Why didn't Lizzie and Emma move out?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:27 pm

I never thought of that, what I was thinking was that the door to their room had been forced open, hence the robbery ploy. If they were setting a precedent for things to come, why would they have waited so long? You'd think they'd have done it alot sooner, while it was still fresh in peoples minds.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:09 pm

If the police were investigating the robbery and the outcome of the investigation was unknown, it might be a bad idea to act too quickly. If Lizzie was discovered as the culprit for the robbery, she would be the first suspect considered for the murders. Emma may not have been in on the murder idea, it might have to happen when she had a solid alibi. If blaming it on an intruder is considered, it would be infinitely better to do it when there is no snow on the ground because an intruder would leave tracks. As long as the robbery had taken place within recent memory, the precedent was good.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:13 am

I think Lizzie and Emma may have both been socially awkward when it came to the male sex. Maybe they didn't have the sort of personalities that attracted very many suitors. Lizzie was said to be headstrong and sharp with her tongue. Emma was said to be meak, mousy, and mild mannered. I think they both longed for the freedom to come and go as they pleased and not answer to anyone. Even after the murders, neither of them had any serious suitors. This is a time when they both had lots of money to throw around. Even with the stigma are you saying nobody would've at least taken a second look due to all that money? Then there is the fact that neither of them had steady income of their own to support themselves before the murders. I don't think either of them had the skills that a wife was expected to possess back then. They were used to being taken care of, not of taking care of anyone else. I am also of the opinion that the daylight robbery was staged to set a precedent. I think it was to show that someone could actually get into the house unseen and get away with it. If "they"did it once, "they" could do it again. I've never thought it was to send a messege to Abby and Andrew. If they did in fact find out it was Lizzie, what could it have proved to them?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:22 am

Lizzie and Emma would have had every reason to question the motives of any suitors after the murders. The "marry and run" type would have been a serious drain on assets and the sincere type would have to be content to play "Mr. Lizzie" for the rest of his life, not much of a husband either way. Emma would have been less of a pariah than Lizzie, but the segment of the population they wanted to appeal to was the top of the social ladder. Anyone from that elite group had better prospects than the notorious Borden sisters. This was the Victorian Age when high society was stratified, the old money and the nouveau riche were at odds socially because the pedigree of your bank account was a consideration. If there existed a category for self-made heiresses, I don't think it was at the top. So, any suitor who had less money than the Borden sisters was unworthy of consideration and anyone who had as much or more money than the Borden sisters probably wasn't interested.

If a list of assets in Abby's handwriting had been discovered during a snoop session while the elder Bordens were away, it might have given Lizzie pause. Why would Abby be making a list rather than Andrew? Staging the robbery sent the message that someone was aware of the list if it was among the missing items. If she had an ulterior motive for making the list, she wouldn't have reported it missing.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:39 am

Was the door between Lizzie's and Andrew's rooms locked on both sides, or just Lizzie's side? If it was just locked on her side she could have had access to their room any time they went out of the house.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:20 am

It had a lock on Andrew's side, I'm not sure if there was one on Lizzie's side, too. The key on the mantle was more than symbolic, I'm sure!

Abby had demonstrated an ability to influence Andrew financially, at least to a degree, with the interest in the Whitehead house. If Lizzie and Emma had become hyper-sensitized to Abby influencing Andrew, and they feared Andrew favoring Abby over them in a will, finding a list of Andrew's assets in Abby's handwriting would have made them suspect something was up. Abby's niece, Little Abby, had been given Borden as a middle name. That might be interpreted as pretense if someone was looking for it. Lizzie and Emma might have thought that Abby and her family had designs on the Borden estate. While a bit of a reach, they might even have feared that Abby might be planning to do Andrew in once a will had been made. She didn't know he wouldn't outlive her, and the one way to be certain of the outcome was to murder Andrew. She had put up with a lot from the daughters, and Andrew didn't seem to be in any hurry to send them packing, she had more reason to complain about life on 2nd Street than Emma and Lizzie did. Note that Abby didn't necessarily have to plan to kill Andrew in order for Lizzie and Emma to fear that she might.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:04 am

[quote="Yooper"]It had a lock on Andrew's side, I'm not sure if there was one on Lizzie's side, too. The key on the mantle was more than symbolic, I'm sure!

Abby had demonstrated an ability to influence Andrew financially, at least to a degree, with the interest in the Whitehead house. If Lizzie and Emma had become hyper-sensitized to Abby influencing Andrew, and they feared Andrew favoring Abby over them in a will, finding a list of Andrew's assets in Abby's handwriting would have made them suspect something was up. Abby's niece, Little Abby, had been given Borden as a middle name. That might be interpreted as pretense if someone was looking for it. Lizzie and Emma might have thought that Abby and her family had designs on the Borden estate. While a bit of a reach, they might even have feared that Abby might be planning to do Andrew in once a will had been made. She didn't know he wouldn't outlive her, and the one way to be certain of the outcome was to murder Andrew. She had put up with a lot from the daughters, and Andrew didn't seem to be in any hurry to send them packing, she had more reason to complain about life on 2nd Street than Emma and Lizzie did. Note that Abby didn't necessarily have to plan to kill Andrew in order for Lizzie and Emma to fear that she might.[/quote

Oh, think I got it, or my imagination is running away with me. Abby influences Andrew to make a will with Abby recieving everything, then do away with Andy. Guess the girls figured, let us get rid of both of them and we will get everything. They didn't want the Borden estate going to someone else. And we can maybe blame it on one of Andrews' disgruntled employees.

At any rate, makes for good fictional reading! :alcohol:

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:26 pm

I was thinking it was the other way around, something had to be taken because the lock on the bed-room door was comprimised in some way.....

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:38 pm

That's another possibility, if the lock had been broken it would require an explanation. I remember something about a bent nail being used as a substitute for a key, I think Lizzie suggested it or actually had the nail. This tends to imply someone questioning how the robber got in, which might be asked whether or not the lock had been compromised. If the door had been broken down, there would be little reason to question it!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:11 pm

Was it their bed-room lock that was messed with? Or an out side door? It almost had to be an in-side job, so to speak, who'd know where to go to find Andrew's bed-room to take some of Abby's things. I mean, had it really been a burglery, they'd have went through everything, and everyroom looking for anything of value.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:33 am

I've always had the impression it was the bedroom door which was jimmied rather than the outside door. It sets the precedent for someone walking into the house during daylight hours and going unnoticed. The "intruder" in the robbery case was rather focused as suggested, going directly to the room where Abby's belongings were kept and without disturbing anything else. The murders were rather clean and neat, as murders go, so maybe it was the same "intruder".

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:08 am

If a lock or door was damaged in any way, then she'd have had no choice but to make it look like a robbery. I think if it was part of her plan to set things up for a murder, she wouldn't have waited so long. Or maybe she'd have done it again, closer to the murder. Heck she could have even messed up her hair threw herself down on the ground, on her way home from Alice's and claimed she'd been attached, by some one, hiding right outside the front door. That would have worked better for her.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:45 pm

There was another "robbery" in April of that year, four months before the murders, but this time it was the barn was broken into. This is what prompted Andrew to kill the pigeons in the barn. He thought the intruders might have been after the pigeons.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:58 pm

Actually, according to Lizzie the barn was broken into twice. Once in April of 1892, the other time I'm still trying to pin down. Maybe the second so called robbery was one of her fabrications.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:06 am

There's something I don't quite understand about the pigeons in the barn, were they kept as caged birds or were they wild? I don't remember any testimony specifically mentioning bird cages being found in the barn.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:47 am

Ah yes, PIGEONS.

We must all reassess the Pigeon Issue.

Good topic Allen. Though you will probably be sorry you brought it up. (Nice to see you post though!)

One of my favorite topics is trying to debunk certain theories and notions on the Borden case, especially those made by early authors on the Borden Case.

One of these theories is the Pigeon Issue.

OK!

I would like to assert my belief, and what indeed may be the truth about the Pigeon Issue.

For one, there is no proof that they were Lizzie's pigeons or that she expressed any notable compassion for them. This was made popular by the fabulist Victoria Lincoln. There is no proof that they were "Lizzie's Pigeons." Number two: there is no proof that they were killed because someone broke into the barn and that Andrew Borden killed them for that reason. That is to say, to prevent intruders from entering the barn to capture the Pigeons.

This assumption was made popular by Alice Russell's testimony that the barn was broken into by kids trying to steal the pigeons. This was an off the cuff statement made by Russell. It was her opinion. It does not mean that there is any truth to it.

We do not know why Borden slaughtered the pigeons? It could have been just for food. And, there is no proof or testimony that Lizzie found the pigeons to be special..........or pets. This was made popular by Victoria LIncoln, an author who liked to throw her weight around because she lived in Fall River. Victoria Lincoln was no friend or acquaintance of Lizzie Borden. Though, she would like you to believe she was.

lets look at what Vicky has to say.............

"In May, a minor incident took place that must have disturbed Lizzie at a fairly deep level, for she was passionately fond of birds and animals. She kept pigeons in the barn loft, and after the horse was sold boys twice broke into the barn to steal a few. Andrew decided to put temptation out of their way, which he did by decapitating them with a hatchet. Where property or infringement of his rights was concerned, Andrew did not think widely, or think twice."

