Andrew at the Side Door

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:33 pm

The usual assumption about why Andrew tried to get in the front door is that he found the side door latched. But have the implications of this been sufficiently understood or discussed? (i may have missed something since i've been off the board pretty much for a year.)

but consider the situation as best we know it: we have the kelley woman's testimony that he was at the front door and walked around to it as if he had been at the side of the house. so we generally accept that andrew did go to the side door first. the question is -- what should he have expected to find? should he have expected it would be latched and therefore he could not get in and would have to go around front? this actually makes little sense.

he should have expected the screen to be latched and to rap or call out -- and be promptly let in by bridget or abby. i would think he would not like the idea of it being left open. so what happened thurs morning? according to bridget, bridget was in the sitting room. if andrew made any kind of sound, she should have heard him and opened it. so did he and did bridget ignore him, forcing him to come in at the front? or did andrew actually find the inner door shut? this actually makes more sense as to why he would go around to the front. but bridget never says she or anyone shut the main door there -- in fact, she says or strongly implies it was only the screen ever shut.

of course, we can't know how the door was -- but my point is that we should never have expected andrew to go to the front just because the screen was latched, and if only the screen were latched and bridget was inside there -- he should have got in there at the side door. so this implicates bridget either way, doesn't it? and now i'm wondering what else is implied by this.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:09 pm

As I get the picture, Bridget was in the sitting room working on that window by the closet (south side of the house) when Andrew came home and would not have had a view out the window of the driveway on the north end of the house. She could not see Andrew's approach. We are not told that Andrew knew about the window washing scheme and he may have been gone down town when Bridget actually got started.
Yes, I believe the screen door on the side was the usual daytime entry/exit for family members. And yes, I believe Andrew must have tried getting in this way and found it locked as Bridget says she locked it when she came in from outside earlier. Clearly Andrew did not have a front door key on him or else he would not have knocked on the front door to be let in by Bridget. I am not sure if a front door key would have opened all of the front door locks, but it should have opened the daytime arrangement of locking at the front door. Mrs. Kelly saw him round the corner of the northwest end of the house, of course we have no testimony for sure that he tried the side door, but it sure makes sense to me that he did. Why else was he in that position to the driveway?There was a gate and fence across the front at the time.

Of course the big thing all of this points out to me is that Lizzie could NOT have been in that kitchen when her Father came home or they would have seen or heard each other. I have always taken Bridget's first statement about Lizzie being on the upper stairs front landing when Andrew came home.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:13 pm

Would Andrew have called out thru the screen door or not? He may have merely seen no one was there & just decided to go thru the front instead.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:24 pm

I would think, seeing Lizzie in the kitchen, he would have called out. We have done this experiment at the house many times, and there is a pretty wide view of the kitchen standing at the side door looking through the screen. Lizzie could have been in the pantry, yes, or in the far corner south east or north east (why she would be is hard to say though)-and be out of sight of the doorway. You can CLEARLY hear the screen door being rattled in the kitchen. When on the latch it will open just a tiny bit and make a little bang, alerting anyone in the kitchen that someone is trying to get in. If the sitting room door had been open, Bridget may have heard it in the sitting room , but not with the door closed, as we knew it was on the day.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 2:45 pm

Even with the aprons in the way you can see inside the kitchen. I think Andrew was expecting either Bridget or Abby to be home. He sure knew nothing about any note and Abby being out. I would not be surprised if he did call out Abby's name when the door was locked on the latch. Not getting any answer , he just went to the front door. He knew somebody had to be inside because the door was latched from the inside. Knowing Lizzie came and went as she pleased, he probably never counted on finding her at home- but the servant and his wife were likely to be home that time of day.

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue May 13, 2008 3:08 pm

This is a really terrific post!
Mrs. Kelly is specific about Mr. Borden coming around from the side--
was he just "checking up back there"? Going to the privy before he came in? That would make sense--
But, why didn't he call in at the screen door?
Also, I'm confused-- Bridget testifies that she was working on the inside windows in the sitting room, yet claims to be working on the one by the *front door* when Mr. B is jiggling the door handle and fumbling with the locks. {I can only assume she means the window nearest the inside door to the front entryway; otherwise, she would have seen Mr. B approaching the front door to the house from the side, and she claims not to have been in the parlor.}
Which raises the question: Did he *expect* to be able to enter by use of the key he had? Was that his *custom*? Had somebody *uncustomarily* bolted and latched the front door so there was no way he could enter with a key? Again and again, why not just knock, if all the bolts and latches were *usually* in place?
Going back to the main issue of the post-- if he expected *to have to knock* at the front door, why not *yell in* at the side door? Why couldn't Bridget hear him, if she were in the sitting room, as she says?
Also, one bit of business that has intrigued me:
John Morse testifies at both inquest and trial that the subject of Bridget doing the windows came up at breakfast, in which case Mr. Borden would have known of it prior to his leaving the house.
However, Bridget testifies that the order came from Mrs. Borden after Lizzie had come downstairs that morning, and Bridget had already been outside to vomit.
Somebody's not telling the truth-- why?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 3:20 pm

Well, the sitting room door was closed. If you are at the side screen door and just casually call out in case someone is in the kitchen- no- you can't hear it. Bridget was doing the window behind the red chair (today's chair) which is next to the closet which goes under the front stairs, so yes, it is the closest window to the front door. That front door had a three step locking operation, a key, a slide bolt, and I am not sure of the other apparatus. During the daytime, I understand it was kept on the key. At night, for added security, all three locking devices were activated. Abby is said to have lost her key that previous week, so would not have been able to come in that front door unaided, had she truly had a note and been out.
Actually, it all makes sense if the simple explanation is given. Andrew comes home, maybe a tad early. He expects at least Abby and Bridget to be around. He is feeling unwell, goes to the door. It's locked, He peers through the screen. Nobody. He might call out "Abby?"- or, figuring she might be up in the guest room sewing, he goes to the front door and raps loudly. He can not be sure of Lizzie's whereabouts at any time- she comes and goes at will. Bridget does not clean the parlor or diningroom, so he could not be absolutely sure that she was on the first floor. Except for the fact that it was getting close to dinner time if we accept he came home about 10:45, and maybe Bridget or Abby might be in the kitchen. The cellar must have been locked, and you cannot always hear someone call from the side door down in the cellar- even with the cellar door inside open. I expect he was irritated he could not get in, and probably did not stand upon the side steps for long, peering and knocking and calling out.

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue May 13, 2008 3:40 pm

Shelley,
Maybe I'm misreading the testimony, but doesn't Bridget indicate that Mr. Borden is fumbling with the lock and pushing against the door handle, as if he expected to be able to enter with a key?
I think it's telling that she says, "P'Shaw," or whatever oath Lizzie giggled at-- as if Bridget *expected* Mr. Borden to be able to enter without her having to go to the door. Otherwise, why is she muttering over a knock at the front door?
Could it be that Lizzie slipped down and fastened the bolt and the other indoor-only mechanism so that she'd know for darn sure and certain if he-- or anyone else with a key-- tried to enter by the front?
If Andrew merely knocked at the door, then the "simple scenario" makes perfect sense. If he were fumbling with a key and expected access thereby, one has to wonder about those other locks being in place that day.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 4:58 pm

I think Bridget was muttering because her hands were wet, and she had to manipulate the lock to open the door. I daresay she did not wish to keep whoever it was waiting on the step. Naturally she could not have known just from the knock just who might be on the other side of the door. If you ever tried doing it in a hurry with wet hands- I usually say something worse than "Pshaw". But yes, I think I need to dig out the testimony about the door and see what and which of the locks were in place at 10:45. We know Andrew had opened that front door earlier in the day before going down town. Okay- let's dig it all out.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 5:06 pm

Aha- here it is - Bridget at the Preliminary
Q. Did Mr. Borden come in any time during that time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What stage of the work were you at. How far had you got along with the washing, when he came in?
A. I had part of one window washed, that was the upper part.
Q. The upper part of one window?
A. Yes Sir.

Page 19

Q. That would be quarter of the work in that room, done?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How did you know he had come?
A. I heard him at the door. I cannot tell did he ring the bell or not, but I heard a person at the door trying
to get in; and I let him in.Q. What was it you heard exactly?
A. Somebody trying to unlock the door.Q. You was then in the sitting room washing the windows?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went and let him in.
Q. It was Mr. Borden was it?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Have you any idea what time that was?
A. It might be later than half past ten; I could not tell.
Q. What locks on the front door did you find locked when you let him in?
A. The bolt and a common key that I turned on both sides.
Q. Anythingelse?
A. No Sir.
Q. A spring lock?
A. Yes Sir. He had a key.
Q. He unlocked that from the outside?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was that spring lock set to lock the door up when it was shut?
A. Yes Sir.
Up to the time you let Mr. Borden in, had you seen Miss Lizzie?
A. She was up stairs at the time I let him in.
Q. Where up stairs?
A. She might be in the hall, for I heard her laugh.
Q. Up the back or front stairs?
A. The front stairs.
Q. At the time you let Mr. Borden in?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was that the first you had heard or seen of her since you spoke to her at the back door?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You had not seen her or Mrs. Borden during the intermediate time?
A. No Sir.
Q. What was the occasion of her laugh?
A. I got puzzled on the door, I said something, and she laughed at it; I supposed that must make her laugh, I dont know.
Q. She laughed when you said something?
A. Yes Sir. I did not expect the door was locked. I went to open it. I was puzzled; I went to unlock it twice.Q. What was it you said, if it is not too bad to repeat?
A. No. I did not say much.

Page 20

Q. Some exclamation you made when you had trouble with the door?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was that the time she laughed?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did she laugh out loud?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Say anything?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see her then?
A. No Sir.
Q. How soon did you see her?
A. It might be five or ten minutes after she came down stairs; she came through the front hall, I don’t know whether she came from up stairs. She came through the sitting room, I was in the sitting room.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue May 13, 2008 5:30 pm

The first thing that comes to mind is Andrew hollering through the screen door like a field hand to be let into his own house! He may have chosen a more dignified approach by letting himself in the front door. Besides, finding the screen door hooked may have indicated that no one was in or near the back part of the house. If they were, the screen might have been found unhooked.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue May 13, 2008 8:34 pm

Yes, I can't quite picture him yelling either. After a quick shake of the screen door, maybe a knock and possibly he called out once- then it was off to the front door. He knew somebody was in there. I rather think though that he was not expecting the slide bolt to be on in the daytime. These little details reveal a great deal to me- and I think the answer to this crime lies in the details and the contradictions if they would only be carefully sifted, and in some cases re-enacted in real time.

I have a hard time believing ALL that must have transpired in that precious 10 minutes when Andrew got home, if Bridget is to be believed. Andrew comes in, goes upstairs, takes off his coat, comes back down,reads some papers, speaks with Lizzie, asks some questions, closes a window, is on the chair, then on the sofa, etc etc.- Lizzie seems to do a heck of a lot too in a very short space of time if we believe all she says she did -plus, according to Bridget's prelim, gets out the ironing board, manages to have a flat hot enough to iron a little, -and still has time to come back into the kitchen and mention the dress sale to Bridget who is heading upstairs. YOU try all of this in the span of 10:45-10:55. Bridget says she heads upstairs about 5 minutes or so before 11. This sequence is one the Mutton Eaters will be trying on and timing next weekend. Richard- I hope you will film it in real time!

For me it comes down to some people knowing more than they were saying, some people flat out lying, some people having selective memory later on, and a few folks doing damage control later in the day- and one has to disbelieve a lot of people if we are to believe everything Lizzie has to say for herself.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed May 14, 2008 7:58 am

I wonder if being effectively locked out of the house was an indication to Andrew that something was unusual that day. That and Abby's apparent absence.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Wed May 14, 2008 8:43 am

"A. Yes Sir. I did not expect the door was locked. I went to open it. I was puzzled; I went to unlock it twice."

This is one of the statements that to me, gives credence to Bridget's innocence. Someone else locked the door (or left the door locked) that morning so that things were not as they normally were. Bridget fumbled with it, unaware something different was happening.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed May 14, 2008 10:24 am

Is it a general consensus, then, that neither Andrew nor Bridget expected to find the front door locked all the way? That it should have been able to have been opened with a key from the outside?
I agree, Shelley, that an awful lot seems to happen from the time Mr. Borden arrives home and Bridget goes upstairs.
Both workers at that lock shop place him there at possibly 10:40 that morning, and certainly no earlier than 10:30.
Anyway, as per the front door, think how terribly off-balance things would have been thrown had there been a caller after Abby's murder, or if Mr. Borden had brought home a visitor.
Whoever was wielding that hatchet knew that they had a very limited window of opportunity, and the first blow may have been administered before Bridget hit the top step to her bedroom.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Wed May 14, 2008 10:29 am

so someone is pretty certain that bridget would not have heard him at the side door while she was in the sitting room? this is my point specifically. i was thinking that she should have heard him there. all right. maybe not especially if the door btw the sitting room and kitchen was closed. we don't know if it was closed then or not.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed May 14, 2008 11:03 am

Bottom line is, we would have to take Bridget's word on that. Personally, I would want as much ventilation as possible on a warm day, so I would have had the door open.
One doesn't have to holler at a screen door in order to be heard inside, but I've no idea of the tone and timbre of Mr. Borden's voice. Maybe he liked to sneak in on the ladies of the household. Maybe he thought he could catch them in the act of doing something-- stealing streetcar tokens, mayhap?
Maybe Lizzie wanted to make darn sure and certain he didn't sneak in the front door, so she fastened all the indoor-only locks.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Wed May 14, 2008 11:18 am

DJ @ Wed May 14, 2008 11:03 am wrote:... Maybe he liked to sneak in on the ladies of the household. Maybe he thought he could catch them in the act of doing something-- stealing streetcar tokens, mayhap?

No offence to any male Virgoes out there, but in my experience, this would be typical behaviour for a male Virgo who was head of a household of women (I have personally known 2 very well who would do exactly this!)

If they sense something is amiss (particularly if not to their liking & preferred order of things), they stay quiet & move forward in a manner in which to force a confrontation of sorts, catching the other parties unawares in the midst of the behavior.

Then, they will glower in obvious smoldering silence, or will express their disapproval with a lecture. Depending on their mercurial mood at the time.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed May 14, 2008 2:13 pm

Here's the point-- if the front door were ordinarily (during the daytime) left so that it could be entered via a key from outside, and that was the source of both Andrew's and Bridget's therefore understandable frustration that morning, then:
Someone did something out of the ordinary by securing the inside-only locks.
Why?
If Lizzie were the murderer, then it would have made grand sense for her to have done this, because--
If Mr. Borden had entered fluidly, with his key, then proceeded halfway up the stairs, sensing something amiss (or just because he felt like it), then there would have been lots of splainin' to do.
If he had indeed called in at the side door, without response, he could have been unsettled, maybe even suspicious.
After all, it was getting on to eleven, and Mr. Morse was expected back for dinner-- why wasn't anyone in the kitchen?
Bridget seems rather unconcerned about the preparation of the noonday meal. One would think she would be resting in a kitchen chair, waiting for Mrs. Borden to return with "the meat," or whatever.
I cannot picture Mr. Andrew J. Borden being totally reliant on someone from within for admittance to his house. He would have expected to have been able to use a key, if it came to that, even if he normally entered through the side.
Also, in light of then-very recent circumstances, including his wife claiming she was poisoned, as well as the daughters' discontent, doesn't it make sense for the man to have been on-guard and more than a tad suspicious?

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:45 pm

From where is the picture at the top of this thread taken? What is it a picture of?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed May 14, 2008 5:27 pm

I think Andrew expected to be able to enter the front door with his keys, he didn't expect the sliding bolt to be in use. If he expected the sliding bolt to be in use, he would have knocked. He would likely have knocked at the rear door before going around to the front door. I think the sliding bolt being used at that time of the day was unusual.

Officer Allen on his original visit to the Borden residence found the sliding bolt to be in use at that time. This means that someone re-bolted the door after Andrew came in. If both Bridget and Andrew thought it was unusual to find the front door bolted in the middle of the day, chances are neither one of them re-bolted the front door after Andrew walked in. This leaves someone else as the person insisting on the front door being bolted.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed May 14, 2008 6:25 pm

Yes, I appreciated that point too about the slide bolt being on- if it wasn't Lizzie then . . . .!

Bob- the photo is taken standing at the Borden house screen door looking down the back hallway at Dee who is in the Borden kitchen. This would have been Andrew's POV.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 15, 2008 1:31 am

The photo view is like 1/3 of the kitchen tho, yes?
So where exactly was Lizzie saying she was sitting in relation to the room itself?

I'm late to this discussion so my points may not seem cohesive. It's better than quoting each of the posts tho- here goes:

Is Mrs. Kelly the only one who sees Andrew come around the side of the house? If so, the premise is based on one sighting, just to keep in mind. She is consistent tho in her testimonies about that, but they shake her on her clock and timing, I believe.

Do we know Andrew's normal door to enter the house after he has been downtown?

Surely this is not the only day in the life of the Borden household that the doors were locked against Andrew's return, so that he may have had to try 2 different doors- if he did try 2 different doors? Maybe if he was the one who wanted doors kept locked or latched, he was willing to take the extra walk from one door to another to be let in? It might prove to him they took door-locking seriously, if that really was an edict of his. Thus he would not necessarily be suspicious.

Also, it was mentioned that the front door had been opened once that morning already. If this is to be believed, then one believes Lizzie in this? Did anyone other than Lizzie say under oath* a man came there that morning and the door was opened? It may have been, but are we sure?
(*By under oath I'm referring to a formal statement of some kind made officially, not rumor.)
If Andrew did open it to a caller, then maybe he bolted it back up again.

As for where Bridget was- if she was cleaning a sitting room window as she claimed, she would be in view of the south side of the street where Andrew would approach from Spring Street. Therefore it's just as possible she saw him coming and knew he was coming- whether as part of her washing job- or as a look-out. She would even be on a step ladder because she mentioned she started the top of the window closest to the front door.

Another thought here: If Morse did know and Andrew did know, that the order to wash the windows was given at the breakfast table- what would that imply? Would it change anything? What might it mean to the way things unfolded that morning?

When Harry and I were at the House awaiting our Kash to come over (others had left already to go to Stef's lecture) we distinctly heard Kash tapping at the side door while we were in the parlour. I knew it was she and called out come-in and she heard that too. I've also heard the clunking of footsteps coming up the outside side stairs nearly every time someone came up no matter where I was on the first floor.

I rarely heard the front door tho. It surprised me a few times when it just opened and there was someone sticking their head in.

