That other note

[Harry]

This is a shortened version of an article that appeared in the Boston Globe of February 18th, 1893:

"IN MRS. BORDEN’S POCKET.

Bit of Paper Found Which
May Be Important.

Memorandum That Shows Her Interest
in Mr. Borden’s Property.

Contains List of His Investments in
Local Enterprises.

FALL RIVER, Mass., Feb. 17. – Shortly after the murders at the Borden house the wearing apparel and other personal effects of Mrs. Borden were turned over by the stepdaughters to her immediate heirs.
In the pocket of one of the garments a paper was found which is regarded as a significant piece of testimony. ......... It is reported that among Mrs. Borden’s effects a memorandum has been found which suggests that at some time or other she was more directly interested in her husband’s property than has been generally supposed. A list, written by her, of some $80,000 worth of stocks in the Troy mill, the Merchants’ Manufacturing Company and other first-class corporations, has been discovered, and that her attention was called to it at a comparatively recent date is proved by the fact that she wrote the word ‘sold’ opposite a certain number of shares in the Globe Street railway company.
“Whether this memorandum was dictated by Mr. Borden is not known, but it is not improbable that he contemplated giving his wife these stocks as her portion of his property, leaving the real estate to be divided between the daughters.
“The list contains substantially a record of all of Mr. Borden’s investments in local ventures. It may or may not have any significance, but it certainly suggests that the money question was discussed occasionally in the household.”

Several things come to mind. Why wasn't this note found before the clothing left the Borden house, either by the police or the "girls"? Did they not conduct a search for the note Abby allegedly received?

Assuming this inventory note was written shortly before the murders (which the article seems to say) then perhaps the proceeds from the stock shown as sold could have been used to pay Lizzie and Emma for the Ferry St. house that Andrew bought back on July 15th about 3 weeks before the crimes. The $5000 paid would be worth about $100,000 today, no small sum that Andrew would have just lying around.

The newspaper article is dated February 18, 1893, some 6 months after the crime and when Abby's clothing was turned over to her family. On February 2nd, George D. Robinson was hired as lead attorney for Lizzie. Any connection between his hiring and the release of this information?

I can speculate that Abby must have been angry at Andrew for his buying back this property which he had given free to the girls. Could the angry feelings between the girls and Abby been rekindled when this transaction occurred resulting in the murders?

Just some things to ponder.

[Shelley]

Good stuff. I have always thought the buy-back of the Ferry Street house so close to the time of the murders was in some way a factor. It indicates that money and property had surely recently been a point of hot discussion in the family circle. Perhaps the girls had requested more by way of financial security or were dissatisfield when they heard the settlement for Abby which Andrew had in mind.
As far as this bit of paper not being found sooner- it may have been in a pocket of a garment packed away which received only cursory examination-an item out of season. Or the police did not attach any importance or significance to it if they had seen it. I am inclined to believe it was simply overlooked. Too bad we do not know when it was written.

[Yooper]

A couple of things come to mind. First, why wasn't the note brought up by the prosecution? They might have used it as the basis for motive. Second, it tends to speak to the idea that Andrew may have been contemplating writing a will. If he was, and the contents were generally known to his family as cash and securities to Abby and real estate to the daughters, then the purchase of the Ferry Street house favored the daughters. They got the cash equivalent value, and would also get the property back when Andrew died. This might have angered Abby rather than Lizzie and Emma, but it may have increased hostilities nonetheless. Abby's anger may have been the final straw, Lizzie and Emma may have resented the thought of Abby getting anything.

[snokkums]

I think there was always anger and resentment especially on the girls part. I don't think they ever liked Abby to begin with, do I don't think it would have matter one way or the other what Andrew sold or didn't.

[kssunflower]

Good post, Harry. I never knew this note existed. But I wonder the date of it's origin? Maybe it was an ongoing list and added to and updated? Maybe at some point Lizzie or Emma discovered it (before Abby's murder) and it added to their resentment. It does seem strange that the prosecution didn't reference it in their case.

