and his friends believed what they were saying, but jumped to the conclusion of it being Lizzie. None of them really knew her, did they. I'm just thinking here...

I do believe Lizzie used some arsenic, probably from something they had right at home, on the dinner Tuesday. I don't believe she was sick for a minute. She only told the others she was. Bridget testified that she never heard Lizzie throwing up.

Tuesday evening, I think it was, Lizzie checks on Andrew and Abby in a most kind manner. She had not done that before. She and Emma had left Abby laying there before with bronchitis and never once checked on her. That's nasty.

It's very much like her being so solicitious to Andrew just before he was bludgeoned. Hiram Harrington said she never treated him like that any other time. But then, how would he know that?

I think arsenic acts pretty quickly. You can kill with one major dose, or a bunch of little doses. I don't think Lizzie knew how much to put in. They would have been throwing up that evening and sick how they were, then pretty much recovered. Maybe she tried to kill them with it, or just sicken them to show how someone was out to get them.

Yes, her planting the prophetic seed in Alice Russell's mind about the poison Wednesday night. I think it ties in with it. "See? Look! Just today Mrs. Borden went over to Dr. Bowen's saying she's been poisoned. Oh, yes. Father has an enemy. Oh, Alice, what will be next???"

Isn't there a story about Lizzie poisoning an animal(s) after she moved to Maplecroft?

I think Bridget's barfing was due either to her being out the night before and possibly drinking. Or maybe she was just "feelin' poorrly". She wasn't barfing all over the place for hours and hours like A & A. I don't think she had the same affliction that they did.

This comes from the Rochester, Monroe, NY Democrat & Chronicle, June 11, 1893 (is that all one title of one newspaper??).:

"Then there is the prussic acid incident. It is understood that three men will swear that the prisoner tried to buy prussic acid on the afternoon of Wednesday, the day before the murder. Unfortunately for the government, Bridget Sullivan walked into one of ex-Governor Robinson's pitfalls and told him, while he was asking her about Lizzie's dress, that the prisoner wore her pink wrapper all Wednesday afternoon and stayed in the house."

I wonder if Bridget told Robinson that on the stand, or in a conversation she may have had with him?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:25 am

Thats an interesting question, Augusta! Where did that story come from about Bridget saying that Lizzie wore her pink wrapper all about the house on Wednesday. Didn't Lizzie herself say that she stuck to her room all day and didn't come down, not until she went to Alice Russell's at least. How would anyone know what she had been wearing unless Lizzie had been down with the family at least part of the day? Hmmm.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:41 am

Bridget said Lizzie came down to breakfast (when does she ever do that?) and came down for the noon meal but she was a bit early.
Then after supper Lizzie went off to Alice's and Mrs. Dr. Bowen came over, seeing Lizzie had left. I always had the feeling Mrs. Dr. Bowen was waiting to come when Lizzie left.
Anyway, Bridget says she did not see Lizzie between meals. Morse says Abby told him Lizzie was upstairs all day and Mrs. Dr. Bowen says Abby told her pretty much that same thing.

Basically, since Andrew and Abby are dead, and Bridget did not see Lizzie between meals, and Bence and friends saw a woman probably around 10:30(?)- Lizzie has no alibi- it's between meals you see.

ooo Lydie I like Emma as poisoner- but we still have to account then for a sadistic streak in Emma and a probably ongoing problem with poisoning.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:04 am

Welcome back, Kat!

Here's a fun idea for a twist: the real reason Emma leaves Maplecroft is that the household keep having stomach cramps and Lizzie gets wise because they don't eat old mutton anymore--then Emma tells the Rev. that she's afraid to be in the house with Lizzie. . .

Lizzie did say she had her suspicions. Of course, somebody had to do the hatchet job-- Lizzie, Bridget, or Uncle Morse--without premeditation perhaps, when Emma's poison would have done the job anyhow. (Emma would have to do some scurrying to get rid of the poison--down the drain, maybe?) The sadistic streak is as possible as any; we know so little about Emma, except that she was sent away once. . . .