It was asked *Do we know the sitting room door was closed that morning?*

In the "Hip-Bath Collection" it said Mrs. Dr. Bowen recounted that "they had taken her key [Abbies]" so they went in the side door, Tuesday that week [rather than Abbie *lost* it].

Bridget didn't get a key to the side door until after August of 1891. She said she had not had it "quite a year yet" during the preliminary hearing of August-September 1892.

It's my opinion that Bridget was probably pretty much expected to be at work on the first floor that early in the forenoon, if not still outside washing windows. Expected by Abbie and Andrew I mean. She might not even take a lie-down until Andrew returns on a normal day, maybe around 11 am.

These are just my comments on catching up here.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:23 am

It's always been my feeling the screen door was latched, and the front door locked with just the lock that required the key during the day. Or when a member of the household was out. So that a key might be used to get in without asking for admittance. If the side door was closed, then just the lock needing the key was used in the same manner. Bridget came and went using the side door. This makes the most sense to me. It would be easier for Andrew to let himself in, than to go walking back and forth trying to gain access by catching someones attention. That seems so inconvenient to do that to gain entry to ones own house.

Lizzie did not knock when she came home Wednesday night, nor did she use the bell. She let herself in, and went directly upstairs. None of the other members of the household even rose from their seats. Bridget let herself in the side door when she returned, and went upstairs to her room also. If Lizzie and Bridget were given this courtesy, why wouldn't the same be extended to Andrew? It's always been my feeling he expected to be able to get into the front door using his key. So if all the locks were done up, when he knew they expected his return, it might make him suspicious.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:50 am

I agree with you on all the points above. Yes, Andrew would have turned left to go up Second from Spring. Bridget never says that she saw him pass by Kelly's on his way home. I think she would have mentioned this in her exhaustive questioning by police if she had spied him through the window she was washing. Andrew also may have not crossed the street to get to his house until he was in front of Bowen's too. Bridget had no view of the driveway.

The only reason we know the sitting room door to the kitchen was closed during the murder is that there was blood on it and it was the habit of the house to keep it closed in summer because of the stove heat from the kitchen. Whether or not it had been closed all morning is hard to know. I would have thought though that when the stove was hottest (after fixing breakfast) there was more reason to keep the door closed to keep the heat out of the sittingroom, and more likely still if I had to do manual labor in that room.

Yes, I think Andrew probably expected to see Abby or Bridget in the kitchen or somewhere on the first floor. Doesn't Andrew (according to Lizzie) open the door that morning before he left to go downtown? If this is true, then he must have known how he left the locks and later knew he should be able to get in with his key alone. Good point about Lizzie's return from Alice's, Allen. That indicates to me that the three locks were night security and the front door was kept on the key lock during the day.

As far as Bridget hearing Andrew at the screen side door- it depends on a lot of things. If the windows are open, the sitting room doors are open, it is quiet in the street and surrounding area, and the person knocks loudly on the wooden door and not the screen door, it IS possible to hear somebody coming up to the side of the house. If you sit in the diningroom, and the person arriving clumps up the steps on the side, that too is pretty easy to hear. Many times late check-ins arrive at the house and I don't hear them knock at the side door. You can hear someone knocking at the front door though, from the parlor, sitting room, front hall, upstairs landing, and guestroom. I expect Bridget was not listening for anyone's arrival in particular either, and was busy at her work which is distracting from environment noises. I am looking forward to re-creating this scenario next weekend and I hope Richard will be able to film it.

DJ · Post by DJ » Thu May 15, 2008 2:58 pm

Yes, it would be helpful to know Mr. Borden's habits-- his preference as per entering doors. If he came from the side that morning, chances are he *at least* went up to the side door and checked to make sure it was locked, while at the same time looking in to see if anyone were in the kitchen. (If it was his habit to use the outdoor privy, not the one in the cellar, then nature may have well called him back there.)
Having seen no one in the kitchen, he may or may not have called out, but proceeded to the front.
The crux of the matter is he evidently thought he could get in on his own at the front door, and Bridget thought the same.
If there were a visitor that morning (or a note delivered to Abby), there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate either. That is, no one ever came forward to say they dropped off a note and/or visited. Call them undisturbed dust on the barn-loft floor.
Let's say there were callers at the front door, even though there is no proof thereof. If Lizzie knew the custom of the house, during the a.m. hours, was to set only the latch that could be opened from outside, then why did she set the others? If she didn't, who did? Andrew was the last person to leave that morning, Abby's dead, and Bridget didn't.
As for the front door being bolted from inside after the murders: Surely, all the doors were secured as best they could be before Andrew was murdered, by the murderer, or an interested party.
At the trial, the prosecution was intent on focusing on the doors, as we are now. That triple-latched front door points a very damning finger at Lizzie. She couldn't exactly say she was fearful of an intruder, when the side door was left unlocked while Bridget was window washing, and Bridget even testified that she asked Lizzie if she (Lizzie) wanted to latch it, that she (Bridget) could fetch her water from the outdoor pump.
For someone who is afraid that "Father has an enemy," that "something horrible is going to happen," Lizzie is pretty casual about letting that screen-door lock be off the hook.
It would appear that she had the front triple-locked for a very good reason: to know exactly when Mr. A. J. Borden returned home.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:32 pm

Actually, I have always thought the entire case hangs on that screen door latch hook. Even though Bridget told her that she could get water from the barn, and that Lizzie could latch it after her, Lizzie did not. She COULD NOT if she were guilty because then NOBODY else could have gotten in to do the killing of Abby, leaving Lizzie as the only person inside with a dead body and all doors locked. We know Bridget came back in for a dipper and the screen was unlocked.
What this all leads to , of course, is that Bridget locks the screen on her way back inside, Andrew cannot therefore not get in that way. So now Lizzie HAS to find a reason for the door to be UNLATCHED again. If it had been left on the latch as Bridget left it, once again Lizzie is inside a locked house with another dead body. So, Lizzie says she went out to the barn-that explains how the killer gets in this time for the second homicide through the door she unlatched.

Unless you would believe the killer hung around the house hoping to be unseen between the killings. Anyway you slice it- that screen door had to be left unlocked. The front door, however could be double locked to prevent anyone (Andrew) from coming in at a wrong moment. I can almost see Lizzie coming upstairs with that hatchet on her way to attack Abby, locking the front door as she turned left to go up the stairs.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:35 pm

I wonder if Abby noticed whether the door was bolted or unbolted when she went upstairs?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 16, 2008 1:29 am

That's an interesting question.

