The Borden Family Plot in Oak Grove

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:31 pm

Can anyone tell me when the Borden Family Plot was purchased and established in Oak Grove. We know that Andrew and Abby were buried in 1892 and that Lizzie and Emma were buried in 1927. But when was Sarah and Alice buried? And were they originally buried at the same plot?

If indeed it was the same plot, when was the large family stone erected?

I am writing a story that takes place in 1875 and would love to have Lizzie and Andrew visit Sarah and Alice, but I don't know what graveyard and what plot to put them in.

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:51 pm

I know the large family stone was erected by Lizzie and Emma after Andrew and Abby had been murdered and buried so it was 1892 or after. As far as Sarah and Alice, I believe it was their original burial spot. The plot has other graves on the east side that belonged to Andrew's family. I believe the plot was purchased sometime when Andrew was in business with Almy as undertakers. They purchased the plot together.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:01 pm

The large family stone was erected in January 1895.

According to the Boston Adviser newspaper there was nothing to mark Andrew's and Abby's graves until then. I assume from that that the individual grave markers for Andrew and Abby were added then or soon after.

I believe Andrew bought the plot with his business partner William Almy but when I don't know. The Almy's are buried adjacent to the Borden plot. They were partners since 1845 and Almy retired in 1878 but remained in real estate with Andrew until 1881. I think it's safe to assume that since they were in the undertaking business they would have made the necessary family arrangements.

Copies of Sarah's and Alice's death certificates simply say they are buried at Oak Grove.

Shelley or Augusta may be able to provide more information.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:02 pm

SteveS, I was typing when you made your post. Great minds....!

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:58 am

you said a mouthfull Harry

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:18 am

Though I don't have the exact dates on when Sarah or Alice were buried, I imagine it was a few days after they had passed. Sarah died March 26, 1863 and Alice Esther died on March 10, 1858.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:05 am

It's strange to think that if Alice had lived, she would have been in her mid-30s at the time of the murders.

But then again, if Alice had lived, Lizzie may not have been born.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:41 am

The family monument marker was made of Westerly blue granite . I am still trying to track who carved it. Westerly was famous for monuments at this time and had many stone carving family businesses. Ruth Buzzi 's family (she of Laugh-In fame) is one of the last Italian immigrant family monument carving businesses still in business. Fall River had quarries too and pink granite was their specialty. Can't beat granite- the rock of ages!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:17 am

Oak Grove was established in 1855. That arched gateway was erected in 1873 so the *saying* carved at the top was there with that imposing entrance for the time of your story, Richard.
("A Guide Book to Fall River's National Register Properties," Giza, 1984, page 98.)
Since Susan gave us the death dates of Sarah and Alice, and Harry gave the marker info, it sounds like you're good-to-go?

* "The shadows have fallen and they wait for the day."

Looking forward to a new story!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:30 am

I found a newspaper item on my desktop I had captured a while ago, and stored there. It is from The Chicago Daily Tribune, dated November 11, 1894:

"Lizzie Borden and her sister have placed a beautiful monument on the graves of their murdered parents in Oak Grove Cemetery, Fall River. It is one of the most costly and artistic structures on the grounds."

I don't know if it is right or wrong, considering the later date given here on this thread as 1895.

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:08 am

Since it is such a large monument, I wouldn't be surprised if it took years to make. Especially with the inquest, preliminary hearing, grand jury indictment, and then the trial, I would suppose that the monument was not ordered til after Lizzie's "ordeal".
Speaking from experience, my mother died in March 2004 and we had a blank headstone when she was buried. They said it would be 3 months before it could be engraved, and we had hoped that the stone would bear her name & dates of birth & death by her birthday which is in August. It did not get done til either October or November of the year of her death! And that was because they were "backed up" with so many stones to engrave. So to have a monument of that size made, I'm not surprised it took so long for it to placed at the cemetery.
I'm surprised there are no articles from reporters "staked out" at the cemetery to see if Lizzie or Emma were frequent visitors to the plot.
Pammie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:38 pm

It might mean that the marker was placed in November '94 but not yet engraved until early '95? Do they engrave onsite? I don't know anything about this kind of thing. If so, that would make sense.
It might also be that the news from Chicago was full of beans.