OK There is no proof that Lizzie kept pigeons. THERE IS NO PROOF OR TESTIMONY THAT PROVES LIZZIE was disturbed on a deep level, or otherwise about the slaughter of the pigeons, or that she was "passionately fond of the pigeons." This is all in LINCOLN'S wisdom. There is no proof that it was Lizzie who kept the pigeons.

Victoria Lincoln goes on to add:

"He had no imagination, and Lizzie, who could not bear to be ignored, must have suffered not only for the pigeons but also for herself---he had killed them without even stopping to think how she would feel."

Lizzie suffered for the pigeons and herself? Bunk bunk and more bunk!

Where does Lincoln come up with this stuff? Did she talk to Lizzie? Was this written anywhere else but Lincoln's best seller? No, no, no.........there is no proof that Lizzie suffered for those pigeons. Come on now!

Vicky goes on to say................quote: "And he killed her pigeons."

Nowhere else can we find where it is mentioned that it was "Lizzie's pigeons"> Lizzie never said it was her pigeons. Alice Russell or anyone else ever mentioned them as being Lizzie's pigeons.

Vicky continues by stating:

"The bloody death of her pigeons was unthinkably upsetting (Lizzie's almost pathological love for birds and animals is one of the best known facts about her; she left a large part of her inheritance to the Animal Rescue League "because they have so few to care for them").

Again, making the case for Lizzie's love for the pigeons.

In Vicky's warped sense of reasoning, she even makes some sort of connection between Lizzie's seizures, which there is no proof she had, her menstrual period and PIGEONS. Where is she coming from?

Victoria Lincoln says:

"Her seizures were said to come three to four times a year at the menstrual period. She was menstruating, and it was just three months from the hatchet death of the pigeons and Chief City Detective Bartholomew Shaw's unexplained call during which he had talked to her for a long time in private."

Ok............///////?

What does this add up to.

The Pigeon Issue is a non-issue. In testimony it was Miss Russells opinion that boys had broken into the barn to steal pigeons. We do not know if this is true. It is only Russell's opinion.

If you search carefully, you will come across Lizzie's testimony at the prelim about her father indeed killing pigeons. But, there is no where in that testimony where Lizzie claims that the pigeons were hers, or that she felt any concern or compassion for the pigeons.

Thus, the pigeon issue is a bunch of bunk..............a non-issue. There is no proof that Lizzie loved the pigeons. There is no proof that she was bothered by the killing of the pigeons. There is no proof that Andrew killed them because someone broke into the barn. etc., etc., etc.,

Yes, Lizzie Borden loved animals. There is proof of that. But we must not make a fanatic or animal zealot out of Lizzie. It was common to eat pigeons in those times. Andrew's slaughter of the pigeons was probably as simple as that.

You will find little reference to pigeons, if any in Radin, Porter, Pearson, Kent, Rebello, Sullivan, de Mille, etc. It is only Lincoln who plays up the pigeon issue. And at the time, who was around to question her?

Please prove me wrong........

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

If you see old photos of the Borden barn you may see that the window on the second floor open. Pigeons probably just happen to make their home there. When I was a child we had an old garage or barn in the backyard. Pigeons lived there. Perhaps a dozen or so. Free birds. Not ours. If you feed them they will stay, especially if they had a warm place to roost. The Borden pigeons could have just happen to live live in the rafters of the barn. Especially if the window was always kept open. It does not necessarily mean that Andrew Borden or Lizzie raised pigeons. They could have been free birds.

Interesting topic.......non-the-less.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:34 am

If the birds were wild, killing them would not be a long term fix for boys breaking into the barn. It might work temporarily until other birds found their way in, but it would be a lot like trying to bail out the Atlantic Ocean. So, if Andrew killed pigeons in the barn, he wasn't doing it to prevent the barn being broken into. However, someone still may have broken into the barn or staged it.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:15 pm

It's possible that Andrew just wanted to be rid of the pigeons. Birds are notoriously messy, and if there was a flock of pigeons in the barn, they could have been an annoyance. When I lived in Maryland, we always had Canadian geese and ducks roaming the property. Visitors were enchanted with them....I wanted to wring their necks! They were loud, troublesome and messy!

Yes, I can see Andrew getting fed up with the birds!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:34 pm

Yes Pigeons are messy! But for the life of me I can't picture Andrew running around the barn with a hatchet trying to catch uncaged pigeons! Wouldn't that be quite the ordeal? My gosh, a sling-shot would have probably worked better!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:14 pm

Yes Shakiboo: The image of the elderly Borden running around the barn loft trying to capture a pigeon is quite humorous.

If you spend enough time in close proximity to pigeons and feed them, in time they will be trusting enough to get close enough so that you can reach out and clutch one.

The pigeons could very well indeed have been cared for by the Borden family.

When questioned, Lizzie mentioned that her father brought the dead headless pigeons into the house. Why would he do that, unless they were going to be prepared for a meal?

Also, movie scenes of Andrew running around with an ax chopping at pigeons is preposterous. For one thing, Lizzie hints that they were not killed with an ax or knife or etc., and that they probably had their heads torn or twisted off.

Pay close attention to Lizzie's testimony response in the text below. Does she sound upset? No.

Does she appear hurt by the killings of the birds? No.

Her response is almost as-a-matter-of-fact. Almost like the killing of pigeons was a daily occurrence. Her response shows no anguish or sorrow for the birds. Reading her response below one cannot help but walk away with the impression that Lizzie could care less for the birds.

Reading the facts below and gauging it towards what Victoria Lincoln tried to imply is a contrast to the extreme. Lincoln, a fiction writer, was doing just that. Writing fiction. Shame on you Vicky for passing it off as truth. (But then again, perhaps, I should be more kind, since she is not here to defend herself. Mother said never to talk ill of the dead. Father agreed and said" yes don't.... they may hear you"

No?

A. No sir, he killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.
Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.
Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.
Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.
Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.
Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.
Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.
Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:14 pm

If Andrew was fed up with pigeons whitewashing the barn interior, it was all the more reason for him to invite a group of boys to go in and kill pigeons rather than prevent it.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:34 am

Unfortunately the pigeon issue carried over into the Elizabeth Montgomery movie where she is shown crying hysterically as her father goes into the barn after them. We now have several generations of people believing Lizzie was the owner.

I remember reading somewhere (hate when this happens) that there was a rear window in the barn (facing the Chagnon side) that the pigeons may have used. Gotta dig that up.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:31 pm

How did Andrew catch the pigeons? Did he set a trap?

If so, how did he catch so many at one time?

Or, were the birds tame and trusting?

The answer lies in whether they were indeed pets, or whether they were indeed merely a nuisance (making messes, attracting break-in's).

I don't believe Lizzie is telling the whole truth about the pigeons, one way or another. Just reading her testimony, it's difficult to say for certain that she had no attachment to them, one way or another.

The incident certainly made an impression, though.

In her inquest testimony, she is obviously being drawn out, through questioning, as to
(1) How upset she was about the incident
(2) How the birds were decapitated

She's got her heels dug in and she's not going to say whether the incident was water off a duck's back to her, or whether it was profoundly upsetting.

If the latter were true, one could scarcely expect Lizzie to rage: "He killed them with a hatchet! My pets! So, I took a hatchet to him! How does it feel to lose YOUR head Mr. Borden?"

Maybe that was how she actually felt, but, if so, she had enough sense not to admit it.

M.B., I agree with you to an extent about Ms. Lincoln. I think she is way OFF about Lizzie having seizures, and that her period was in fact OVER when she committed the murders. IOW: I believe that central thesis to be far-fetched, that Lizzie in reality used those menstrual cloths to wipe herself down,and Bridget knew darn well she had washed them the Tuesday before the murders, and said as much.

However, I believe Lizzie had some attachment to those pigeons, and that she was upset by what Andrew did. How upset, I cannot say. But, upset.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:31 pm

In a way I can see that Lizzie would have been upset about the killing of the birds. She had no pet's of her own, and maybe she did consider the birds her pets. Especially if they had been wild and came to know her enough to trust her. Had she never had a pet after the murder's I might feel differently, but I think it would have been upsetting for her.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:52 am

A LITTLE STORY...............

I saw a funny thing today. A coincidence you may say.

I went to my bank to conduct some business and did so at the Flint Branch, which I have not entered for a long while.

When I was getting into my car I looked over to this video store on Flint Street and was surprise to see it was still in business.

I had a wiring job at that video store many years ago. At the time it was all VHS. DVD's had not yet been invented. Well......................this was a XXX video store with the windows painted out. I remember as I worked running cable and wire through the ceiling, the owner was watching videos in the back room. As I pulled and pushed wire through the ceiling and walls, all I could hear was wild grunting and desperate moaning. There was no end to the whining and wailing, and I couldn't work fast enough and get out of there. (I was a bible carrying chap at the time)

I stood outside the bank laughing to myself, red faced, as these remembrances uncomfortably played in my mind.

Suddenly, this fellow, the owner or counter attendant, came out the front door of the video store holding a brown paper bag. He opened it and began to spill corn all up and down the sidewalk. In a few seconds, he was besieged by 10 to 15 PIGEONS. They swarmed around him as he swung his arms around spilling corn all over the sidewalk.

Fall River was that sort of town when I was growing up. A pigeon town. (as a matter of fact, most of them run the government in FR today)

It appeared that every city block had someone with a pigeon coup in the back yard. Also, at the time there were a couple of very large pigeon clubs in fall river. Some may remember the countless coups which lined the Taunton River where Borden Light Marina is today. The other that comes to mind was situated near Brayton Avenue and Cambridge Street. I think they were on Oman Street. There was almost a half a block or more with pigeon coup after pigeon coup, lined up in a row. It was like a small pigeon city.

Then there was the old pigeon man at Father Kelly Park at Globe Four Corners.........(sometimes he could be seen at South Park, now known as Kennedy Park)

This bird loving fellow would arrive with a gallon size bag of corn and seed.

He would crack open his packaged surprise and vigorously swing the seed in a yellow carpet on the ground all around him. I remember seeing him surrounded by 40 to 50 pigeons or more. These birds would come out of nowhere, swarm down on him, sit on his shoulders, land on his head, peck at his feet, eat out of his hand, etc. I often wonder what happened to him.

There was also another fellow who fed the pigeons in the same way at Lafayette Park in the Flint section of the city. Could have been the same gentleman?

I was surprise to see that today. No one does it anymore. No one wants to attract pigeons.

A XXX video store owner who loves birds........who could have guessed.

If you feed pigeons, they can become very approachable.

If you feed video store owners, you may get something entirely different.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:02 am

This is my imagination run wild here.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:02 am

Good one, Stef!!

Maybe that's what Elizabeth Montgomery is upset about in Harry's post above, Andrew has just chased 15 of her pet pigeons head first into a lattice fence!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:36 pm

Angela Carter wrote this in her "The Fall River Axe Murders". Remember tho, Angela Carter was a British novelist and short story writer whose work characteristically blends fantasy, fairy tales, and sexuality. And a bit of fiction I might add.

"She used to keep her pigeons in the loft above the disused stable and feed them grain out of the palms of her cupped hands. She liked to feel the soft scratch of their little beaks. They murmured "vroo croo" with infinite tenderness. She changed their water every day and cleaned up their leprous messes but Old Borden took a dislike to their cooing, it got on his nerves-who'd have thought he had any nerves? But he invented some, they got on them, and one afternoon he took out the hatchet from the wood-pile in the cellar and chopped the pigeons' heads off.
Abby fancied the slaughtered pigeons for a pie but Bridget the servant girl put her foot down, at that; What Make a pie out of Miss Lizzie's beloved turtledoves? Jesus Mary and Joseph!!! she exclaimed with characteristic impetuousness; what can they be thinking of! Miss Lizzie so nervy with her funny turns and all! (The maid is the only one in the house with any sense and that's the truth of it.) Lizzie came home from the Fruit and Flowers Mission where she had been reading a tract to an old woman in a poorhouse: "God bless you, Miss Lizzie." At home all was blood and feathers.
She doesn't weep, this one, it isn't her nature, she is still waters, but, when moved, she changes colour, her face flushes, it goes dark, angry, mottled red, marbling up like the marbling on the inner covers of the family Bible. The old man loves his daughter this side of idolatry and pays for everything she wants but all the same he killed her pigeons when his wife wanted to gobble them up.
That is how she sees it. That is how she understands it. Now she cannot bear to watch her stepmother eat. Each bite the woman takes seems to go "vroo croo."
Old Borden cleaned off the hatchet and put it back in the cellar, next to the wood-pile. The red receding from her face, Lizzie went down to inspect the instrument of destruction. She picked it up and weighed it in her hand."

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm

Bridget had this to say at the preliminary hearing:

Q. Was there any horse kept there on the premises?
A. Not for the last year.
Q. Formerly was?
A. Yes Sir, there was a horse there once.
Q. When did they leave off keeping a horse, so far as you know about?
A. I should think it was a year or two, I cannot exactly tell the time.
Q. Since that time, has there been any animals kept in the barn?
A. No Sir, not as I know of.
Q. Since the horse left off being kept there, have you ever seen Lizzie go to the barn?
A. No Sir, not that I remember.

I expect that during the year or two since the horse had been sold, Bridget would have noticed Lizzie going to the barn to feed pigeons at one time or another.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:37 pm

Well, I'll stand in the minority that the pigeons were Lizzie's pets, that she was upset when Andrew killed them. I've re-read her testimony, carefully, and if those were just "pesky pigeons" that had been killed for squab or just to rid the barn of them, or both, I don't think she would have taken an interest in them to the point of touching them and asking questions about them.

Why the big interest in some pests from the barn?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:27 pm

I guess I'll join ya there, DJ. If she'd had no interest she wouldn't have mentioned it to any one. And from the questioning, I took it that she had. I truly believe, she had a soft spot for animal's and yes even birds.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:42 pm

Bridget might not have noticed Lizzie going to the barn for anything in particular. There was a privy out there, one of the only water pumps on the property, and who knows what other odds and ends were in there. She certainly didn't seem to think it was odd Andrew went in there the morning of the murders. I'm thinking Lizzie held some affection for the birds. I'm not so sure this was a motive for actual murder, but I do believe she may have. The question that convinces me most, "Were their heads off?" If they were going to be dinner, of course their heads would be off. Were they asking this just to shock Lizzie? I don't know many people who cook a bird with the head on it. The fact that she described their skin as being tender also shows an affecton in my opinion. If they were simply pests that needed to be dealt with I'm sure she would not have cared about their "tender skin." Or probably even wanted to touch them at all. I'd equate that to wanting to touch a mouse after it's been caught in the trap. It's possible Andrew did want them for dinner, but that Lizzie still felt an affection for them.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:01 pm

This is also from Lizzie's testimony page 88:

Q. The window you was at is the window that is nearest the street in the barn?
A. Yes, sir. The west window.

Q. The pears you ate you got from the tree in the yard?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:40 pm

I don't know whether the pigeons were hers or not but even if they were not it doesn't preclude her having sympathy for their demise. There was a multitude of back yard critters who Lizzie fed at Maplecroft and her will certainly provided for the care of animals.

There is this from Officer Harrington's Prelim barn testimony (p395)

"Q. How were the windows, shut or open?
A. The window on the west was open.
Q. Towards the front?
A. Yes. And I think, but I am not certain, that some of the men opened the window on the east to get air. It was very warm up there.
Q. That was three o'clock in the afternoon?
A. Yes Sir. There was a pidgeon (sic) loft on the east end of the barn, up above the window."

I don't know as we can take it that there was a special "pigeon loft" just for them. If so it would indicate that they wanted the pigeons. Today pigeon lofts can be quite elaborate. When I was a youngster in NY I can recall flocks of pigeons kept on tenement roofs. I t was fun to watch them fly but you didn't want to walk under them.

Some people called them "flying rats".

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:26 pm

Like many things associated with the Borden case, this leaves us with more questions than answers. First off, who built the pigeon loft or house, and for what purpose? It might have been in the barn when Andrew bought the place, but if Andrew objected to pigeons in the barn, why not tear out the pigeon loft? If Andrew built the loft to attract pigeons to be used as food, why would Lizzie make so much of the incident when Andrew used it to its intended purpose? It could be that Andrew was the one feeding the pigeons if he wanted to attract them. Bridget noticed Andrew going to the barn the morning of the murders, I don't know why she would completely miss Lizzie going there for a year or so, unless Lizzie only went there infrequently. If pigeons were being fed, it would be on some regular basis, so someone would be going to the barn every so often.

One way it might all fit together is if the pigeon loft was there all along and no one thought anything about it. Lizzie might have liked the idea of pigeons in the barn, it kept them out of inclement weather and relatively safe. That doesn't necessarily make them her pets if she wasn't feeding them regularly or spending time with them, but she did seem to like animals and was sensitive to their needs. If kids had been attempting to break into the barn to get at the pigeons, it probably would have prompted Andrew to close up the pigeon loft. His choice to do away with the birds there at the time may not have been the right one, but if they were accustomed to using his barn as home, who knows what might have happened to them if he let them go?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:31 pm

Jeff, I think your second paragraph is right on.

I don't think they were Lizzie's pets but she probably enjoyed having them there. After all, she loved animals and Andrew probably forbid a dog or cat.

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:30 pm

Yes, I, too, thought last night about Lizzie feeding the birds at Maplecroft.

Yes, excellent point about the lack of a dog-- and ultimately the horse-- that Lizzie would find some creature to make a pet.

My point is: I don't in any way believe that the killing of the pigeons was a motive for murder; however, I'm afraid that there was some mean-spiritedness behind Andrew's killing of them that did not engender felicitous feelings between him and Lizzie. Just a few more severed heads, if you will, off the totem pole of their increasingly shaky relationship.

Thank you, Allen, for digging up the ref to the pigeon loft.

************************************************************************************************************************************************

Now, going back to Victoria Lincoln. I don't agree with her overriding thesis about the seizures, nor do I believe that Uncle John was there to effect a property transaction (although I do think Andrew may well have been thinking of selling farm property, especially since he had gotten rid of the horse and could no longer make it out there w/o securing-- paying-- for some means of conveyance; also the "Swede" had to be paid, and Andrew may well have decided to sell the cattle and then the property, which would have upset Lizzie and Emma, no doubt, regardless of who obtained the title).

However, let's not dismiss her out of hand.

I do believe she makes an excellent point about Lizzie being a poor liar, an uncreative liar.

When Lizzie mentions something-- and all we have is the Inquest testimony-- it's most likely something that is an issue to her, one way or another.

If she touched dead pigeons and asked questions about them, then those dead pigeons were most probably an issue with Lizzie.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:56 pm

DJ wrote:However, let's not dismiss her out of hand.

I do believe she makes an excellent point about Lizzie being a poor liar, an uncreative liar.

When Lizzie mentions something-- and all we have is the Inquest testimony-- it's most likely something that is an issue to her, one way or another.

If she touched dead pigeons and asked questions about them, then those dead pigeons were most probably an issue with Lizzie.

I totally agree. I think the only reason Lizzie's alibi was so full of holes is she was rather unimaginative. She came up with an alibi on the fly, and everytime she realized there might be a problem with her story, she changed it. Once she'd come up with what she thought was a story that covered all the bases, she stuck to that like a fly in honey. I also believe anything Lizzie mentions is mentioned for a reason. Even the little details like addressing a few wrappers for Abby.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:15 am

Lizzie seemed to try to distance herself physically from each of the murders. She was downstairs in the kitchen when Abby was killed and out in the barn when Andrew was killed, both places where she would be the least likely to be aware of the murders as they were occurring. Her activities had to support her being in those places, so she was looking for iron or lead in the barn, and ironing in the kitchen. The problem with Lizzie waiting for the flat irons to heat up is that anyone familiar with a wood cook stove could have a fire going and hot irons in a matter of fifteen, or twenty minutes tops. I've gotten a roaring blaze going in five minutes time from a leftover coal the size of a dime by placing wood over the coal and opening the draft and damper. She should have been done ironing a few handkerchiefs by ten o'clock, but then what? So, she pretends to be inept at operating the stove in order to stretch the time out.

At the time of the inquest, Lizzie may not have been aware of who saw what and when. The same is true for the witness statements, people couldn't bend their recollection to support a consensus. If anyone was inclined to cover for Lizzie in spite of the truth, they wouldn't have known what to say once Lizzie's inquest testimony was published!

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:43 am

So, Jeff, what your saying in your last paragraph, is that, anyone coming forward before the inquest would be more then likely, telling the truth? As I wrote that, I had a recollection of someone saying they saw a horse and buggy on the Borden's side of the street, around the time of the murder's. If I'm remembering right, no one came forward to explain it. I think it was finally explained away as possibly being Dr. Bowen's carriage. But what if it wasn't?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:13 am

The earliest accounts would be the least likely to be modified by having heard other accounts. I think even today police separate witnesses to take statements. The accounts may be a bit more scattered as to accuracy in some instances, but the authorities can then judge the information for themselves. For instance, lets say a dozen people witnessed a vehicle involved in some sort of crime. Given individually, four say they saw a white car, two say the car was gray, two people saw a light tan color, and four won't specify a color, just saying it was a light color. The only valid description is a light color, probably not white because white is a stark, bright color and very memorable at a glance, just like fire engine red.. The danger would be in perhaps three people in a row saying they saw a white car and being overheard by the others. If everyone who only saw a light color decided the car was probably white and gave that information instead of what they were certain of, the police might go looking for a white car to the exclusion of other colors.

At the inquest Lizzie was flying by the seat of her pants, she had no reference points, and she was subject to perspectives she may not have considered in the form of questions. Her explanations fit her needs at the time of the current question, often contradicting something she said before when a different scenario was in place. So, we get the progressions from tin (maybe none in the barn, no good) to iron to fix a window (broken window needed for that) to lead for sinkers (nothing further needed for this). We hear about being in the kitchen, away from Abby in the guest room (Maggie won't shut up about that damn giggle), to upstairs just outside of the guest room (cut the loss, you look like a liar otherwise). She variously heard, from outside the house, a scraping sound and/or a groan (implying the perpetrator was still on the premises and would run right past her when leaving) progressing to absolutely nothing (the safest bet at the time) when questioned pointedly about it by the police and subsequent to having heard a groan/scraping sound.

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:45 pm

I think the closer to the incident, by and large, the more reliable and interesting and startling (or wild and fantastical) accounts can be.

Honestly, who in a courtroom in the month of June is going to accurately recall all the details of a day almost one year past?
Witnesses have had time to "get their stories straight" and the defendant is shielded by (very fine, if they're fortunate) attorneys. "To the best of my knowledge" and "As well as I can recall" are phrases that come heavily into play. How often do you see those on witness statements?

Lizzie goes from "She is not my mother" to a good swoon and a deferential, "I am innocent. I leave it to my attorneys to speak for me" (or whatever she said, exactly). She's acting innocent, not spinning tales of hanging in the barn and munching pears.

Lizzie had no such shield for her witness statements or Inquest testimony. If Jennings had been on the ball, he would have appeared before the Court of Inquest and stated, "Miss Borden is simply too distraught to render testimony at this time. She is also heavily sedated for her nervousness. She is too overcome with grief to gather her thoughts."

No "She refuses to appear," but "She is prostrate with grief." Get the defendant off the hook and gain some sympathy for her, too.

If Lizzie had been on the ball herself, the a.m. of the 4th, she should have burst into tears the moment she was questioned and then said nothing cogent.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:42 pm

The purpose of an inquest is to find facts, and to do so before people have had a chance to forget or embellish anything. More or less like a formal version of the witness statements. It's a throwback to the time when judges rode a circuit covering a large area and might not be available for some time. They recognized the value of gathering facts as soon as possible after a crime. I expect the difference between an inquest and a preliminary hearing is whether someone has been charged with the crime. Once Lizzie had been formally charged with the crime, the inquest became a preliminary hearing, and I don't think the inquest had been finalized. If no one has been charged, there should be no need for an attorney present at an inquest. Lizzie knew she was suspected of the crimes, but that's not the same as being arrested and formally charged with the crimes.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:12 pm

Come to think of it, at the time of the inquest, Bridget didn't know for sure that she wasn't suspected. Lizzie said she was in the barn, leaving Bridget as the only live person in the house. I would REALLY like to get my hands on Bridget's inquest testimony!

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:20 pm

Yes, but my point is, Lizzie should never have opened her mouth to the police, first, or to the court of inquest, second.

Yes, she wasn't charged-- so all the more reason to have her attorney excuse her from appearing at the Inquest.

My point is: She should have played the "I'm too distraught to give information" card. She didn't.

So, her words went on record, but thankfully (for her) were inadmissible at trial because she wasn't aware she was entitled to counsel at the Inquest.

The counsel that should have advised her to keep her mouth shut, to stay at home. ("Just say you're too distraught").

One thing's for certain: After the Inquest, Lizzie found herself charged and on the leavin' train to Taunton. That may have happened anyway, but at least she wouldn't have put any words on the record.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:41 pm

The "too distraught" contention would have worn out after a short time and become an "obstruction of justice" contention. Pleading the fifth amendment at an inquest tends to announce the probability of guilt. The real question is; why would an innocent person need an attorney at an inquest? I'm sure that crossed Jennings' mind, and that's why he didn't appear on Lizzie's behalf.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:35 am

Again, lucky for her. Jennings' noninvolvement rendered her Inquest testimony inadmissible at trial, while leaving a record for us.

Lizzie was not questioned in the same manner that, say, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen were.

Lizzie was questioned as if she were a suspect. She needed counsel, and she didn't have it.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:56 pm

I expect Lizzie was indeed questioned as a suspect, clearly, she was a suspect. Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen were not. I doubt that they had completely ruled out Bridget as a suspect at that time, so I expect she was questioned much as Lizzie was. There may have been other suspects at the time as well, but that's what the inquest is all about, sorting the most likely suspect out of perhaps several.

Jennings was faced with the choice of either representing Lizzie at the inquest and making her look guilty, or allowing Lizzie to go unrepresented and take the chance she would sound believable. At least she had a chance without him, the other way it was guaranteed she would look like she had something to hide. She only would have needed counsel if she was guilty.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:23 pm

Wasn't Lizzie questioned over two days? After a day of her being roughed up, Jennings ought to have stepped in, with the prosecution obviously aiming to break her down. She wasn't looking particularly innocent without an attorney. She needed protection, from herself as much as anyone. Poor Bridget, as roughed up as she probably was, didn't have the luxury of an attorney nearby. And she was probably innocent. She needed someone to say, "Slow it down a bit," to the prosecution.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:12 pm

Lizzie testified over 3 days, the 9th, 10th and 11th. At the end of her testimony on the 9th and 10th she returned home. I would assume she had contact with Jennings on those two occasions and her testimony reviewed. She was arrested on the evening of the 11th.

As for Jennings being present Hixon writes in the Borden chapter in his book "Murder, culture, and injustice; four sensational cases in American history" (p26):

"... On August 9, District Attorney Hosea M. Knowlton summoned Lizzie to the Fall River jail to testify in an inquest into the death of her parents. Attorney Jennings asked to attend the investigation with Lizzie, but the presiding judge, Josiah C. Blaisdell, denied the request. The judge's decision was his prerogative under the law-it would be more than seventy years before the U.S. Supreme Court granted criminal defendants the right to have an attorney present for questioning. Lizzie could simply have refused to testify, but she did not. Lizzie's disastrous testimony at the inquest is perhaps the strongest evidence of her culpability in the murders. ..."