Also, I recalled, and it was pointed out since I posted, that the front door was possibly opened twice that morning:
once for this unknown man who supposedly came, and possibly once for a note. These both depend on Lizzie and she does quickly lose the story that a man came that morning.

Earlier I asked about the window-washing, of those of you who brought Abbie's order up at breakfast: Is there any way that influences the case or how things transpired, that you can imagine? That Morse and Andrew might have known about the order to Bridget?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 16, 2008 1:54 am

Oh and I thought it was interesting to remind us that Bridget worked there for almost 2 years before she got a key to the side door. So she'd be knocking to get in herself. (I still think Andrew would have been *locked out* at other times- as well as other family members, as long as we believe these outside doors were always monitored as locked.)

Also,the clumping of feet on the side steps was really apparent to me. I guess you guys will be checking that.

If some believe Bridget was complicit, she very well could have been on look-out for Andrew's return, on a ladder in that window. I'm not convinced she would not see Andrew as he came down Second Street from Spring. She is missing time, remember. I'm not ruling out Bridget as accessory.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:56 am

My best guess as to the "usual" condition of the door locks is that as long as someone was absent from the premises who had a front door key, the sliding bolt was not in use. This would eliminate the necessity of having to unbolt the door, as Bridget had to do for Andrew. The bolt was very likely used when all household members were inside and likely used primarily at night when everyone was asleep.

If Lizzie and Emma were the primary users of the bolt after returning from evening visits or errands, then they probably also unlocked the bolt in the morning on their way downstairs, unless someone came to the door before they awoke. If there were two occasions to open the front door before the murders, then the door was intentionally bolted while Andrew was absent. Abby walked past the door at least once, but whether she noticed the condition of the locks is open for debate.

Morse left by the rear door that morning, Mrs. Churchill saw Andrew at the bottom of the steps that morning about the time he left the house, so maybe Andrew usually used the rear door to leave the house. This may imply he used it primarily to enter the house also. He may have wanted to try entering there if his hands were occupied with mail and a package or parcel, and he wanted to avoid fumbling for his keys.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri May 16, 2008 12:02 pm

Think how often you actually use the front door to your house. I never use it- ever. My family entrance is the mudroom door. I suspect business people who wanted to see Andrew knocked on that front door, or women making social calls. It was customary for tradesmen to use the back entry, a servants entry, or kitchen entry-for people like the iceman, delivery boy, grocery delivery, close family friends.. etc.

I think Andrew kept his business jacket hung up in that diningroom closet so as to have it handy in case someone called at the front door on a business deal. Victorians had a more formal approach to life in regards to appearances and he would not have talked business in his shirtsleeves. There is a great book called Death In the Diningroom by Victorian historian Kenneth Ames on the evolution of the front hallway and why the Victorian house was set up in a particular way. The title refers to the popularity of animal heads, prints of dead fowl and fish and other dead things on the walls in diningrooms.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri May 16, 2008 4:29 pm

Going back to the bit about the window-washing order: I find it interesting in that John Morse gave the testimony at both inquest and trial, so he evidently had it in mind that the order came at breakfast.
I'm one of those people who believes he was "in on it" with Emma and Lizzie, that he was the ferret who could feed information about Mr. Borden's financial dealings to the sisters. Why Mr. Borden trusted him so-- aside from the longstanding familial relationship-- makes my mind wander off to many possibilities. After all, here is this self-made man (Mr. Borden), obviously astute in business, who is so trusting of this other man (Mr. Morse), who doesn't seem to be much of a success.
Even though Thursday was usually the day Bridget did windows, I believe co-conspirator Mr. Morse wanted to make darn sure and certain she wasn't going to get out of doing them, that Bridget would definitely be out-of-doors long enough for Lizzie to TCB.
I can well imagine that he broached the subject at breakfast that fateful a.m.: "Abby, the windows are looking mighty dirty. Mighty dirty indeed." Mrs. Borden was obviously a fastidious housekeeper. She would not have let the windows go, after such a remark.
However, I'm inclined to believe Bridget's version: "Will there be anything else, ma'am?" after breakfast, after Lizzie has had her cookies, after Bridget has tossed hers.
IOW: I believe it's in Uncle John's mind that the order came at breakfast, because I believe he brought up the subject intentionally, in an all-important move to make sure Bridget would be out-of-doors.
I'm inclined to believe Bridget, however, because I don't think Abby would be giving mundane household-chore orders at breakfast, with a guest.
Of course I'm theorizing here, and those who don't believe Morse was involved will dismiss this. However, it's a discrepancy in testimony by two key players among the five who were definitely inside the house the morning of the murders. It could be inconsequential; it could be rather important.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:44 pm

Well, old John sure comes off as fishy according to most people. He has an unfortunate face and peculiar ways, poor man. Bridget did not wash the windows every Thursday, I think she says twice a month. John being in the horse-trading business, which would from time to time bring him into contact with some maybe unsavory types, does not help the perception people had of him. He was eccentric, apparently none too tidy, and seemed a little rough and tumble. The new photos of him in the latest Hatchet give a little more groomed and reassuring portrayal of him.

It is unfortunate that he went into the back yard when he returned the day of the murders, and picked up some pears. We want him to run right into the house demanding to know what happened, etc.because that is what we would do. His actions make us suspect him of something. He may have just seen people in the back yard and wanted to scout out what was going on.

Personally, I think John gets a bad rap. I can't imagine him giving a hoot about domestic stuff-or noticing whether windows were dusty or not. His personal hygiene left much to be desired. His was a world of menfolk and livestock and barns. When and if Abby gave the window washing order to Bridget after breakfast, I expect Abby was not even noticing Andrew or John when she gave it- and possibly Andrew was not paying attention to either of them as domestic chores and Bridget were probably not of any interest to him. This was woman stuff. But John overheard it and may have muddled up just when he heard it.
In the end- John has no motive, did not receive anything, and has an alibi for both murders-and by all accounts liked Mr. Borden and had plenty in common with him. Emma also seems to have been close to her Uncle and he was her real mother's own brother.
Even if John had anything at all to do with hiring someone to kill the Bordens, how could he know that Bridget would be blabbing to the Kelly maid so long at the fence, that she would come in for a dipper, that the screen door would be left unlocked, exactly when Bridget would be going in and coming out? He also could not know that she would not do the kitchen windows nor could he guess how long it would take her to do the windows outside. Too risky and unpredictable. John probably had a theory though, and some suspicions!

Bridget's Prelim testimony
Q. When you saw Mrs. Borden, where did you see her?
A. In the dining room, dusting. She wanted to know if I had anything particular to do that day. I told her no. Did she want anything? Yes, she said she wanted the windows washed. I asked her how. She said on
both sides, inside and outside; they were very dirty.
Q. Did you have any usual time to wash the windows?
A. No Sir.
Q. How often did you use to wash them?
A. Sometimes once a month, and probably twice a month.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Borden after that?
A. No Sir.
Q. Where did she go to then?
A. I could not tell you. I came out, and shut the dining room, and was in the kitchen.

. . . and a little further along in the testimonyQ. Did Mrs. Borden have anything to say to you that morning?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did not have any talk to you at all?
A. She spoke to me about breakfast, before that.
Q. Say anything else to you before that?
A. No Sir.
Q. Was she in the habit of asking you what work you had to do that day?
A. Right after breakfast.
Q. As soon as she had finished breakfast, she would say “well, Maggie, what have you got to do today?”
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That was a common thing right after breakfast?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 17, 2008 1:15 am

I don't mean to jump over you Shelley, but I also don't wish to "quote" DJ's whole post- so I am replying to him: that is an interesting scenario you propose- I'd not heard that one before- it's inventive.
I take the meaning to be that Morse did not hear the order at breakfast, he made a suggestion somehow and later Abbie made the order.

I do think that Andrew probably did not know or care about a household order like that. So it would fall on Morse to cause that action taken later. It does somewhat answer the discrepancy in the testimony of Morse. I mean, it's well-thought-out.

If we think about wills, we see that Morse did have some assets, so I do think he was successful at what he did. But also he purposely left nothing to Emma and Lizzie, which means something, but what?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:56 am

I have to agree with Shelley, Uncle John did not fit the mold of an Eastern gentleman the way Andrew may have. He was a horse trader, and a relatively successful one. In order to be a relatively successful horse trader, he would have adopted some or most of the habits of horse traders in general, and specifically those of Western horse traders. Having done so, he would come off as rustic or quirky by Eastern urban standards. I think much of his behavior seems a bit odd, but maybe less so if we consider why along with what. John's "business suit" may have been a moth eaten coat of some nondescript pattern the same as Andrew's "business suit" was a Prince Albert coat. Both were successful and both dressed for the role.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat May 17, 2008 10:27 am

I think John did not leave anything to Emma and Lizzie because they already had plenty-not that it was a deliberate slight because he was not rewarded for arranging the killing of their parents.

John, I finally believe, was unlucky in that he picked the wrong time to stop by Wednesday. He did not bring a change of underwear or a toothbrush or could not have planned that he would be invited to stay overnight. If he had gone back to Issac's Wednesday night, we would not even been giving him a thought as to any complicity in the double homicide of the Bordens.

Reminds me of Ron Goldman- too bad he decided to stop by Nicole Simpson's place to bring her back her sunglasses from the restaurant- of course that kind act got him KILLED. In John's case, he becomes a suspect or at the least, suspicious because he was on the scene. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. He probably was sorry he ever offered to go to Swansea on that oxen and hired man venture.

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat May 17, 2008 12:58 pm

Yes, Kat, I'm theorizing that John Morse made a point of pointing out the windows at breakfast, and that's why he "thinks" the order came then.
Shelley, I don't think he looks suspicious; I think he acts suspiciously. You begin to bring this out:

1. He's calmly eating those pears, when he is supposedly about to have dinner at the Bordens'.

2. Other testimony by other witnesses, including some of the constabulary, put a crowd of at least a dozen at the front at the time he returns, yet he claims that there was no noticeable crowd at that point.

3. When he does enter, he begins to overreact, exclaiming something on the order of: "My God, how could God have let this happen to this wonderful man!" It's quite a "one-eighty."

4. Why is he so meticulous about his whereabouts *that particular morning*, insofar as his alibis are concerned? Yes, it behooves him to recall them, but the very fact that he can demonstrates clearly that he is either a man with an eye for great detail, or one who made certain that he did take care to notice every little thing that could establish an alibi for him.

I think he had a pretty good idea something was going to go down that a.m. And he did nothing about it.

Well, either you think he's suspicious, or you don't. Actions speak louder than looks or words to me, and his actions that morn scream out at me as odd, to say the least.
We know he was a favorite uncle of Emma. Lizzie and he testify that they had no interaction that last visit, but I'd wager he had a little "cross the landing" chat with her re the latest on Mr. Borden's finances. Lizzie and Uncle John are just too darn particular in their respective testimonies about having no contact on that last visit. Maybe it's true. I'm inclined to think they're trying to separate themselves, so there'll be no tie in to Lizzie receiving info from Morse re Mr. Borden's business.
Couldn't you see the prosecution jumping all over that, giving Lizzie a clear line of motive to murder? I think Morse and Lizzie were at least that careful.
However, as Johnny Carson used to put it, "You buy the premise; you buy the bit."
I think Emma and Morse had prior knowledge that Lizzie was planning to commit murder that a.m. There was a fortune at stake, and a great deal of ill will floating around. Morse, I believe, was the go-between guy. If he received remuneration for his efforts, as I conjecture he did, I don't think anyone would have left much of a paper trail, in wills or otherwise.
Again, this is just a theory! However, all three stood to gain.

PS: Don't you think there might have been a thought in Morse's mind along this line: "This fortune was rightfully my sister's. It should go to her daughters, not her 'replacement'?"
PPS: Ron Goldman was truly the wrong person at the wrong place and time. Morse, on the other hand, had known the murder victims for years, and was a fairly frequent visitor to their home.
I think there's a reason Morse was there, and that that reason ties in to Lizzie committing murder the following morning.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:48 pm

Well, we all have a theory, and I did, for a time wonder about John because of other people pointing a finger at him. I think if Morse had truly had anything to do with this business, he was smart and wily enough to have had a much better plan, and would have been MILES away with a glowing alibi when it happened. Actually, according to witnesses, Morse did not visit that frequently and unannounced visits were not uncommon. I think Lizzie says she had not seen him since the river last froze over. He seemed to come out to the coast for awhile, then back to Iowa.

Surely John knew Andrew's habits too. Why would he or a paid assassin arranged by John come to the house after 9 when he knew it was Andrew's habit to go to the barber, post office, banks, etc.? I think Uncle John, if he were in on this, or conspired to do it solo, would have waited until one dark night when Andrew was driving home from Swansea, and had him bopped in the head then. Not in his house in broad daylight with his niece home with no alibi.

A lot is made of Morse sending that letter to Issac Davis the night of the murder, but how else would he have been able to tell the old butcher what was going on and that he had to stay at Second Street?
The idea that he did not want Andrew's fortune going to the second wife has merit, but why kill Andrew when he could just have killed Abby? It is highly unlikely Andrew would remarry if Abby were killed with him nearly 70 and his children grown. I can't believe Morse sat and chatted and ate breakfast and gabbed about Jay Gould's yacht with Andrew while knowing he was going to have him killed.
One thing about Yankees, and Victorian Yankees especially- they are private and close-mouthed about their private financial business. I don't know as that Andrew would be blabbing too much even to a former family member about his dealings.

I would also go so far as to agree there may be a major piece of the puzzle which we do not know and may have been suppressed by the defense.

But that's what we are here for, to debate the points. I visualize Morse back at Issac Davis' house in a cartoon, saying "God, how I WISH I had gone over on Tuesday!!"

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat May 17, 2008 7:16 pm

Shelley,
I don't think Morse had anything more direct to do with the murders than:
*** Looking the other way.***
I believe he supplied Emma and Lizzie with x,y,z info {at their urging, re Andrew's finances}, probably realizing that it would lead to murder, one way or the other.
I think he did help Lizzie out to the extent that he made a big fuss over dirty windows at breakfast so that Bridget would be out of the house long enough to whack Abby, and possibly Andrew, if he came home early.
I think he did a set-up for Lizzie, and she decided to grab the hatchet and make do.
I don't think John Morse had the gumption to kill the Bordens, or even tie himself to hiring a hit. I do believe Emma was urging him to help pave the way for Lizzie, who seems to have been the one among the three with the most nerve--
He was their blood, so to speak, and Emma's favorite uncle. If anyone was in cahoots that a.m., it would have been these three.
The sisters had the most to gain, and certainly their uncle knew there would be a piece of the Borden pie waiting for him, one way or another.
***I believe he walked a fine line between whatever feelings he had for his brother-in-law, and his much-stronger feelings for his niece(s) and their forthcoming fortune.***
Maybe he rationalized to himself that Andrew didn't have much longer to live, anyway.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat May 17, 2008 8:43 pm

The relative I could believe as a likelier accomplice would be Hiram Harrington who had no love for Lizzie or Andrew, and who might have thought Andrew should have helped his sister Lurana more financially.

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat May 17, 2008 10:25 pm

Perhaps I'm misjuding the man, but I picture Uncle Hiram as a *moaner*, a malcontent who may have enjoyed bad-mouthing Mr. Borden because of his success. But, that was that, and it only went so far.
He all but pointed the finger at Lizzie, it seems to me, saying the murderer was probably "someone in the household." It's as if he's transferring the object of his discontent from Andrew to the girls.
In the mind of Charles Dickens, at least, the Victorian-era uncle was always coming to the aid of the orphaned child. He even made over Ebenezer Scrooge, his exception to the rule, in that mindset.
Similarly, I believe John Morse-- in memory of his deceased sister and as protector of his two nieces-- facilitated them, up to a certain point.
If his sister had lived and come into that fortune, think how different life would have been for him, and for his nieces. Maybe that thought didn't sit all that well with him. Maybe it festered over the years.
In a way, he, too, was "cut off" when Andrew remarried. Or, "cut short." I think he kept tabs on Andrew's business for the sake of his nieces, as well as himself.
I think he and Lizzie did communicate during that visit, and Lizzie told him what she intended to do. He said he'd try to get the maid out of the way, then it was in her hands.
The motive's certainly in place. The means is no problem. They had the opportunity to communicate. They said they didn't. That seems fishy.
Oh, well: it's just a theory.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat May 17, 2008 10:33 pm

John Morse was a single man. He never had anyone but himself to look out for, and he was likely very adept at it. If he found a group of people milling about when he arrived, including someone standing guard at the door, and if those people were discussing the events and he overheard it, his first thoughts probably would have been how it would affect him. He may have needed a moment to digest the information. I'm sure he was aware that his presence might seem suspicious at such a time, so if he was overly meticulous in recalling his movements that day, I can understand why. If he paced around the yard for a time before deciding on a course of action, I can also understand that. I think John Morse was first and foremost looking out for John Morse.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:21 am

Just to be clear:

Morse [a man of property]
inquest
94
Q. This question you are not obliged to answer, unless you want to. Are you a man of some property?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Enough to live on without working?
A. Yes Sir.
.....
Morse [who he was close to- Emma, who disliked Abbie more than Lizzie did, or so we are led to believe]
96(3)
A. I used to have a letter occasionally from my brother in law.
Q. From Borden himself?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How frequent was the correspondence with Miss Emma?
A. Probably once in three or four months.
.....
Morse [how often he saw Lizzie]
Q. Did you see much of Miss Lizzie when you came to the house?
97
A. Sometimes; sometimes I did not see either of the girls, stayed a few minutes and talked with Mr. Borden, and went out.
.....

98 [cont'd]
...
Q. When is the last time you remember eating at the table with Miss Lizzie, before the tragedy?
A. I dont know as I can call to mind.
Q. You have done so?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you done so in six months?
A. O, yes several times.
.....
Morse [and Andrew's letter]
98
Q. What was the date of that letter? You may refresh your memory. If you have no objections, I will see it.
(Witness produces the letter dated July 25, 1892.)

----Note Lizzie had been away, yet she returned on the 26th, the day after Morse got Andrew's letter. Weren't Andrew and Abbie supposed to be at the farm around that time?

Morse [Andrew did talk business with Morse]
95
Q. Did he ever talk with you about a will?
A. Yes Sir, he has.
Q. When was the last time?
A. Somewhere within a year.
Q. When you were there at the house?
A. No Sir, I think we were outside at the time.
106
Q. What was the talk?
A. He said he thought he should make some bequests outside to charitable purposes. He did not say any more either one way or the other.
Q. Did he say he had made a will?
A. He did not say .
Q. He did not say whether he had or not?
A. Whether he had or had not.
Q. Did he talk as though he was intending to make a will?
A. I judged from that that he was intending to, I drew my conclusions that he had not, but was thinking of it.
Q. Did he mention the bequests outside he thought he should make?
A. He did not.
Q. How came he to be speaking about it?
A. Common conversation, I suppose, same as about his land. Before he bought the Birch land, I was down there with him. He says lets go up Main street. We went up. He says “here is a piece of property, dont say anything about it, I have got a chance to buy. What is your opinion about it”? I asked what it could be bought for. I dont know as he told me direct, but about. I says “I think it is good property in the heart of the city. The city will be coming towards it all the time. I believe it will be a good investment.” Several months afterwards, one Sunday, he says “John, I did as you told me to”. I says “what is that,” I forgot all about it. “I bought that Birch land.”
Q. I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A. That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out, you know, for charitable purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about the Old Ladies Home, “I dont know but I would give them this, if they would take it.”
Q. Was that the same talk?
A. I dont think it was the same time.
Q. Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A. I think that is all.
Q. That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had destroyed it.
Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A. 15 years ago.
Q. Did he tell you anything about the contents of the will?
A. He did not.

In news stories ie: supposed "interviews" Morse gave his opinion on how he would have killed the Bordens- by chloroform while they were sleeping. It was also said he claimed not to owe Andrew any money ever, but that always sounded suspicious to me. That could be motive. It's just not cut and dry. It's not simple. (I will get the references from the newspapers if anyone asks for them.)

It was claimed that Morse wrote a letter to Isaac Davis the night of the murders. I can't find it in his testimony. Can someone point me in that direction? Thanks!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:23 am

BTW: John Vinnicum Morse shared a birthday with P.T.Barnum.
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion ... ens.htm#jm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 18, 2008 12:26 am

Sorry to triple post, but I also recall a news story that Emma, Lizzie and John Morse met up in New Bedford before the murders. I never gave that much credence, but if we are supposing here, we might include that morsel.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun May 18, 2008 10:25 am

Yes, times were a little different in 1892. John returned to the house where he was a guest Thursday near noon. Sure, he and Andrew had once been related, but I would suspect he would have knocked on the door when he arrived Wednesday to be let in, and would have expected that he would do the same on Thursday when he returned for lunch. Visiting relatives in this time would not have barged in as a custom, most surely those who did not visit daily or frequently-and a male relative bursting in unannounced on the ladies to boot. When he arrives, there is someone unknown at the side door and some people standing around in the street. If it had been me, my first thought would not have been that someone was murdered. So he sizes up the situtation, walks around the house. Maybe he thinks lunch is now off the schedule, and picks up a couple pears to eat while he takes in the situation and listens to what is being said around him. Oh well, we can start a Friends of Old John society!

Yes, Hiram Harrington had a blacksmith shop on Fourth Street -full of heavy tools. He and Andrew did not speak and he had no love at all for Lizzie. And he seemed to pop up johnny -on-the-spot that day real quick with plenty to offer if we believe that interview. What was Uncle Hiram's alibi? did anyone ask?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun May 18, 2008 11:08 am

As for Morse letting himself in, this is the testimony he gave at the Preliminary hearing, p242, regarding when he returned Wednesday after his visit to Swansea:

"A. No. When I came back that night, from over the River, I went to the front door.
Q. Who let you in then?
A. Mrs. Borden.
Q. Did you try to get in without being let in?
A. No Sir."

Yes, they were questioning him because they wanted to find out the status of the door locks but it still shows Morse didn't just walk in. I assume he rang the bell or knocked. And he went to the front door not the side.

My opinion of Morse has grown over the years. This from the Evening Standard of Aug. 5th:

"After working for Mr. Davis a few years he packed up his clothes and went West. At first he settled in Illinois, buying and selling land. In this he was very successful and is supposed to have accumulated wealth."

This talent certainly would be appreciated by Andrew. Then the same paper of Aug. 19th had this about his Hastings holdings:

"He now owns two farms, 220 acres in all, of the finest land in Mills county."

That he had his peculiarities there is no doubt but he also had abilities.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 18, 2008 9:32 pm

Our Joe Carlson had done a lot of research on John Vinnicum Morse for the Hatchet June/July 2004. He also contracted with Bev Boileau, in Iowa, for her prior research on Morse in Iowa.

I've looked over the file he gave me to hold in archive, but I don't find the listing of what Morse was worth.

See Rebello, page 71, for the total: $23,225, as his estate.

We would multiply that figure by ? [what] for 1912.
(If multiply by 18, = $418,050)

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon May 19, 2008 8:36 am

Well, the thing that strikes me about Morse is: Where did the money come from to buy this land? Could Mr. Borden possibly have made him a loan, perhaps even one that was still at least partially owed?
Also, even the newspaper says "is supposed to."
At the time of the murders, Morse says he has his land leased. And he just happens to be a thousand-plus miles away from home, helping his friend the butcher.
Doesn't that seem odd?
A lot of what he says, or presents about himself, seems to be taken for granted, at least at the time of the murders. Well, it's pretty easy to be taken at face value when your "other life" is so far away, in Iowa, and it's difficult to verify all that you're presenting yourself to be.
Anyway, if money passed between the sisters and their uncle, or between Mr. Borden and Morse, I wouldn't expect there to be any paper trail. If there was a note on a loan from Mr. Borden, it was probably destroyed forthwith.
Look, if the relationship were *cordial*, it would not be out of the ordinary for one relative to loan another money, especially for the purpose of investing. I had a great-aunt who loaned my grandfather money on several occasions, when he located good "investment property."
Two things have glared out at me since I read my first book about this case:
(1) That Abby's body could be seen by someone halfway up the stairs, and Bridget places Lizzie up those stairs an hour after Abby probably died, so there is no way Lizzie could have ascended the stairs without seeing the body.
(2) That Morse is spending the night, and Mr. Borden converses with him about personal business affairs. Then Morse toots off the following morning and returns shortly after Mr. Borden has been murdered, with an airtight alibi, a hunger for pears, and apparently oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the swelling throng at the front of the house.