I guess we'd have to compare the info with another source.

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:50 am

These days, I know they go to the cemetery to engrave the stones, because my father-in-law was there visiting his wife's grave (Dave's mom) and he saw the guy pull out, get out his tools and go to work.
Apparently they push the stone over on it's side depending on the size to make the stone cutting easier, or at least that's what my father in law said they did. He was kinda surprised to see them do that.
Pammie

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:10 am

The Borden stone appears to have been engraved before it was erected at the cemetery. This article appeared in the Boston Advertiser newspaper of Jan. 17, 1895. It says the stone was "set and washed" at the grave site. I assume if the engraving had been done there it would have been mentioned. It doesn't surprise me they would do it that way today though.

The last few lines say much about Emma and Lizzie.

joe1956 · Post by **joe1956** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:01 am

This may have been answered before, but can someone explain why the stone says, "Lizbeth Andrews Borden"? Why is it "Andrews"? Was this what Lizzie wanted, or was it a mistake? Thank you for your thoughts.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:13 pm

The last paragraph of the newspaper article Harry posted, really does tell a lot about the 'girls'. Is it any wonder Lizzie was, and still is, looked upon as the one who got away way murder? The citizens of Fall River didn't ostracize her for nothing - Lizzie's actions speak a lot louder than her words of innocence.

Arnold Brown stated, "I'm certain that Lizzie didn't do it, for the simple reason that it doesn't make sense that she should. She loved her father. I think she'd rather killed herself than to kill her father." (Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPheZblQL4&feature=user) Mr. Brown is certainly entitled to his opinion, however, according to this Boston Advertiser newspaper article, Lizzie's actions say just the opposite. If Lizzie did indeed love her father, she sure had a funny way of showing it.

Harry, thank you for posting this interesting newspaper article.

(Hopefully, I transcribed Mr. Brown's statement correctly - it wasn't easy since he did not speak clearly.)

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:57 am

Although I do agree that most of the time Lizzie's actions spoke louder than words, I don't know if I agree with her just spending a few moments inspecting the stone and returning to the carriage as "proof" of anything.
Keep in mind that I don't think Lizzie did it, but at the same time I agree to her complicity in the murders. But I truly believe Andrew was not supposed to be killed. I think her seeing the stone and the engravings were a little too hard for her to bear and she returned to the carriage as she did not like to show her feelings in public.
Although I had visited my mother's gravesite many times before her stone was engraved, the finality of it really hit me when I saw her name, dates of birth & date on that stone. And it was very hard to handle.
Pammie

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:48 pm

Societygirl1892 @ Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:57 am wrote:Although I do agree that most of the time Lizzie's actions spoke louder than words, I don't know if I agree with her just spending a few moments inspecting the stone and returning to the carriage as "proof" of anything.
Keep in mind that I don't think Lizzie did it, but at the same time I agree to her complicity in the murders. But I truly believe Andrew was not supposed to be killed. I think her seeing the stone and the engravings were a little too hard for her to bear and she returned to the carriage as she did not like to show her feelings in public.
Although I had visited my mother's gravesite many times before her stone was engraved, the finality of it really hit me when I saw her name, dates of birth & date on that stone. And it was very hard to handle.
Pammie

Pamela, I'm assuming your response is in regards to my above post. No where did I state that Lizzie's glance at the memorial and re-entering the carriage was "proof" of anything; I simply stated her actions spoke louder than words. This is my opinion.

At this point in time, I think that Lizzie did kill Abby and Andrew. I also happen to think that Lizzie loudly displayed her feeling in public, in a non-verbal way. Again, this is my opinion.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. I respect your opinions, even if they are different from mine. I just ask that you do the same for me.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:46 pm

Pammie wrote (partial):

I think her seeing the stone and the engravings were a little too hard for her to bear and she returned to the carriage as she did not like to show her feelings in public.