[DJ]

If Lizzie knew Abby was keeping such a "tally" of Andrew's business transactions, especially ones involving such large sums, there's no doubt that such knowledge would have infuriated Lizzie, causing her to believe that Abby was maintaining close tabs on Andrew's net worth so that she wouldn't be cheated in the event of a three-way split of his holdings, liquid and otherwise, or a similar division of his estate.
Now, the note was found in a pocket-- of a coat, perhaps? I'm thinking a garment that wasn't washed frequently.
It's entirely possible that Lizzie searched Abby's pockets, given any opportunity to do so. After all, the key to the bedroom was sitting right there on the mantel. If Lizzie had any window of opportunity to search the bedroom, I believe she did. She probably went down cellar and rifled through the items left for washing, too.
Because: She wanted to stay on top of things.
However, she couldn't very well steal anything else, not after the incident of the summer of 1891. Nevertheless, she could snoop. If she discovered the note, she couldn't very well remove it. She had to leave it there.
If Lizzie read that note, I can envision the steam coming out of her ears.
Then again, perhaps she knew nothing of it. I don't see any real cause for concern on her part of its coming to light in the papers, other than that it reminded the public of just how wealthy her Father was, which gave her a decided motive for murder-- both murders, as Abby was obviously aware of the particulars of the estate and was thus expecting her due.

[Yooper]

The article doesn't specify when the note was found. If it was discovered at about the time the clothing was given to Abby's family, why would they wait until February to break the news? If it was found at the time it was reported, I wonder what prompted a search of the clothing at that time?

[nbcatlover]

This is the first time I've heard reference to this note. This could be a "trickey" situation concerning the source. The Boston Globe gained infamy for its unconfirmed printing of Trickey's story. I would be very curious if this story appeared in print from other sources around the same time.

[Harry]

This is the first time I've heard reference to this note. This could be a "trickey" situation concerning the source. The Boston Globe gained infamy for its unconfirmed printing of Trickey's story. I would be very curious if this story appeared in print from other sources around the same time.

The news items I referred to above was from the Boston Globe. Apparently the original story came from the Fall River Globe (February 17th, 1893). Rebello has this on page 135:

"The [Fall River Daily] Globe reported on the existence of a list of financial holdings supposedly written by Abby or possibly dictated by Andrew Borden. The list reportedly contained some $80,000 worth of stock in the Troy Mill, the Merchants Mfg., and other local ventures. The [Fall River Daily] Globe implied that money was at some point discussed in the Borden home. The Fall River Evening News quickly responded the next day to the [Fall River Daily] Globe report. The 'memorandum was not of Mrs. Borden's holdings, but some of Mr. Borden's personal property, and Mrs. Borden died possessing none of the stocks referred to.' The [Fall River] Evening News reported that the list was written in 1891 and "That it is not improbable that Mr. Borden dictated this memorandum, that he intended to leave these stocks to his wife, that it certainly suggests that the money in question was discussed occasionally in the household is purest assumption. There is nothing to show, if we are rightfully informed, that Mr. Borden or his daughters had any knowledge that such a list was kept by Mrs. Borden ..."

[DJ]

I don't have "search engine" capability on any testimony, but I have a vague recollection of someone (maybe Morse?) stating that A.J. was planning to set Abby up with stocks.
Here's a possible scenario: Maybe A.J. was playing "legerdemain" in advance of drawing up a new will. That is, by transferring the stocks to Abby in advance of making official bequests, he would in fact be making a "secret bequest" that would of course be effective prior to his death.
Of course, it's on the record how the Girls went ballistic over the property transfer. If he was planning on drawing up a new testament before the end of the year, they would certainly get wind of it and want to know how it all panned out for them.
Perhaps, through a "preemptive" stock transfer, A.J. planned to set up Abby as he thought she should be, thereby bypassing what the Girls might deem an overgenerous bequest if a will were to come to light, and the stock bequest was contained therein.
IOW: Abby's pot gets sweetened without the Girls' knowledge.
As a postscript: Given the Girls' volatility over property, perhaps Andrew was *afraid* to post a new will, perhaps even fearing for his life.
Maybe he never intended to draw up another one, but to allow the Massachusetts laws governing intestacy (sp?-- having no will) and the state-decreed distribution to surviving heirs to follow play. If that were his intent, a secret stock transfer to Abby would have insured that she would have a living in the event of his death.

[Kat]

Evening Standard [transcribed by Harry]:

Monday, August 8, 1892 Page 8

From Saturday's Third Edition.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT.

Mr. Borden Was Making an
Inventory of His Property.

With the Expectation of Having His
Will Drawn up.

Police Making a Rigid Search of the
House Where Crime Was Committed.

[Special Dispatch.]
Fall River, Aug. 6. --- Up to 4 o'clock this afternoon no arrests had been made in the Borden murder case.

District Attorney's Investigation.

Advices from Marion, where District Attorney Knowlton is staying at his summer residence, say that he will probably be in Fall River Monday or Tuesday, when an investigation will be held at the Borden residence.

Mr. Borden Left No Will.

One piece of information came to the knowledge of the police this afternoon which, in light of recent events, has a peculiar significance. It is stated that Mr. Borden left no will, but for the week previous to his death he had been making an inventory of his property, preparatory to having an instrument drawn. . . .

--This is in context of the Saturday search of the house- August 6th.

[Kat]

Then Evening Standard August 13th, [transcribed by Harry]:

Saturday, August 13, 1892 Page 2

LODGED IN JAIL.

Sheriff Wright's Wife Moved
to Tears.

Recognized in Lizzie Borden Her
Daughter's Friend.

Prisoner Still Displays Her
Outward Indifference.

Inquest Will Not be Reopened
Before Monday.

Government Busy in Trying to
Disentangle Threads.
. . .

Property in the Family.

There has been an absence of suggestion concerning the motive for the two deaths in the Borden family. The police found the motive early in their researches. They have been looking for the murderer by the light of that motive. It is needless to say that they considered the love of money the motive. A. J. Borden possessed real estate valued at $173,000 according to the tax assessors of Fall River, personal property worth at moderate appraisal, $30,000 more. His wife had about $5000 in her own name. The two girls owned personally property, principally mill stocks, valued at about $10,000 each. The family was better off than several families of the Fall River Bordens who live in grand style. Mr. Borden, it is said, early set his heart on accumulating wealth for its own sake, so he never spent it freely. It is alleged now that Mrs. Borden, who was a second wife, on more than one occasion spoke of having a large part of the property when her husband died. She may have meant that her husband was going to leave her property in his will, or that she expected to have large property from her dower rights in case her husband died intestate. About the first suggestion one could say nothing definite. Mr. A. J. Jennings is perhaps the only man who can state whether Mr. Borden was making an inventory of his property, preliminary to writing his will and whether Mr. Borden intended to divide his estate unequally between his wife and his daughters. If Mrs. Borden anticipated having a large estate in fee left her by the death of her husband, she was mistaken. The law in the case is confusing, but a statement of its application to the Borden case is easily made. Had Mr. Borden alone died and died intestate, Mrs. Borden would have received in the discretion of the Court of Probate not exceeding $5000 in real estate in fee, one half of all the real estate for use during her lifetime, with reference back to the children at her death, and such a fraction of the personal estate as the Court of Probate in its discretion allowed, this also for use during lifetime only. In a word, Mrs. Borden could have hoped to secure only rights to property which would depart from her control at the end of her life. In case Mr. Borden wished he could have entirely disinherited his children.

[Kat]

Again, Evening Standard, transcribed by Harry:

Thursday, August 18, 1892 Page 6

DOUBTLESS A LUNATIC.

Self-Accused Murderer of the
Bordens is Not Sane.

Steep Brook Excited Over the
Stories of a Strange Man.

No Credence Placed in the Report
About a Will Being Made.

. . .

The defence in the Borden case put no credence whatever in the stories of an inventory or a will said to have been made by Mr. Borden. All knowledge of the affair was kept from Mr. Borden's counsel, whom he saw almost daily, and this fact is in itself a very unusual thing in the minds of Miss Borden's friends.
Nelson Reed of Westport states that he knows the suspect very well and says that he has been crazy for some time.
Charles C. Cook denies all knowledge of a will or of Mr. Borden having spoken of making one, or of Borden's having ever hinted at making an inventory of his property.
Mr. Cook was out of town yesterday and until noon to-day. He has been an agent of a portion of the Borden estate for two and a half years.

[Kat]

Jeesh! There's more, transcribed by Harry:

Evning Standard
Friday, August 19, 1892 Page 2

THE SELF-ACCUSED.

Peckham Recovers from His
Hallucination..etc. . .
. . .
A Denial from Abraham G. Hart.

The Fall River News prints the following:
The report has repeatedly reached me that the late Andrew J. Borden stated to me that he was about making his will, and had made an inventory of his property for that purpose, while the fact is, that in his almost daily conversations, sometimes for a half- hour, in which he spoke freely on financial and business matters, with local history and the values of real estate thirty to forty years ago, and at the present time, he was completely reserved, and kept his own counsel on all family matters, and never at any time spoke of making a will or inventory of his estate.
Respectfully.
Abraham G. Hart

[nbcatlover]

Despite what the papers' say, it seems very peculiar that a note on Mrs. Borden's body never appeared as evidence in Lizzie's trial. It would seem that there would have been some direct testimony about such a note as early as the preliminary hearing. The existence of such a note, presented as evidence, would have made it much easier to convict Lizzie.

They all say stuff like "it was reported to me". By whom? It seems like these reporters had psychic friends.

If it was the note Dr. Bowen burned, it would seem that he would have to be the journalists' source.

Any thoughts on this?

[DJ]

Thanks, Kat, for the fascinating transcriptions!
If the article re the intestacy distribution is correct, then it would have behooved A.J. to set up Abby with the stocks, as she might not have fared well via the probate court.
The intestacy situation would have pleased Lizzie and Emma in that whatever Abby inherited would revert to them at the time of her death.
In short: the "no-will" situation was conducive to Lizzie's and Emma's self-serving interests. They probably knew that the very fact that A.J. might be considering a new one would no doubt work against them, even if they weren't familiar with the intricacies of the law.
Also: If Abby were carrying around a "stock tally," that's solid evidence of an at-least partial inventory of A.J.'s holdings. To what end, is the question. Was he planning to secretly transfer stocks to her so that she would have a secure living, and so that the girls wouldn't have another "what about us?" fit.
Or, was he considering a new will?

[Kat]

If all this news coverage is true, the possibility that Abbie was talking (or bragging?) to family that she would be wealthy if anything happened to Andrew (even if she had wrong information)- is not something we've heard of- and yet sounds like motive for her as well.
Maybe Andrew was to die, by the hand of Abbie's family- so she could dispense largesse to them.
Anyway, it sounds pretty human of her to wonder what Andrew was worth and want to impress her family with such knowledge...if she did...

[DJ]

Kat,
I'll pick up your prism and look at it another way--
Another reason why it would have behooved A.J. not to make any bequests, to die intestate: The temptation from Abby or one of her relations to off him, as you suggest.
By transferring stocks to her during his lifetime, he accomplishes several feats:
(1) He secures her financially from probate battles involving Lizzie, Emma, or anyone else.
(2) He removes the temptation from one of her poorer relations (as you suggest, Kat) to off him. Abby will be just as rich with him alive.
Moreover:
(3) With no will, Lizzie and Emma cannot pitch a fit over injustices in the bequests to them: perceived or actual.
(4) If Lizzie and Emma were to receive, each, say 100 grand or more, that would give them, of course, a motive to supply Andrew with a premature death.
I've wondered why a man of his wealth reached the very ripe old age (for then) of 70 without drawing up another will. If one looks at the situation this way, it would make a great deal of sense for him not to have had one, and--
for him to have been planning a stock transfer to Abby, for reasons (1) and (2).

[augusta]

I did an article on this note in 'The Hatchet' - "What was in Abby's Pocket?", Issue #24, Volume 5, #4, page 57 (the one with the new photo of Emma on the cover).