--Lyddie

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:11 pm

Kat- Nice To See You Back

I tend to think Lizzie did try to buy poison from Bence in the days prior to the murders. But I don't think she had a clue as to what she was doing. Isn't Prussic acid fatal in as little as three hundred parts per million? If she was acting on instructions from an accomplice he or she was giving her very bad advice. My wife is a pharmacist so I will ask her as to whether she knows anything more about it when I get home: However as some of the other authors have said I believe she was using arsenic in the Bordens food and felt it wasn't working fast enough. If she didn't want to be seen buying arsenic she could get more than she needed from soaking the arsenic out of fly-paper strips. Then again, she may have bought it at a drug store, if she was incautious enough to ask for prussic acid of all things, she would have had no compunction about buying arsenic.

Gary

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:46 pm

Hi again, Kat, nice to see you back! Thanks for posting the info on Bridget. I was just checking through Bridget's Preliminary testimony and couldn't find an instance where she said that Lizzie came to breakfast with the elder Bordens. Is it possible that she came down at her normal time?

Q. What time Wednesday did you first know of it?
A. In the morning, as they got down stairs.

Q. Who is "they"?
A. Mr. Borden came down first.

Q. When who got down stairs?
A. Mr. Borden came down first that morning.

Q. What was about their being sick?
A. Mrs. Borden came down, and asked me if I heard they were sick all night. I said no. She said her and Mr. Borden were sick all night, taken to vomiting.

This goes on and eventually Bridget is questioned about whether Lizzie said that she had been sick too.

Q. Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been sick, and Miss Lizzie had been taking care of them, and had been sick herself?
A. That is what they said.

Q. She looked sick, did she not?
A. I did not notice. She told me she was sick that morning.

Q. When did she tell you she was sick?
A. Wednesday morning.

The questioning goes on and heres where it sounds as though words are put into Bridget's mouth:

Q. They were vomiting?
A. Yes Sir, that is what they said.

Q. Mrs. Borden said she was sick, or had been taken sick that night, and was sick nearly all night?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did they all come down to breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.

The elder Bordens were just being discussed--"they" and then Bridget is asked if "they" all came down to breakfast. Was the "they" just the elder Bordens or were they trying to insinuate that Lizzie is involved too? Kinda' tricky.

Okay, I found it in Bridget's Trial testimony:

Q. Well, she was down at breakfast time, I think you said?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Sat down with them?
A. Yes, sir.

I wonder if Bridget was asked about this at the Inquest? Lizzie says she didn't come down to supper in the Inquest, but, she does allow as she came down and sat with the family for "Tea". Then Lizzie says she thinks she was down to table Wednesday night. Didn't have breakfast with the elder Bordens on Wednesday, but, when pressed says she did come down and sat at the table with them, but, didn't eat. So many contradictions, its no wonder that Lizzie became viewed as guilty.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:37 am

There were certainly mass arsenical poisonings in the newspapers before and around August 4th that year. It could give anyone ideas. (See Evening Standard- Did She book).
However, with poisoning, as has been brought up here before by someone- the order of deaths cannot be assured.
If the purpose is inheritence, and not sadism, then poison is a poor property to control.
I did read recently that prussic acid has been prescribed diluted in water as a medicine in those days- maybe 20 years earlier. It was actually taken orally in a liquid.

BTW: Susan, I think the tea Lizzie came down for was Tuesday, wasn't it?
By Wednesdat tea-time she was out....

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:07 am

Susan makes a good point about their questioning technique: the pronouns are frequently confusing and the questions often phrased as yes or no questions, but so convoluted that it's hard to tell what witnesses are saying yes or no to. Sometimes I find their questioning techniques maddening. And sometimes I notice that the witnesses do too.

The problem with the arsenic theory, Gary, is that none was found in the victims' stomachs. They would have to have been poisoned for a brief time (so as not to appear in the fingernails), then vomited the arsenic out of their symptoms. You're right about household poisons: they abounded in every kitchen pantry.

As for timing, could it have been a "happy accident" that Abby went first? I sometimes wonder if Lizzie even knew about that legal detail. Quite honestly, though, I think they suffered from summer sickness, which Lizzie tried to blame on an outside poisoner--"father's enemies."

--Lyddie

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:46 pm

Hi

If there was no arsenic found in the Bordens' stomachs, they would have to have been posoned for a very brief time as Lyddie points out.

I got a chance to speak to my wife and she said that arsenic would stay in a persons hair and nails forever; however the arsenic would have to be properly absorbed into the system. It would therefore depend on whether the Bordens' vomited enough out of their systems for it to be absorbed and found in the body. Just how much vomiting did the Bordens do?

I also asked about cyanide and she indicated that it would give itself away by leaving a blue residue in the stomach and the stomach itself would smell like bitter almonds. But once again it would have to be absorbed. Nitro-prussic acid is a corrosive which will rust metal upon brief contact. The problem with nitro-prussic acid would be administering it into the body without the person realizing something was seriously wrong with the food or milk. A person who worked around chemicals would be needed to dilute it to the point where it would be safe to handle.

I was thinking that the most likely way for Lizzie to have administerred poison-assuming that she tried-would be in the families milk. It also struck me as a possibility that Bridget may have had a hunch something was going on and avoided eating or drinking with the elder Bordens.
Emma made herself scarce at about this time and she was never known to leave town.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:30 pm

I noticed last night that a boy's hobby book information of the 1900's included a box for them to make with wood which was a "Chloroform Box" (it was written on the side!), to hold butterflies they had caught, kill them, and preserve them for mounting.
(Chloroform was Morse's idea when asked).
Also, chloroform would and could have been an accepted use for killing moths on a sealskin cape.
Why would Lizzie ask for prussic acid?

Childrens Book Of Work And Play, 1912.
clickonpic

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:41 pm

Yes, Lyddie, I find it so maddening how the questioning goes! Maybe they know the answer to the questions they ask, have some inside info that we don't? But, to me, it sounds as though they are getting the witness' to agree to whatever they want them to, putting words in their mouths.

Gary, thanks for asking your wife about the poisons. Did she have any take on a poison that would cause severe vomiting, would perhaps not kill the intended victim with a small dose and didn't leave any telltale signs or residue that could be found later by a doctor?

Thanks for that, Kat. God/dess, teaching a child to play with a potentially deadly poison, all for the sake of having butterfly specimens? Yikes!

I found this site that gives the symptoms of different poisons, it might be helpful:

Irritants- Irritant poisons are those agents that do not directly destroy the body tissues but set up an in- flammatory process at the site of application or contact. Some examples are potassium nitrate, silver nitrate, arsenic, and phosphorus. GENERAL SYMPTOMS.— There is usually nausea, vomiting, and purging (frequently the vomitus and stools contain blood), pain, and cramps in the abdomen. In some cases, there is inflammation of the urinary tract.

Neurotics- Neurotics are poisons that act on the brain, spinal cord, and the central nervous system. Some examples are opium, ether, chloroform, bella- donna, ethyl and methyl alcohol, and the barbiturates. GENERAL SYMPTOMS.— Symptoms may be divided into two subclasses. Depressants.— They produce symptoms characterized by a period of exhilaration, followed by drowsiness and stupor; slow breathing; cold, clammy skin; cyanosis; slow pulse; muscular relaxation; dilated or contracted pupils; and in- sensibility to external impressions. Stimulants .—These produce symptoms characterized by rapid and feeble pulse; delirium; hot and dry skin; a sense of suffocation and the inability to breathe; shuddering and jerking of muscles; dilated or contracted pupils; distorted vision; and sometimes convulsions and tetany. Examples are strychnine or amphetamines.

Food Poisoning- Food poisoning can cause acute attacks of ill- ness in more people in a short time than any other condition. The term food poisoning is conven- tionally divided into two types, FOOD INTOX- ICATION and FOOD INFECTION. Food intoxication is due to a specific toxin produced outside the body; for example, the toxin in Clostridium botulinum. Other organisms cause food intoxication by producing toxins, the exact nature of which is imperfectly understood. These toxins are formed under suitable conditions, usually by Staphylococci, occasionally by Strep- tococci, and rarely by Coliform and Proteus groups. Food infection is usually caused by a specific group of organisms, namely the Salmonella group, but occasionally by the dysentery group. GENERAL SYMPTOMS.— Gastrointestinal distress, nausea, vomiting, maybe diarrhea, urticaria, and circulatory and nervous system dis- turbances are the general symptoms of food poisoning. They may vary from mild discomfort to violent disturbances of the normal functions of the body. In more acute forms, the necrologic symptoms may overshadow the gastrointestinal symptoms, followed by collapse. Death is usually due to respiratory paralysis, cardiac failure, or secondary pneumonia.

From this site:

http://www.tpub.com/content/medical/106 ... -c_281.htm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:29 pm

The vegetable-based poisons were, at that time, beginning to be popular for murder as they were, as yet, not readily detectable: aconite, belladonna, strychnine, opium and nicotine.

Also, chloroform, mercury and phosphorus could not be easily detected.

The bacteria which causes food poisoning can, after becoming a toxin, stay within the system- maybe adhereing to a nerve in the spinal column, and 20 years later can manifest as arthritis.

There have been studies done on cruise ship passangers who have had bad bouts of food poisoning and they followed them for that long- to find an inordinate amount of people now had arthritis.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:54 am

Hi

Susan- My wife indicated that a couple doses of arsenic, which quickly set the stomach into convultions and caused rapid vomiting of the poison out of the system, would be your best bet for an experience like the Bordens underwent.

By the way I am not saying I believe Lizzie was the only possible culprit if indeed the milk and/or food was poisoned.

My wife also told me one of her pharmacy tech's also worked part time for an a coroner/autopsy Dr. and that he might be willing to briefly answer a small list of questions.

Kat- That chloroform box for kids should be retitled a serial killer starter kit.

Gary

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:14 pm

The killing box and Poisons 101 are good references for this discussion, guys! I know the box sounds dreadful, but children grew up earlier in those days, and such things done for science would have struck people as normal and admirable. (This is the same time when elephant foot umbrella stands were all the rage too!)

Gary, I believe you asked if there was lots of hurling in the household, and the answer is a resounding "Yes!" Papa, Mama, and maybe Bridget. I've always thought that Andrew took the two lie-downs we know of (one the day Doc Bowen came to call) because he was so weakened by the vomiting. It probably would have been sufficient to empty the bodies of arsenic traces. No one took any slop samples from the yard, so all they had to examine were stomach contents. If the poisoning stopped the day before, say, probably all traces would be gone. If Lizzie did try to buy prussic acid, her reception might have been what drove her to a chopper, to avert suspicion from Lizzie the Poisoner. But why would she still be talking about fears of poisoning to Alice the night before?

--Lyddie

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:10 pm

Hi Lyddie

Thanks for clarifying that point about the vomiting.

I tend to agree with some others that Lizzie was complaining about possible poisoning to encourage the notion that her father had enemies and that all of their lives may have been in danger.

Gary

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:03 pm

Susan- My wife indicated that a couple doses of arsenic, which quickly set the stomach into convultions and caused rapid vomiting of the poison out of the system, would be your best bet for an experience like the Bordens underwent.

Thanks, Gary, good to have a medical professional's opinion on that! I'm trying to remember of the top of my head if the medical examiners checked for arsenic in the stomachs at all, I'll have to look it up.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:10 am

I looked this up last night because I was going to see my Gastro-guy today. I only had time to ask about Andrew's hernia.

Trial
Prof. Dr. Woods
991+

Q. Those that were labelled "stomachs" contained stomachs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And those that were labelled "milk" contained milk?
A. Yes, sir. I first examined the jar marked "stomach",---first the stomach of Mrs. Andrew J. Borden. The jar was opened and the stomach removed. I found what was apparently a stomach so far as the external appearance was concerned, of perfectly normal appearance, and it was unopened, a ligature or string, a cord being tied about the upper and lower end of the stomach.

Q. Surgically unopened you mean?
A. Yes, sir. I cut the ligatures and opened the stomach myself while it was fresh, shortly after I received it, and removed the contents into a separate vessel and thoroughly examined the inner surface of the stomach which I found to be, so far as I could determine, perfectly healthy in appearance. There was no evidence of the action of any irritant whatever. The contents of the stomach were then examined and their quantity noted to be about eleven ounces.
.............

The stomach of Mr. Borden I removed and examined in precisely the same way, and so far as the appearance of the external surface of the stomach and the internal surface of the stomach was concerned, with the same result,---that is, there was no evidence whatever of any diseased condition or of the action of any irritant so far as could be determined by inspection and ocular examination.
...........

Q. That stomach had not been opened?
A. That stomach had not been opened. It was in the same external condition as the stomach of Mrs. Borden. Both of those contents of the stomachs were immediately tested for prussic acid, because prussic acid, being a volatile acid, it is necessary to make an immediate test for it, as it would very shortly after its exposure to the air escape, and escape detection therefore. Therefore those were both tested for prussic acid, with a negative result. Afterwards they were analyzed in the regular way for the irritant poisons, with also a negative result.

Q. In other words you found no evidence ---
A. I found no evidence of poison of any kind.

Q. Of any kind whatever?
A. In either case......

--Woods opened the stomachs on the 5th at Harvard I believe.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:30 am

Thanks for posting that, Kat. Inspection and ocular examination, so Dr. Woods eyeballed the stomachs for any sign of irritants before testing. I looked up "ocular" just to be sure what he meant.

And he "analyzed the stomachs for irritant poisons in the regular way, whatever that is? Arsenic is included in the irritant poison list and nothing showed there. Would it have shown up if the elder Bordens had only one or two doses max?

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:58 am

I don't think it would, Susan. Most cases of arsenical poisoning are either gradual. leaving plenty of signs in the hair follicles and white lines on the finger nails; or massive doses, causing fairly speedy deaths and leaving evidence in the vomit even if the food or drink are disposed of.

I agree, Gary, that Lizzie was trying to avert suspicion from herself when she spoke to Alice about Father's enemies. But I can't see why she specifically mentioned poison when she knew her trip to Bence's would be remembered. Of course, the milk was tested and found free of poison, so maybe in a wacky sort of way she thought that would prove her guiltless of poisoning; that is, maybe she led the authorities to test for what she knew wasn't there, but hoped to leave a seed of suspicion that some outside enemy might have been after the family.

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:50 pm

Did they have the capabilities to test for arsenic in the hair and nails in Lizzie's day? I've been trying to do a search and haven't come up with anything yet, I did find this though:

Definitive diagnosis of arsenic poisoning is difficult because of the natural presence of trace amounts of arsenic in the body and because, due to the multisystemic toxicity of arsenic, the clinical manifestations vary widely so both acute and chronic poisoning simulate many other diseases and be overlooked in the differential diagnosis. Diagnosis is often particularly difficult in homicidal poisoning attempts because the patient will not usually know that he/she has ingested arsenic.

Arsenic poisoning is usually diagnosed with a urine test for arsenic since monomethylarsine and dimethylarsine are present in the urine 24 hours after ingestion and arsenic ions are present very shortly after ingestion (useful for diagnosis of acute poisoning). A urinary excretion of arsenic >200 mg/24 hr is regarded as indicative of exposure to a potentially toxic amount of arsenic. The gastric contents can also be screened for arsenic and, if it is very soon after ingestion a blood test will also reveal arsenic. Analysis of body tissues, nails and hair is important in diagnosis of chronic arsenic ingestion. Colorimetry, polarography, atomic absorption spectroscopy and neutron activation analysis are effective methods for arsenic detection. Hair and nail samples containing >3ppm or 100mg or arsenic per 100g of specimen are diagnostic of arsenic poisoning. Analysis of hair is often used many years after death to determine the cause of death. This is how the true cause of death (chronic arsenic poisoning) of Napoleon Bonaparte was determined 140 years after he died (Weider, 1999).

From this site:

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/stude ... rsenic.htm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:26 am

The milk Wood had was from the 3rd and 4th. The Bordens were sick Tuesday night, so that milk would have been from the 2nd. He was given the wrong milk, or rather not the right milk.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:39 am

"The happenings at the French street house that caused me to leave I must refuse to talk about. I did not go until conditions became absolutely unbearable."- attributed to Emma in her famous *Interview* of 1913.

This may speak to the question of poison.
I have remarked that a poisoner doesn't stop yet we had no anecdotal material that Lizzie ever tried to buy poison again or was associated with poison- which has always led me to believe that she wasn't a poisoner.

I was thinking again about this quote of Emma- and wondering if Lizzie did enjoy a bit of poison and it's effects damaged Emma's health to the point that later she would die of kidney failure?
Maybe Emma left because she was being slowly, carefully poisoned? Lizzie was in Emma's will but Emma was not in Lizzie's though they had an *Agreement*.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:03 pm

For me to accept that Lizzie tried to buy the poison I have to conclude that she had one victim in mind, Abby. As pointed out earlier in this topic, the ability to control the time of death would have been much harder....

So many things bother me... Lizzie is smart enough to find out that Abby has to die first in order to protect the money chain but not smart enough to establish an alibi, or at least a half way believable story before swinging the hatchet?

I have always gotten an impression of great self control from Lizzie--others think she was emotional and given to fits. She never cracked-- not in jail, not at the trial and she finished out her life with an almost quiet dignity. IMHO that suggests a woman far more likely to slip a dash of poison into Abby's mutton loaf sandwich than to grab up an axe in a wild moment of rage....

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:18 pm

Hi

Kat- The reason that each of the sisters mentioned the other in their respective wills has legal significance. A will which did not mention a logical beneficiary, such as a sister, could be challenged on the grounds that there had to have been a mistake or the writer was not in possession of all his/her faculties when he /she wrote the will. The legal way to get around a challenge of the will is to have the scrivner add either a small bequest( Emma) or specific language in the will that a sibling has been left out of the will intentionally and for a practical reason. (Lizzie)

Audrey- I would agree that Lizzie was a very deliberate and perhaps calculating sort of personality. If these qualities are taken to the extreme we have a psychopath or perhaps borderline personality. Slipping a little arsenic into the milk (note that they did not test the milk from the day the family felt sick) or food would be a good way to alert everyone that the family was in danger.

You make a good point about using poison to kill the Bordens. With posison there is no way to assure that Abby goes first. Lizzie knew that Abby had to be the first to die from either consulting a lawyer before the murders and/or from finding certain documents when she broke into her fathers' bedroom where she may well have located a will or a proposal for a will to be drawn up. Obviously I believe she went in looking for documents and not everyone may agree with this. Nevertheless, Lizzie knew what needed to happen and in what order for her to get her way.

That does not automatically mean that Lizzie swung the hatchet, but that she was fully capable of aiding and abetting murders that had to follow a certain sequential order. Perhaps Lizzie did not need an alibi because she knew that she would not be involved in the actual murders. If there was no blood on her person and she could state she was in the barn or in the backyard when the killings began all she would have to do was stick to her story and ride out the questioning and-if necessary- the trial. Just out of curiousity compare this with John Morse's alibi. His alibi is too perfect, too exact and too canned, and his behaviour when he got to the house was decidedly unusual.

Excuse me for going far afield, but I am getting ahead of myself and the theory I am trying to evolve to fit the facts.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:39 pm

The "Agreement" I was referring to was made when Emma left Lizzie and moved on. They mutually agreed and signed a document which included:

"3. Neither party shall during life except as thereinbefore, provided sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of her said undivided interest without consent of the other.
4. Said Emma and Lizzie shall each provide by will or otherwise so that in case the said undivided interest has not been sold or disposed of as aforesaid the same shall go and belong to the other if she survives her.

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

Emma L. Borden Seal
Lizzie A Borden Seal"
--From Rebello's book, page 312-313

--Then in Lizzie's will she has written, in part:
"28. I have not given my sister, Emma L. Borden, anything as she had her share of her father's estate and is supposed to have enough to make her comfortable.

29. The rest and residue of my property of every description or wherever situated I give, devise and bequeath in equal shares to Helen Leighton and my cousin, Grace H. Howe, to her, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, forever." etc...

--Then we have, in part, Emma's will pertaining to this same subject:
"SIXTH: If my sister, Lizzie A. Borden, shall survive me and I shall own an interest at the time of my death in that tract of land with the dwelling house thereon situated on the northerly side of French Street, in said Fall River, and being the same premises now occupied by my sister and which were purchased by my sister and myself of Charles M. Allen, then I give, devise and bequeath all my right, title and interest in and to said tract of land and the improvements thereon, to my said sister, Lizzie A. Borden, and all my interest in and to the household furniture in said house or upon said premises.

If, however, at the time of my death I shall have disposed of my interest in said tract of land located on French Street and in the contents of the house, and my said sister, Lizzie A. Borden, shall survive me, then I give and bequeath to my said sister the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000)."..etc

--I think that Lizzie might have thought that she would outlive Emma, as Emma was sometimes (for 1/2 a year at a time) 9 years older than she and Lizzie just did not honor the *Agreement* in her will. She did specifically leave Emma out, whereas their agreement was to provide for that shared interest in the French Street property.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:54 pm

I would think that the beneficiaries of Emma's estate could have sued to enforce the agreement which Lizzie reneged upon. This duty would have fallen to the executor or executrix of Emma's will. It seems to me the agreement should have been notarized, and witnessed, but a court can easily devine the intent of the parties and assuming there was no evidence that it was not Lizzie's signature on the document it would be enforceable. In those days a signed sealed document may well have been sufficient to be binding.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:18 am

Whatever the outcome, they were both dead very soon after the other- but it is Lizzie who "reneged" and I think that speaks to her character- which was my object in bringing up this little-known point.

I had mentioned it in the context of the slight possibility that Lizzie was a poisoner after all and did expect (or know?) that Emma would die before her...

Just speculating here..

- I think it gives a tiny bit of weight to my little theory.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:50 am

Ah, I see what you are getting at -the motive, means and ability to kill or harm through poison.

I don't recall that there was an autopsy performed on either of the girls. The deaths would not be suspicious so there would be no reason to autopsy the bodies. Do you feel she had poisoned Emma while they were living together, with the ultimate thought in mind of shortening her life?

Emma was over ten years older than Lizzie and much more likely to die first. Perhaps Lizzie signed the agreement never expecting that she would ever have to live up to its' provisions: subsequent to that line of thought she never bothered to put the required stipulation in her will.

Gary

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:14 pm

That's it. That's what I was getting at.
Either Lizzie was of a character to withhold her good will toward her sister by action of her will, or she knew Emma would never know it anyway because Lizzie (by now, Lizbeth) thought she would outlive Emma (Whether she was poisoning her or not).
Of course it's a spontaneous theory about the poison- I don't know as I have a lot of faith in it. No one else has responded pro- or-con to it...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:29 pm

Are you saying that maybe Emma was "feeling poorly" prior to her escape from Maplecroft????

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:55 pm

Ahhh, I'm just fantasizing... I like it tho!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:03 pm

I like to either think of Lizzie as a wrongfully accused darling thing I would love to have to tea or the very yardstick by which psychopath should be ruled... So I like it too!

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:44 pm

well, this is off the issue of poison, but on the topic of emma leaving -- i can't help but think it's something about lizzie that emma can't stand. i have no idea what, but here they are in maplecroft and domestic trouble rears its ugly head again, and emma gets out absolutely this time.

that's the thing about that break -- it seems so absolute -- it must have been truly awful to emma's way of thinking. think of it...why such a rift? of course, the realization of slow poisoning would do it -- but i don't think emma was afraid of lizzie to move in with her in the first place. but that is a sort of clue, isn't it? their break-up, i mean. now in their "second" life, emma has a lot more to go on.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Poison- Does Lizzie Fit The Profile?

Poison- Does Lizzie Fit The Profile?

Toying, yes!