In this instance, I was considering the same thing. And it was between November and January (?) and cold out. And Lizzie seems to have a reputation for being pretty non-emotional in public. I think it is more interesting, really, that Emma seems so much *in charge* -in public- in this news item. I suppose "critical inspection" might not mean she was being critical, but maybe another interpretation might be she was looking at it closely. Depending on how much it cost, she'd be viewing their investment.
~ ~ ~ ~ !
You know, I think if Pammie had used **stars** around the word **proof**, rather than quote marks, I don't think there would be a controversy. She will get more experience posting here and that will help.

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:34 pm

Twinsre,
I'm sorry if you thought my post implied that I was challenging your post. That wasn't my intention and I would certainly never criticize anyone's posts here. That's why we're all here: to post our feelings, ideas, theories, etc...
I should have worded my reply differently as I did not mean any offense.
Please accept my sincerest apology if you were offended, I can tell you sincerely that that was not my intention.
Pammie

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:39 pm

Kat,
That is exactly what I meant, but I used "..." rather than ****around the words***.
For any of you that know me, I would never intend to criticize anyone's opinion on the case. I feel terrible that it was taken that way. I was just trying to get my point across and emphasized in it in a way that probably wasn't very PC.
All I can say is my bad and it won't happen again!
Sorry guys!
Pammie

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:47 pm

Pamela (I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to call you Pammie),
I did take your post as a criticism of my post, because of the quotation marks, and that is why I posted a response to your post. Thank you for posting an apology, I appreciate this and I accept your apology.

Societygirl1892 · Post by **Societygirl1892** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:05 pm

Twinsre:
Thank you for the post.
I truly felt badly when I saw you my post as a criticism.
But I am so glad we cleared everything up!
I hear Pamela and I think I'm in trouble, as that's what my parents called me only when I got into trouble, but you can call me Pamela anytime!
Pammie

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:26 pm

You're welcome. I am also glad we cleared things up between us.

I know what you mean about parents calling their children by their given first name. I knew I was in trouble, when my mother called me "Judy Mae", which isn't even my given name! My given name is Judith - where she dug up the name "Mae" is beyond me, but I knew I was in BIG trouble when she called me it!

It is sweet of you to say I can call you Pamela. How about if I call you Pam instead?

BTW, you can call me Judy, instead of twinsrwe.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:20 pm

William posted this elsewhere here:

According to an item in the Plattsburgh Sentinel (Oct. 23, 1894) the tall Borden monument cost $2250. This was previously reported on the Forum by Harry in 2007.

So this was October, 1894, which is close to the November item I put up here. So which is it, 1894 or early 1895? Do we have another source to reconcile when the monument was erected and etched?

Ad · Post by Ad » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:07 pm

Kat @ Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:20 pm wrote:William posted this elsewhere here:
According to an item in the Plattsburgh Sentinel (Oct. 23, 1894) the tall Borden monument cost $2250. This was previously reported on the Forum by Harry in 2007.

I went to an inflation calculator online (which would only allow me to go to 2007) and this is what the monument would cost roughly today

What cost $2,250.00 in 1894 would cost $53,276.29 in 2007.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1894,
they would cost you $2,250.00 and $101.44 respectively.

I know that this is useless information, but $2250.00 back in 1894/5 struck me as a VERY large amount of money and I wanted to get a better perspective.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:02 pm

If there was indeed no monument for Sarah and little Alice, could that have been (another) source of contention between Lizzie and Emma and Andrew and Abbie?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:02 am

Harry explained to me that there need not be a discrepancy between the dates late 1894 and early 1895. My understanding of his explanation is that the monument could have been ordered, made and had dates chiseled and delivered to Oak Grove, where it may have stood aside until the ground was prepared with a foundation- and it was mid-winter with hard ground - which may have determined when the monument was actually placed at the Borden plot site.

This is our discussion- and I don't speak for him- any error in my understanding is mine alone.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:09 am

stuartwsa @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:02 pm wrote:If there was indeed no monument for Sarah and little Alice, could that have been (another) source of contention between Lizzie and Emma and Andrew and Abbie?

Come to think of it~ it is odd to think Andrew did not place a monument there when Sarah died. He knew it was the family plot- you'd think he would have had something prepared. Were there shortages at that time? Civil War or something and he just put it off? It's an interesting question, Stuart.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum