Why didn't Lizzie and Emma move out?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:04 am

I was reading a very old post and it got me to thinking. If things were so horrid in the house, why didn't LIzzie and Emma just move out? Andrew did give them a house, why not just move into it? Even at that time, two spinster sisters moving out of dads' house couldn't have been all that odd.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:46 pm

The house that he gave them was probably not where they thought they should be living. They had no income of their own, he held the purse strings. You'd think that he'd have thought of that and just to have some peace and quiet, given them an allowance, and helped them move!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:02 pm

shakiboo wrote:The house that he gave them was probably not where they thought they should be living. They had no income of their own, he held the purse strings. You'd think that he'd have thought of that and just to have some peace and quiet, given them an allowance, and helped them move!

I agree! I never thought about that they had do income . You are right, they had no income, well, other than what he wanted to give them to keep them quiet. I think too if he and the girls wanted "part ways" so to speak, he would have given them an allowance, and he was to cheap for that.

Good point Shakiboo.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:19 am

I imagine if Andrew had purchased Maplecroft and moved his daughters into that house, he would have probably been a bit better off.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:15 pm

I wonder why he didn't think of something like that......it would have been so much easier on everybody. It wasn't like he didn't have the money to do it, he was getting up there in age, and for sure he couldn't take it with him. Even Abby would have been taken care of, she'd have had her own house and Bridget to help. And Peace.......Well, ya know what they say about hind-sight........

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:44 pm

Andrew certainly got peace out of the deal, more than he bargained for! I'm sure Andrew never suspected he would be murdered so avoiding the expense would have been a perfectly viable option.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:56 am

Come to think of it, maybe they might not of wanted to move out. Look at it this: if they moved out,and told Andy about it, he might have told them that they weren't going to give them an allowence, they would have pay thier own bills. Translate into-- go get a job. At least in the Borden house, Andy was paying the bills, they were getting an allowence, why cut that loose?

I mean, they could do like what they were doing, talking thier meals separte from Abby and Andrew, using the back stairs and so on and so on.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:31 pm

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.

But....

Trying to figure out why Lizzie and Emma did not move out is really a mute subject.

Moving out was really not an option for women, not in Victorian times.

Women did not just "Move Out". It was very uncommon.

The only time women moved out was when they married, or when the parents died.

Moving out was never a recourse for the Borden sisters. They would never have considered it.

Looking at it from another angle, it made no sense for women to move out. For what? Independence? Independence is a modern idea when it comes to "getting away" or "having your own space." It was not a Victorian concept.

Even men did not move out till they were married. Look at Mrs Churchill's son.

Thus, the subject of moving out most likely never came up to the Borden sisters. It just was not a Victorian option.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:30 pm

Oh, that's down right terrible! You mean to say that there was never a way out except marriage or death of your parents? For women anyway, a man could of packed up his belongings and headed out when he came of age, right? Wow, can't believe I've totally missed that whole point! Then they really didn't have a choice about staying there.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:50 pm

YES

I Suppose they could have moved out. I suppose they could have talked about it, even considered it. To say they had no way out or that it is doubtful that they even considered it, that would be my opinion.

But if you look into Victorian times, you will discover that it was uncommon for women to leave the household without marriage.

This was probably true of all children, including male or female. Why leave the house if you are not married?

Though I am not singling out women, for men and women stayed at home, this was mostly true about women. A women living alone did not look good. At least to Victorians. The Victorian family unit was much more pure then it is today. Family stayed together, unless a member wished to marry and start a new family of their own.

Thus, considering why the Borden girls never left would be quite obvious.

That is not to say that they were not venturesome and did not discuss the bold move of departure. Could have been considered. Highly unlikely though.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:24 pm

This discussion reminds me of a newspaper article dated 6/25/1893 from the Boston Globe I posted many moons ago:

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:58 pm

I don't think independence was a foreign concept to the Borden sisters. They seemed to separate themselves from their parents as much as they could while still living under the same roof. If they feared any influence Abby might have over Andrew, living on 2nd Street allowed them to monitor that more closely than living elsewhere. Practically speaking, once the parents reached a certain age, they might need someone to stay with them. Children still at home or parents moving into an adult child's household would have been the options.

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:00 am

mbhenty posted: "Thus, the subject of moving out most likely never came up to the Borden sisters. It just was not a Victorian option."

But didn't their long time friend Miss. Alice Russel do just that?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:23 am

Yes, that's a good point SteveS.

We are not sure she lived alone. Durning her testimony at the trial she gives her address as Borden Street and informs the court that she once lived next door to the the Bordens on Second Street. She puts it that she lived here and she lived there, but she never really mentions that she lived alone.

I really don't have that information on hand. She could indeed have lived alone, a bold move for a Victorian women, especially a school teacher.

I assume that she probably lived with her mother......but I can not say for sure without a little more research.

When Alice lived on Hillside Street she did indeed live with her mother. Whether that was true during the time line of the crime would be a guess on my part.

Good point though.

She is not listed in the 1893, 1892 or the 1896 directories, which could mean that she boarded with someone or lived with family. (Though there are no Russells on Borden Street) I do have a 1921 directory in my library which shows Alice Russell living on HIllside Street.

The question is, did Alice Russell live alone on Borden Street?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:31 am

Yes.

Sadly enough the shortsighted greedy in this city and at Charlton purchased Alice Russell's house on Hillside Street and demolished it over a year ago; rather than relocate it. (a total of 8 or nine homes were taken,)

(the dish on the house was not placed there by Alice. I think she had Comcast.)

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:40 am

Len Rebello in a 1993 LBQ article on Alice has this:

"Alice and her mother moved into the Kelly house at 96 Second Street, next door to the Bordens, and lived there for eleven years from 1880 to 1891. In 1890, however, Alice's mother moved to 11 Maple Street, then to 71 Cherry Street in 1897 and boarded at 26 Belmont Street from 1892 to 1894, a location just around the corner from Maplecroft. No further addresses were listed in the city directories until 1898. Judith was then found to be living with Alice at 252 Third Street.
Alice remained at 96 Second Street until October, 1891. She then moved to 33 Borden Street, just around the corner from the Bordens. She lived there until 1895. She had been working as a bookkeeper and clerk for 16 years in downtown Fall River at 10 and later 18 South Main Street. Alice and her mother moved to 252 Third Street, a short distance from Lizzie's home on Second Street, and lived there from 1897 to 1906."

Even though it was against custom Alice could move out on her own as she was capable of supporting herself. I don't know of any special talent that either Lizzie or Emma had that could do that. Lizzie and Emma did own the Ferry St. house for 5 years. They could have lived there rent free but chose not to. After all it wasn't on The Hill.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:42 am

I've always admired Andrew's maneuver of giving Lizzie and Emma the Ferry Street house. The bone of contention had been the half interest in the Whitehead house Andrew purchased for Abby, which Abby wanted in consideration of her sister. Emma and Lizzie squawked about it, saying they were entitled to the same consideration, and very likely hoping for the cash equivalent for themselves. What they got was a half interest apiece in a house, exactly the same as Abby, but not just any house. I can think of no more appropriate way to deal with two social climbing daughters who complained about living beneath their means than to remind them of where they came from with the Ferry Street house. It was a work of genius! Lizzie and Emma wore that albatross around their necks for five years until Andrew relented and bought the house back, but I wonder what sort of verbal exchange accompanied that transaction? It took place just a month or two before the murders, if I remember correctly.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:23 pm

Yes, interesting and informative topic

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:05 am

Yooper wrote:I've always admired Andrew's maneuver of giving Lizzie and Emma the Ferry Street house. The bone of contention had been the half interest in the Whitehead house Andrew purchased for Abby, which Abby wanted in consideration of her sister. Emma and Lizzie squawked about it, saying they were entitled to the same consideration, and very likely hoping for the cash equivalent for themselves. What they got was a half interest apiece in a house, exactly the same as Abby, but not just any house. I can think of no more appropriate way to deal with two social climbing daughters who complained about living beneath their means than to remind them of where they came from with the Ferry Street house. It was a work of genius! Lizzie and Emma wore that albatross around their necks for five years until Andrew relented and bought the house back, but I wonder what sort of verbal exchange accompanied that transaction? It took place just a month or two before the murders, if I remember correctly.

I am surprised that Andrew didn't suggest that they move out to the Ferry Street house, and still give them an allowance, just to keep the peace. Or at least, give him some peace.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:11 pm

Yes, again..................just like a Victorian women would never live alone, anyone who had position and money would never live on Ferry Street.

Perhaps one would need to know the history of fall river, live or study fall river to know that. But there is no way they would consider living on Ferry Street.

In the beginning of fall river's early history, the 1830s and 40s, many prominent mill owners lived in the Ferry Street, Colombia Street district. This was close to the waterfront and the Fall River Iron Works and Print Works; the main mill corridor which snaked up from the Taunton River and along the Quequechan, and through the center of the city. It all started around the bottom of Anawan, Colombia and Ferry Streets.

By the 1870s the riverfront became congested with mills. Most of the eminent and noble citizens of fall river began moving out of the Colombia Street (Ferry Street) district. Such well known industrialists as Jefferson Borden and the Remingtons moved their houses (the entire buildings) up to the Highland district. Two such examples of these are the old Jefferson house at 386 High Street, which was located at the bottom of Ferry and Canal, near the old Crab Pond, and the Fall River Historical Society building which sat on Colombia Street Just a HALF A BLOCK away from the Abraham Borden's house, Lizzie's grandfather, on Ferry Street.

By the 1870s, not only was the 2nd street neighborhood becoming a SECOND RATE NEIGHBORHOOD, but Ferry Street was turning into a THIRD rate neighborhood.

Move back to the ghetto?

Highly unlikely.

It would be the last place Lizzie and Emma would want to live; Unthinkable.

There is no way they would ever consider moving below the hill to Ferry Street close to the mills and smoke stacks. Such a move would be out of the question.

It was bad enough they had to live on Second Street, which they considered unsuitable. To go to Ferry Street would have been ludicrous.

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:33 pm

Thanks for that LBQ excerpt, Harry.

I had always thought of Alice Russell as a seamstress -- probably because of the following Knowlton Glossary entry : "Employed as a clerk for several years in Fall River, Massachusetts, she later taught sewing in the public schools of that city. In 1908, she was promoted to supervisor of sewing, retiring from that position in 1913." (Knowlton Papers: 462)

Even though mention is made there of her work as a clerk, I obviously focused on the sewing aspect. But it appears she was sufficiently qualified to earn her living in more than one field.

[Interesting that Rebello says 33 Borden Street was "just around the corner from the Bordens", while Bridget claims Alice's house was "a good ways away" (Prelim:197).]

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Yes, not to split hairs.................

Alice Russell started as a teacher in 1896.

She retired in 1914 not 1913.

Alice retired on July 1st, the day that the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System went into affect under the state general laws. I'm not sure where the KNOWLTON PAPERS got the date 1913, but it would make sense that she would have waited at least one more year, until the date of the retirement system became law.

One can only imagine poor Bridget running up 2nd street for Miss Russell. It must have been like in a dream. Every step must have been a struggle, like in slow motion. Thirty three Borden Street must have felt like miles away. Thus, it must have felt much further than it really was. If you check the map below, Borden street started at South Main, where it says Dunkin Donuts, and ran to Hartwell Street. At the time it was just about four blocks long. Bridget could have not ran more than two full blocks to Miss Russells house.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:59 pm

I've did some research regarding the women of the Victorian era. I have found that the following links pretty much sums up what the results of my research was (I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable web site, but…):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era

http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/19/overview.htm

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:00 pm

Here is a fun little quiz:

Women's Rights Quiz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/vi ... ghts.shtml

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:51 am

I remember that in the biography episode "Lizzie Borden a woman accused" Micheal Martins said that it was absolutely scandalous if a woman of that class was unmarried moved out on her own, it was not done.

I have wondered if it would have been acceptable if Andrew had a Victorian style duplex like the Bowen house and had Emma and Lizzie live in one part while he and Abby lived in the other part. If this was not socially acceptable Andrew could have had access between the two flats so it would be officially as one flat but with each part keeping their separate kitchens, bathrooms and sitting rooms. This way they could stay away from each other more easily.

If that would not do then Andrew could have just bought a larger house so everyone would have more room to them selves to avoid each other.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:31 am

Fargo wrote:I remember that in the biography episode "Lizzie Borden a woman accused" Micheal Martins said that it was absolutely scandalous if a woman of that class was unmarried moved out on her own, it was not done. ...

Yes, I remember that biography, and Michael Martins stating this!

Here is another web site that states pretty much the same thing: http://www.fashion-era.com/a_womans_place.htm

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:03 pm

Yes, we all agree that the this approach to women was definitely a form of discrimination, prejudice. One of many which women have been fighting for, dare I say, hundreds of years. The right to work, the right to vote, the right to equal pay, etc.

But, there's one more that I find just as insulting to women and it shocks me that no one sees it or finds it a concern.

Example:

I was talking to a young girl at the coffee shop; she was probably 22. She was getting married and was all so exited, which I can appreciate........in her, not for me.

A little story.............................

I made a proposal to her.

I said, "listen, this is what you should do. When you get married keep your last name. It is who you are. If you want to take the guys last name, by all means do so. But stick it in the middle. You are who you are. You are Christine Smith. It is your family name. To take the guys name is the ludicrous. Just because it has been done for ages doesn't make it right. Think for yourself. Question the status quo ante. Don't sell your identity, your individuality, selfhood. Yes, become one with your husband in heart and in spirit, but not in name. It is not your name. Its his. Be proud."

She looked at me with a strange and peculiar expression, backed away and said, "Why would I do that? That's to weird. The women is suppose to take the man's name."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know a girl who has been married 5 times.

She was born Judy Miller.

She became Judy Souza when she was nineteen and married, then she divorced and became Judy Pellitier, then Judy ?????? and now she is known as Judy Green, her most recent husband's name.

Never made any sense to me why women put up with it.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:51 pm

That's quite an idea you have there.......you wouldn't want your wife to have your last name? What name would any children born of that marriage have? How would anyone know who was married and who wasn't? I think that could make marriage a bigger mess then it's already become. lol

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:37 pm

YES Shakiboo: Please forgive me if I may sound harsh or very opinionated, but I have traveled life questioning everything around me.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Lot of gibberish I suppose, but what is in a name, if it could be so easily abandoned, forsaken for that of a stranger.

Who is my friend Judy, which I mention in the post above? What is her name? Who is she? Is she whatever the man wants her to be? She is to be part of him and take his name. Sort of like property.

The reason why you question the entire concept which I present is only because you have been so conditioned by man, men, those who run the world. (I know, I know, they only think they run the world for behind every man is a women who, blah, blah, blah,"

But, do you think the idea of the women taking the man's name was a women's idea?

Society conditioned us.

So, If two people want marry and have children, what ever they are called would need to be sorted out between them. But in the end, his name is his and her name is her's. If they choose to take or invent a new family name I could see the logic behind that.

Then why does not the man take his wife's name instead.

Is it because they are property.

Sort of like Trump Towers. It's mine and everyone needs to know it. (What do you say? I am hers? No! She is mine. Check out her NEW last name. I have named her. Like the vows say. To serve and obey?)

Thus, if I married I would never allow my wife to have my name. She has her own name.

Perhaps it is very chauvinistic, and skewed of me to think the way I do. A women who changes her birth name for a man is conditioned by society and submissive..........and doesn't even know it.

The funny thing about all this is that when I discuss this with people around me, it's the women who understand it the least.

Now I will not get into the semantic about what constitutes a marriage, and I advise no one tries to, at least not here on this forum, but you could also ask this: If a gay man or women gets married and they have children, who's name does everyone in the family take?

Who makes up the rules? The Strongest? The smartest?

Don't answer that.

If I was a women I would never take a man's name. I'm to proud of my family name and who I am.

Of course its just my HO.

Thanks for entertaining my post Shakiboo. Now, if you be married, go out and seek and conquer and take back your name and your identity.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:05 pm

I keep coming back to the Victorian pretense of referring to Mrs. Bowen as "Mrs. Dr. Bowen". She didn't earn the degree, he did, she married the degree. We don't refer to Abby as "Mrs. Mr. Borden", do we? So, maybe there's a degree of status attached somehow in some cases. Maybe there's role playing involved. Women can inform anyone at any time as to their maiden name if anyone is interested, or they can avoid it. I suggest that if, in general, women were dead set against adopting their husband's name, they would stop doing it.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:43 pm

Yes. True. It should indeed be each to his/her own.

But, even the term, maiden, as in "maiden name" can have hidden meaning.

If you check most dictionaries for the word "maiden", you will find the description as being unmarried. But also you will discover the word "virgin" is also used.

When you look up the word "bachelor", you will find the description as being unmarried. But, no dictionary describes it as "male virgin".

Could it be because once you have conquered the "virgin", you can stamp her with your last name? You now own her.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:39 pm

The possibility definitely exists that some men would equate ownership with marriage, but we certainly can't generalize that concept. Some women may enjoy that type of relationship, but certainly not all. Anyone who is misled into such a relationship is free to make a change nowadays, but the same may not have been true in Victorian times. There was a stigma attached to divorce, a failed marriage was looked upon as a personal failure more than today, perhaps a character flaw. Maybe they just took marriage more seriously than we do now and were less likely to jump at the first chance and bail out when the mood struck them. I expect the daughters of wealthy families had to be aware of charlatans more than women of ordinary means due to the likelihood of greater wealth being a greater motivation. This might have something to do with why Emma and Lizzie never married. Perhaps Andrew and his daughters mistrusted anyone who wasn't wealthier than Andrew, and perhaps the social station to which Emma and Lizzie aspired didn't provide any sons interested enough in them to raise their standing. Or, maybe the prospect of Andrew Borden as a father-in-law was just too much to seriously comprehend!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:59 am

Yes, well said Yooper.

I Think what we need today is a true marriage license.

That is to say, one that expires every 5 years. Then there would not be any reason to divorce. If you didn't renew then your marriage would expire and you would no longer be married, and we could get rid of all the divorce lawyers. Place them all on a big ship and push them out to sea. (during hurricane season)

At least that's what we do on the planet kukapoopa.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:50 am

What we need is a sense of responsibility instilled in people growing up rather than the I-me-my-me, win win win, easy come, easy go norm which seems to have evolved as the replacement for it.

crystalsmith · Post by **crystalsmith** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:15 pm

Two other Borden sisters lived away from their parents in their own home. Carrie and her sister Anna Borden. They went on that Grand Tour with Lizzie. I think "cultured" girls with money and house servants would be accepted during those times, wouldn't it?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:38 am

I think it would have been acceptable in the Victorian times, but who knows. But I think they were too attached to the house and thier father.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Yooper wrote:What we need is a sense of responsibility instilled in people growing up rather than the I-me-my-me, win win win, easy come, easy go norm which seems to have evolved as the replacement for it.

I agree, Jeff! I couldn't say it better!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:27 am

Just a thought along the general lines of "moving out"; what if Andrew was planning on retiring, at least from day-to-day business, and thinking of moving to the farm with Abby? If his daughters couldn't get along with his wife, maybe he planned to leave the girls on 2nd Street and maintain the household for them while he and Abby moved out. This would have more or less stranded the girls on 2nd Street with no hope of improving their situation. Andrew might have been freer to do what he wanted financially without involving Lizzie and Emma.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:15 pm

The family members did have options available to them, but each and everyone of them chose to continue living in the situation they were in.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:39 am

I guess for Lizzie and Emma, it's like why bother moving out and paying rent when it's getting paid for you. They had it made; Daddy is paying the bills.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:50 pm

That's exactly right, Robin, they had it made financially as it was, why change it? If we consider what actually changed as a result of the murders it might shed some light on motive. Lizzie and Emma moved to a nicer house in the part of town they desired, but that hardly seems like motive enough to murder two people. They also gained control over Andrew's fortune which makes a lot more sense as a motive. The trouble is, murder wasn't necessary, they would have ended up with it eventually. If Andrew died intestate, Abby would have had the income derived from a portion of Andrew's estate while she lived, but the principal would have gone to Lizzie and Emma when Abby died, and Lizzie and Emma would have inherited the bulk of the estate outright. The primary motive had more to do with control than with money. I don't know if Andrew derived any income from his positions on the boards of the various banks and mills, but if he did, that income stopped when he died. Investments would still pay dividends and rental income would remain the same, and any income from the farm would have continued. It seems to me that there had to be something threatening the integrity of the family fortune from Emma and Lizzie's perspective. Something serious enough to make murder worth the risk; otherwise, why not leave well enough alone?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:55 pm

That does in deed make sense, and the only thing I can think of that might cause that kind of panic, would be Andrew making out a will. The girls wouldn't even have to know what was in it. to become radical in their thinking. And all it would take is for Andrew to mention it.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:42 pm

Come to think of it, all that was needed was the threat of making a will. If Andrew threatened to make a will favoring Abby, or anything reducing what Lizzie and Emma might expect, the damage would be done. He might have made the threat if Emma and Lizzie continued in their animosity toward Abby, possibly having reached the end of his rope.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:45 am

Well, I'd almost bet that's why it came down to what it came down to, Andrew making a will. It's hard to imagine him being the business man, that he was, that he would have put off doing so, for so long. Everything he did business-wise, was involved with alot of paperwork, how could he just not take care of the final paper work of all of his business? If you know what I'm trying to say....

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:17 am

I think that's why Lizzie killed her parents. She knew that if there was a will, and there probably was, that most everything would have gone to Abby. If she was convicted of killing Abby she would have gotten nothing, especially if Andrew figured out she did it. So, he had to go to. Don't think she was planning on getting accused and put on trial for murder, though. Luckily, she had a got defense team--aka the "dream team".

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

I think making a will or just talking about it might well have been the last straw. I remember reading something about Abby having a partial list of Andrew's assets, I don't know if it was among her clothes or in her room, but somewhere. If Andrew was taking stock of his assets, he might well have been thinking seriously about a will, I don't know how he would have written a will without such a list. I wonder how Lizzie and Emma found out about it if that's what was going on?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:00 pm

Maybe they just assumed that daddy was going to have one and give everything to Abby? Just a thought.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:04 pm

Another question comes to mind; how did Lizzie and Emma know that Andrew didn't have a current will at the time of the murders? Did they know one way or the other? If Andrew, or possibly Abby, had said something to them about it, they might have realized Andrew was about to write a will.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:13 am

I guess there's no way of knowing exactly when it became the only thing to do, murder, I mean. But I wonder, IF Lizzie did break in, if she was searching for a will, the year before. If so, from then on the pot began to boil. If Andrew knew it was Lizzie, that might have made things alot more tense around the house too. I believe it was only some of Abby's things that were taken. So that points to the location of where the thief was, Abby and Andrew's room. What do you think? It would explain why Lizzie faked a break-in, not to steal some of Abby's things but to search for a will.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:22 pm

Lizzie might have been looking for a will or something indicating Andrew was thinking about a will, like an asset list, during the robbery. What seems odd about the robbery is that nothing of any great value was taken, just enough that it appeared to be a robbery. If Lizzie was looking for a will, it would be simpler to leave things as they were and no one would be the wiser. It almost seems like the robbery was either to send a message, or to establish a precedent.