If Emma hadn't been trashing Abby

[snokkums]

I have always wondered about this. If Emma hadn't been talking about Abby they way she was, that maybe Lizzie wouldn't have taken into her head to kill Abby. I mean, she was always telling Emma about her mother and ditching Abby. Maybe she hadn't been talking so badly about Abby and got along with her, maybe it would have been a more pleasant household. I mean to say is that there was so much animousity between the girls and Abby, it had to come some some where. Lizzie never knew her mother , only what Emma told her. In a way, I think that Emma should have been charged with conspiracy, because I don't think that Lizzie had the brains too do something like this without someone putting the idea into her head.

[LizbethTurner]

On what grounds could Emma have been charged with conspiracy?

I also wouldn't be comfortable with saying Emma "trashed" Abby. To my knowledge, all we have are statements to the effect that she didn't care for Abby. Is there something stronger of which I am not aware?

[snokkums]

Don't know if you are famlar with the Charles Manson case, but it's coming along lines with that. Put the idea into the girls head, just like Emma.

[LizbethTurner]

Don't know if you are famlar with the Charles Mznxon case, but it's coming along lines with that. Put the idea into the girls head, just like Emma.

I can't see any similarity between Manson and Emma Borden. What evidence are you basing this theory on?

[Yooper]

I get the impression that Lizzie had a mind of her own. The exchange between Lizzie and Emma which was overheard by the jail matron about Emma having spilled the beans seemed to have Emma answering to Lizzie. Hannah Reagan testified that she overheard Lizzie say to Emma "You have given me away, haven't you?" Emma said, "No, Lizzie, I have not." Lizzie said, "You have, and I will let you see I won't give in one inch." Just what was being referred to is unclear, but the exchange does not make Lizzie sound submissive at all.

No amount of derogatory talk about Abby by Emma can be used to justify Lizzie committing murder. Talk is one thing, the act of murder is quite another. Unless Lizzie was completely under Emma's influence, there is no basis to involve Emma in the act of murder. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Lizzie was unduly subject to Emma's influence as an adult. Lizzie was 32 years old and Emma was 41 at the time of the murders and I get the impression that both were capable of thinking and functioning independently.

[LizbethTurner]

Lizzie was 32 years old and Emma was 41 at the time of the murders and I get the impression that both were capable of thinking and functioning independently.

Precisely. We must assume, from both the evidence at hand and from what we know of human nature, that both women were fully functioning adults. Even the exchange you refer to, while intriguing, would have to be considered in context - a context which we do not have - in order to know its signficance. And that assumes that the words were overheard correctly, if at all.

To get back to Emma's and Lizzie's relationship with Abby, we know very little. There are some tantalizing glimpses of family dynamics which were at least strained and at most wildly dysfunctional. What we do know is that someone hated both Abby and Andrew enough to commit serious overkill. Due to the amount of violence - including facial injuries - involved, I think it highly unlikely that these crimes were committed by a vagrant or by someone who had unsatisfactory business dealings with Andrew.

Who hated them both enough to kill them that way? Who also had means and opportunity?

[Albanyguy]

"No amount of derogatory talk about Abby by Emma can be used to justify Lizzie committing murder. Talk is one thing, the act of murder is quite another. Unless Lizzie was completely under Emma's influence, there is no basis to involve Emma in the act of murder."

I agree, Yooper. I do not believe that Emma had any part in planning the murders or any advance knowledge that it was going to happen. When she got that telegram in Fairhaven, she was probably as shocked and surprised as anyone, although I'm sure she very quickly figured out what had happened. I do think that she bears some moral responsibility for contributing to the climate of hatred that led to murder at 92 Second Street, but that doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy.

[Yooper]

Emma may have blamed herself to some degree for setting the example of alienating Abby, but she could not have foreseen Lizzie actually murdering Abby. This very same scenario has to have been carried out countless times by untold numbers of people, children resenting or disliking a step-parent. Perhaps the eldest child sets the tone for the younger, especially if there is a disparity in ages between siblings. How many of these identical situations result in the murder of the step-parent? Emma may well have played coulda-shoulda-woulda with 20/20 hindsight after the fact, but she was not legally responsible for the murders.

[snokkums]

I 'm just saying that maybe Lizzie wouldn't have committed the crime if Emma hadn't alienated herself from Abby. And the only way that Lizzie knew her mother was thru Emma. That's what I meant by trashing Abby, telling Lizzie who her mother was and how she was, and Abby wasn't it.

[LizbethTurner]

Emma may have blamed herself to some degree for setting the example of alienating Abby, but she could not have foreseen Lizzie actually murdering Abby. This very same scenario has to have been carried out countless times by untold numbers of people, children resenting or disliking a step-parent. Perhaps the eldest child sets the tone for the younger, especially if there is a disparity in ages between siblings. How many of these identical situations result in the murder of the step-parent? Emma may well have played coulda-shoulda-woulda with 20/20 hindsight after the fact, but she was not legally responsible for the murders.

We know so little about the Borden family dynamics. For all we know, Abby was one mean witch and Emma and Lizzie treated her very well, considering. Still, I tend to operate from the facts.

At the time of the murders, three adult women had been living in tight quarters for many years. Any woman who has worked in a small office with other women knows how toxic that situation can become. Each woman had her own hopes, dreams and fears, and Andrew Borden was the one who held all the power. By all accounts he was not a generous or compassionate man, and by many accounts he was a cold, uncompromising skinflint. If he took a notion he could easily cut Emma or Lizzie out of his will, and he could make any of their three lives hell in large and small ways based on a whim.

This dynamic was if course not particular to the Borden household, but from the bits of testimony we have it does seem that the atmosphere in that house was particularly toxic. I would not be surprised to learn that the Borden household was a simmering stew of recriminations and long-standing resentments, such that any emotionally-laden event (the writing of a new will, the sale of a piece of land or property?) could result in violence and tragedy.

I feel it's probable that if we knew the entire story of the dynamics of the Borden family, we would see the murders as the culmination of an escalating wave of violence. It is likely that we would understand that each family member - and the maid as well, to some degree - took part in the sick dance that led to the final events.

[Yooper]

I 'm just saying that maybe Lizzie wouldn't have committed the crime if Emma hadn't alienated herself from Abby. And the only way that Lizzie knew her mother was thru Emma. That's what I meant by trashing Abby, telling Lizzie who her mother was and how she was, and Abby wasn't it.

I doubt that just a simple dislike of Abby by Emma, and subsequently Lizzie, was sufficient cause for murder. Clearly, Abby was not Sarah and there was no good reason for Abby to become Sarah in any way. That doesn't make Abby guilty of any wrongdoing. I get the impression that there was a real or imagined threat posed by Abby, and it very likely took the form of the possibility of Abby and her family benefiting from the Borden wealth when Andrew died. That is a more likely motive than simple dislike or even hatred of Abby.

[LizbethTurner]

I doubt that just a simple dislike of Abby by Emma, and subsequently Lizzie, was sufficient cause for murder.

Well of course dislike and hatred don't often lead to murder. If they did, many of us would be long dead.

I get the impression that there was a real or imagined threat posed by Abby, and it very likely took the form of the possibility of Abby and her family benefiting from the Borden wealth when Andrew died. That is a more likely motive than simple dislike or even hatred of Abby.

I'm with you on this. A scenario popped into my head the other day. Please point out why this wouldn't work. (And yes, I'm speculating.)

1. Early morning - Abby, finding herself alone with Lizzie, decides to tell her something. She sends the maid out to clean the windows, so they can be alone in the house. Then she tells Lizzie something about the reason for Uncle John's arrival the night before, something involving a transaction that is beneficial to Abby. Her reasons for telling Lizzie this can't be known. Did she want to gloat because she was going to profit? Did she want to prepare Lizzie for the shock of the change? We'll never know.

2. The substance of this communication is utterly unpleasant to Lizzie, and is for her the last straw. Abby goes upstairs to do something in the guest room, and Lizzie gets a hatchet and follows her upstairs. She kills her.

3. This was unplanned, so Lizzie doesn't know what she's going to do next. It's possible the maid could have heard or seen something, and if she'd come in then Andrew might have still been alive at the end of that day. Andrew is now her worst enemy, though, because he's the one who signed the papers and betrayed her. In the meantime she gets hold of those papers (did Abby show them to her when Lizzie refused to believe they existed?) and fires up the stove in the kitchen and burns them. Her excuse for the unscheduled firing up of the stove on a hot day is that she needed to heat some irons to press her handkerchiefs.

4. Andrew comes home. Lizzie waits until he lies down, retrieves the hatchet and does him in. She changes her clothes, hides the hatchet in the downstairs privy or elsewhere, checks her handiwork, and then raises the alarm.

I suspect Lizzie had a psychotic break that lasted for several hours or more, covering the period of the murders. She almost certainly did not wake up that morning and say "Oh goodie, it's Hatchet Day!" It is entirely possible for a person who is legally sane to become so furious that he or she doesn't actually remember what happened in a certain period of time. People can be driven to extreme acts of bravery or cruelty by a combination of circumstances and personality. I believe Lizzie knew very well what she did after she did it, but that it was so far outside her experience that she had no reference point for it, and so it became a sort of dream to her almost immediately. I've seen this happen with other people who committed horrific acts of violence and then went on to lead utterly normal lives. They have no explanation for what they did and they perceive it as something that happened to them and was not of their making.

So that's my current half-baked theory. Anyone?

[Yooper]

The way in which the murders were committed made them crimes of opportunity, in my opinion. To plan Abby's murder, Lizzie would have to take into account Bridget's presence in the house. There was no way to absolutely guarantee that Bridget would be out of sight and hearing at a given moment, such as when Abby was upstairs while Bridget was outdoors. If there was a rigid pattern to the window washing chore there might have been a bit of predictability involved, but even that would have been risky if Abby didn't leave the first floor of the house. If there was a pattern of Andrew always taking a nap before lunch and Bridget always lying down when she finished her chores early, then there was a far fetched chance that Andrew's murder could be planned to a small degree, but how could Andrew napping in the sitting room rather than his bedroom be predicted? Could Bridget be counted upon to finish the window washing early enough to take a nap? Then how could John Morse's movements be predicted? He could have returned at any time, and whether or not Lizzie was aware he had been invited to lunch, she certainly couldn't know for sure he wouldn't return. Lizzie got lucky twice, Bridget was out of sight and earshot with Abby in the one room Bridget would not likely find her, then Bridget being as far away from where Andrew was napping as possible while remaining in the house. It was also fortunate that Morse didn't return earlier. Planned? I doubt it!

[LizbethTurner]

The way in which the murders were committed made them crimes of opportunity, in my opinion. To plan Abby's murder, Lizzie would have to take into account Bridget's presence in the house. There was no way to absolutely guarantee that Bridget would be out of sight and hearing at a given moment, such as when Abby was upstairs while Bridget was outdoors. If there was a rigid pattern to the window washing chore there might have been a bit of predictability involved, but even that would have been risky if Abby didn't leave the first floor of the house. If there was a pattern of Andrew always taking a nap before lunch and Bridget always lying down when she finished her chores early, then there was a far fetched chance that Andrew's murder could be planned to a small degree, but how could Andrew napping in the sitting room rather than his bedroom be predicted? Could Bridget be counted upon to finish the window washing early enough to take a nap? Then how could John Morse's movements be predicted? He could have returned at any time, and whether or not Lizzie was aware he had been invited to lunch, she certainly couldn't know for sure he wouldn't return. Lizzie got lucky twice, Bridget was out of sight and earshot with Abby in the one room Bridget would not likely find her, then Bridget being as far away from where Andrew was napping as possible while remaining in the house. It was also fortunate that Morse didn't return earlier. Planned? I doubt it!

We're in agreement. I think it's almost certain that this wasn't planned.

[snokkums]

I don't think that the murders were planned either. I just think that she got it into her head to murder her parents. I think it was "enough is enough". She didn't care for Abby and she was tired of living what she felt was beneath them.

[Allen]

I tend to disagree that the murders were not planned to any degree. I think they were planned, but the method had to be changed at the last minute due to the fact the poison attempts didn't work. I think Lizzie had been thinking about means, method, and opportunity to do so for a long time. The very idea that the hatchet wasn't found that day tends to support that in my opinion. She already had thought of where she could hide a weapon. The house was so full of people from that day on she had little chance left to hide anything hastily away without prying eyes. We have Emma, Uncle John, and Alice Russell staying at the house, and police patrolling around outside. If the handle-less hatchet at the historical Society is indeed the murder weapon, it took some ingenuity to dip it in ashes to try to make it appear it had been there for some time. The fire in the stove was already started by Bridget at breakfast, it was used to cook the meal. I think Lizzie tried to keep it going to possibly dispose of any evidence, which shows forethought.

She'd had years to watch and take note of all their habits. I believe she first tried to poison them but whatever she used didn't kill them. She then tried to buy prussic acid, which in all certainty would kill them, but was denied. She was forced to take a more direct hands on method. I think both of the elder Borden's were targets because if she killed Abby and left Andrew alive, Andrew could get suspicious and cut them out of the will. If she left Abby alive and just killed Andrew, Abby could've talked about how unpleasant things had been between them and caused suspicion as well. Abby started talking about her fears of being poisoned, even so far as visiting Dr. Bowen to tell him her fears. There is evidence in Bridget's testimony that she took a nap during the day if time permitted. There is also some evidence pointing to the idea that Thursday was the day the windows were normally washed. Especially since the Kelly maid was washing windows the same day, and stopped to talk to Bridget over the fence. I don't think that was a coincidence. Everyone seems to think it unusual that Abby sent Bridget outside on such a hot day to wash the windows. That maybe Bridget was sent outside purposefully for whatever reason. When in actuality it appears it was no more unusual than the Kelly's next door who had their maid outside that same day also washing windows. Most of the chores had been assigned to a specific day of the week. Monday for laundry, Tuesday for ironing, etc. This seems to be the norm not just for the Borden household, but all households back then. I believe it made things easier to work like that because these tasks were much harder than they are today. There were no automatic washers and dryers back then. Just doing the laundry could take the better part of the day the way things had to be done. Uncle John's showing up when he did might have caused her some worry, but there is abundant evidence that he did a lot of visiting around town any time he came to visit. And if he didn't things could be called off. It didn't become too late to back out until Abby was dead.

[Allen]

I also believe Lizzie's talk with Alice Russell the night before about her fear that "somebody will do something", also shows forethought and planning. She was trying to establish the idea that her family, especially Andrew, had enemies. In my opinion, this is setting the stage for the murders.

[Allen]

I had another thought about the way the tasks were completed back then that lead me to question one of Lizzie's claims. She said she was ironing her handkerchiefs and her flats wouldn't stay hot, so she decided to go to the barn and look for lead to make sinkers. Back then the irons were heated on the stove, and used once they reached the desired temperature. Of course, once they are taken off the stove they are only going to stay hot for so long. These were not plug in irons with a built in heating source. Most women back then used a rotating method with two irons, where one iron was kept on the stove to get hot while another hot iron was used. When the one you were using cooled off you switched it out for the one on the stove, putting the cool one back to get hot. This way you always had a hot Iron. So why was it that Lizzie's "flats" staying hot were such a bother that she abandoned the task to go do something else? To me this is just a bogus excuse.

[Yooper]

Firing the wood stove would have raised the temperature in the kitchen considerably. It was a warm day, would it make better sense to do the ironing immediately after a meal had been served rather than between or before a meal? The stove had to be fired to prepare the meal anyway, why heat the kitchen unnecessarily? The description of what was found in the stove firebox didn't sound like a serious effort was made to fire the stove to heat flatirons; if the stove had gone out there should have been unburned kindling or unburned coal present. I haven't read anything about how the draft and damper were set on the stove, either. Both should have been wide open if a fire was being started in the stove. Lizzie testified that there were coals or burning embers present in the firebox when she attempted to get the fire going and that should have been sufficient to set kindling ablaze with the draft and damper open.

It takes time to get a wood stove up to operating temperature and it takes time for it to cool off afterward. I'll have to re-examine the testimony and see if the timing makes sense according to what was found in the stove. It has always struck me odd that the stove didn't have more evidence of a fire present if an attempt had been made to heat flatirons. Either the glowing coals would be present, or a pile of unburned fuel would be present, but nether was found.

[snokkums]

I tend to disagree that the murders were not planned to any degree. I think they were planned, but the method had to be changed at the last minute due to the fact the poison attempts didn't work. I think Lizzie had been thinking about means, method, and opportunity to do so for a long time. The very idea that the hatchet wasn't found that day tends to support that in my opinion. She already had thought of where she could hide a weapon. The house was so full of people from that day on she had little chance left to hide anything hastily away without prying eyes. We have Emma, Uncle John, and Alice Russell staying at the house, and police patrolling around outside. If the handle-less hatchet at the historical Society is indeed the murder weapon, it took some ingenuity to dip it in ashes to try to make it appear it had been there for some time. The fire in the stove was already started by Bridget at breakfast, it was used to cook the meal. I think Lizzie tried to keep it going to possibly dispose of any evidence, which shows forethought.

She'd had years to watch and take note of all their habits. I believe she first tried to poison them but whatever she used didn't kill them. She then tried to buy prussic acid, which in all certainty would kill them, but was denied. She was forced to take a more direct hands on method. I think both of the elder Borden's were targets because if she killed Abby and left Andrew alive, Andrew could get suspicious and cut them out of the will. If she left Abby alive and just killed Andrew, Abby could've talked about how unpleasant things had been between them and caused suspicion as well. Abby started talking about her fears of being poisoned, even so far as visiting Dr. Bowen to tell him her fears. There is evidence in Bridget's testimony that she took a nap during the day if time permitted. There is also some evidence pointing to the idea that Thursday was the day the windows were normally washed. Especially since the Kelly maid was washing windows the same day, and stopped to talk to Bridget over the fence. I don't think that was a coincidence. Everyone seems to think it unusual that Abby sent Bridget outside on such a hot day to wash the windows. That maybe Bridget was sent outside purposefully for whatever reason. When in actuality it appears it was no more unusual than the Kelly's next door who had their maid outside that same day also washing windows. Most of the chores had been assigned to a specific day of the week. Monday for laundry, Tuesday for ironing, etc. This seems to be the norm not just for the Borden household, but all households back then. I believe it made things easier to work like that because these tasks were much harder than they are today. There were no automatic washers and dryers back then. Just doing the laundry could take the better part of the day the way things had to be done. Uncle John's showing up when he did might have caused her some worry, but there is abundant evidence that he did a lot of visiting around town any time he came to visit. And if he didn't things could be called off. It didn't become too late to back out until Abby was dead.

I thin your 're right about some time to plan some of the murders. She did have all those years to study their habits and their comings and goings. I think it's like I had said in an earlier post, "enough is enough". Lizzie just had it with the living conditions and wasn't very fond of her stepmom, and thought her father was a bit of a tight wad. And then saying something to effect of "something is going to happen" to the neighbor lady, suggests that she was thinking of doing something.

[LizbethTurner]

Firing the wood stove would have raised the temperature in the kitchen considerably. It was a warm day, would it make better sense to do the ironing immediately after a meal had been served rather than between or before a meal? The stove had to be fired to prepare the meal anyway, why heat the kitchen unnecessarily? The description of what was found in the stove firebox didn't sound like a serious effort was made to fire the stove to heat flatirons; if the stove had gone out there should have been unburned kindling or unburned coal present. I haven't read anything about how the draft and damper were set on the stove, either. Both should have been wide open if a fire was being started in the stove. Lizzie testified that there were coals or burning embers present in the firebox when she attempted to get the fire going and that should have been sufficient to set kindling ablaze with the draft and damper open.

It takes time to get a wood stove up to operating temperature and it takes time for it to cool off afterward. I'll have to re-examine the testimony and see if the timing makes sense according to what was found in the stove. It has always struck me odd that the stove didn't have more evidence of a fire present if an attempt had been made to heat flatirons. Either the glowing coals would be present, or a pile of unburned fuel would be present, but nether was found.

I agree with yiu. I don't think Lizzie did any ironing. That was just one of the stories she told, and the subsequent lies were told to support that story. They were clumsy lies, which I take as evidence of lack of planning.

[Allen]

I think Lizzie feigned ironing as an excuse to try to keep the fire going to destroy evidence. This way if she was seen messing around the stove or putting things in, she could say I was trying to get my flats hot to iron these handkerchiefs. I think the whole thing was a bogus excuse.

[Yooper]

Philip Harrington arrived at the Borden house at about 12:15-12:20 and some time after that he saw Dr. Bowen throw some scraps of paper into the kitchen stove. Harrington was questioned about the condition of the fire at that time and he testified that there were some dying embers from a coal fire present, about the size of the palm of his hand. He also said there were the ashes of what appeared to be a roll of paper about twelve inches long and two inches or less in diameter. Since there was no testimony from anyone about having added coal to the stove since before breakfast, the embers were probably left from the breakfast fire. Bridget had testified that she built a small coal fire that morning when she fired the stove. Lizzie testified at the inquest that she had put a stick of wood on the embers in an attempt to heat the flat irons.

Ashes in a stove can often be identified as to origin if they are left undisturbed if the observer is familiar with fires in stoves. I expect that in 1892 most people were familiar with this. A stick of wood would appear solid, a rolled up sheet of paper would appear hollow. A roll of paper expands in diameter when burned, so if the ashes were two inches in diameter, then the roll was something less than that when it was put in the stove. I doubt that Harrington would have mistaken a stick of wood for a roll of paper, he had to have seen something indicating the ash remnants had a hollow center. Otherwise, he would have said he saw the ashes from a stick of wood. I expect he also knew a coal fire from a wood fire.

Burning a rolled sheet of paper in a cast iron wood stove isn't going to increase the heat of the stove much, let alone heat flat irons placed on the stove top. Even a single stick of kindling isn't going to raise the temperature too far. In any case, there was no serious attempt made to heat up the stove in order to warm the flat irons enough to iron handkerchiefs.

[LizbethTurner]

Burning a rolled sheet of paper in a cast iron wood stove isn't going to increase the heat of the stove much, let alone heat flat irons placed on the stove top. Even a single stick of kindling isn't going to raise the temperature too far. In any case, there was no serious attempt made to heat up the stove in order to warm the flat irons enough to iron handkerchiefs.

Yes. And just as Harrington and most others could easily differentiate between a roll of burned paper and a piece if burnt kindling, everyone of that day would have known that putting one or even two small pieces of wood on a low fire wouldn't raise the stove's temperature enough to heat irons. Lizzie's story should have been identified as a glaring lie. It has always seemed to me that Lizzie had wanted to heat up the stove, and that she made some attempt to do so, but that she either wasn't really sure how to do it or she was in such a panic at the time that she couldn't do it right.

[kssunflower]

What was Dr. Bowen disposing of in the stove? Emma's telegram?

[LizbethTurner]

What was Dr. Bowen disposing of in the stove? Emma's telegram?

Could have been anything. I don't know how people behaved back then. Maybe it was completely usual to throw things in the fire a lot. Maybe he just had a minute to kill (figuratively speaking) and he was cleaning out his pockets. Might have been Emma's telegram, or a list from Lizzie that included "sharpen hatchet" on her daily chores.

[Yooper]

I have a pet hypothesis about the paper Dr. Bowen tossed into the stove. He did it in front of witnesses, it probably wasn't anything incriminating. Dr. Bowen's daughter was scheduled to return home that morning, Mrs. Bowen had been watching for her from the Bowen house and had reached the conclusion that she wasn't going to make it home that day. If Dr. Bowen had gone to the telegraph office and found a telegram waiting for him from his daughter saying she was delayed or was taking a detour on the way home, it would explain the testimony about the scrap being about his daughter "going through somewhere". The name "Emma" was said to have been seen on the scrap of paper. If Bowen found a telegram from his daughter waiting for him and he scribbled the message to Emma on the back of the telegram as he wanted it sent, it would explain everything. He might have brought the telegram back to the Borden house so Lizzie could read the message exactly as it was sent. There was some concern about the wording before Bowen left to send the message.

[LizbethTurner]

That all makes good sense.

[snokkums]

i don't know why I feel like this,but I feel that Dr. Bowen had more to do with the "after the fact" then he ever let on. I think he was taking care of his patient, whom he know was guilty.

[snokkums]

i don't know why I feel like this,but I feel that Dr. Bowen had more to do with the "after the fact" then he ever let on. I think he was taking care of his patient, whom he know was guilty.

[snokkums]

sorry double post, computer problem.

[snokkums]

I 'm just saying that maybe Lizzie wouldn't have committed the crime if Emma hadn't alienated herself from Abby. And the only way that Lizzie knew her mother was thru Emma. That's what I meant by trashing Abby, telling Lizzie who her mother was and how she was, and Abby wasn't it.

I doubt that just a simple dislike of Abby by Emma, and subsequently Lizzie, was sufficient cause for murder. Clearly, Abby was not Sarah and there was no good reason for Abby to become Sarah in any way. That doesn't make Abby guilty of any wrongdoing. I get the impression that there was a real or imagined threat posed by Abby, and it very likely took the form of the possibility of Abby and her family benefiting from the Borden wealth when Andrew died. That is a more likely motive than simple dislike or even hatred of Abby.

I think the fact that Abbys' family benefiting from the Borden wealth and the dislike the girls had for Abby I think was the double whammy that pushed Lizzie over the edge. don't think that Emma talking bad about Abby would have pushed Lizzie over the edge, but just the combination of everything. Emma talking badly about Abby didn't help.

[Allen]

The paper burned in the stove was only briefly of interest to me. It's possible Lizzie burned some type of paper evidence, but it's just as likely the paper was burned in the attempt of reheating the stove. To start the fire you used kindling wood, paper, and coal. I think this would also explain the old newspapers and back issues of magazines kept in the Borden kitchen. I've also started fires in a wood burning stove for heating my home. I definitely used papers that were on hand. I tried to find the source with the best description of how a fire was started and kept burning. This article talks about the materials needed, the methods used, how to keep it burning, and what not to do as well. This was information that was used in the course of the Cleveland Domestic Training School.

Bridget testified that she carried up her wood first that morning, and then went back down and brought coal up in the coal hod. Bridget built the fire before anyone had come downstairs that morning. She was up at around 6:15 am. Even if she kept it hot enough to heat water to wash dishes, she was getting ready to wash windows around 9:30 and had no further need of a fire until dinner. Harrington saw dying embers from a coal fire, about the size of his hand, around 12:15 - 12:20. That's roughly 6 hours after the fire was first started for the purpose of cooking breakfast, and it wasn't a very big fire. The day was already hot, so heat from the oven might not have been noticed as much as on a cold day. If it's cold and you feel heat you going to know there's a fire. If it's already hot it might not be as noticeable. Plus Bridget spent some time out of doors. In my opinion, Lizzie kept that fire going. Then she claimed she was ironing to cover it up. If Lizzie made attempts to keep the fire going or reignite it, she may have used paper and wood/kindlings. I don't believe that Lizzie didn't have any idea how to start a fire, or that she didn't know how to keep her flats hot. Bridget testified at the trial it was common practice for Lizzie to wash and iron her own handkerchiefs. The only thing I question is her motive for the fire, which I think was to destroy evidence, not iron handkerchiefs.

According to Bridget's testimony at the trial,

Q. What kind of fire did you make that morning?
A. I made a coal fire, not a very big fire.

Q. It was hot weather and you didn't need much fire after breakfast?
A. No, sir.


The Kitchen garden, Volumes 1-5, Cincinnati Kitchen Garden Association, 1883.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KRJOAA ... re&f=false

page 35 and continued on 37:

"How to build a fire in a cooking stove.

Have your kindlings all split and laid near the stove that they may be dry. The coal hods must be filled with coal, and paper or shavings just as hand.

It is a good plan to have a box or basket to put waste paper in, such as advertisements, wrapping paper, etc. , then you will usually have paper at hand for starting your fire. Coarse brown papers are not good, but can be used with others. Old newspapers are best. If shavings can be easily procured they may be used in place of paper.

Kindlings are prepared from pine or other soft wood. They are better if cut into quite short pieces, with part split fine and the rest left in large pieces. Kindlings should be prepared when you have a little leisure. Have a basket especially kept to carry them in and take care that it is never empty: then if you should need to start a fire unexpectedly you will be ready to do it promptly. Many more kindlings are needed to ignite hard coal than soft. Hard wood, sawed short and split fine, is very useful to start a coal fire.

We will suppose that all is now ready and that you are to build the fire in the cooking stove. First, close all the dampers; shut the doors of the stove, and put all the covers in place; then with the shaker turn on the grate. Then take up the ashes, being careful not to raise a dust, When all is clear and clean place in the firebox, papers crumbled in loose bulk, until it is nearly half full. Next put on kindlings, the smallest first, being careful to lay them crossed in such a way that the air can pass between them, sprinkle a little coal over the top, open all the dampers and start the fire by a lighted piece of paper held under the grate. If it does not kindle it through, at once try a larger piece of paper. If smoke puffs out from the damper and doors, you may know that in laying the materials you have packed them too close, or that the dampers are not properly arranged. Remember that fire needs air to burn just as much as you need air to breath. If you have followed these directions carefully, and if your materials are in good condition, your fire should burn well at first lighting. When the papers are burned and the fire sinks down, a little more coal may be added. As soon as the fire is well started close the back damper.

Never wait until the fire is very low before adding coal. Put it on often, a little at a time, while the fire is still bright, never enough to cover and blacken it and thus make it useless for some time, but just enough to keep up an even degree of heat. The fire can be replenished even while bread is baking or any cooking is going on, without making a change in the heat.

Never lift a heavy coal hod to put coal in, but take a shovel. If you lift the hod you will be likely to put in too much.

Be careful never to allow the firebox to become entirely filled with coal and cinders; the coal burning against the top of the stove will warp and crack the covers and seriously injure the stove. Besides, close packing stops the air from passing through the fire and really deadens it. There should be about a hands breath of space between the fire and the covers.

Never allow a stove to become red hot.

It is sometimes difficult to regulate the heat in a cooking stove. Should the covers get red hot and continue so after the dampers are all closed, the heat may be reduced by setting one cover aside; or two covers may be partially removed without danger of smoke, if the coal is burning well.

To heat the oven after a days fire is sometimes very difficult. In such cases it is best to shake and clear the grate, in part, and put on kindlings and build a new fire. A fire which is in part exhausted will not produce enough heat to extend under the oven. It is sometimes necessary to clear the grate entirely, but generally is is sufficient to clear the grate and pick out cinders and any dead coals till the air can get through and kindle the new fire.

If hard coal is used the ashes should be sifted, the clinckers picked out (explain clinckers), and the cinders saved to burn again; when mixed with a little fresh coal they will burn well, and for all the purposes except baking they are quite as good as coal.

Sometimes soft coal is used in cooking stoves or ranges during the summer, as the fire is easily started and goes down readily, and is therefore not quite so heating.

If the fire does not burn well, see that the stove is free from soot, for if that is not carefully attended to you will have trouble. There are places under and above these stoves that can be reached with a scraper and should be well cleaned. Wipe off the top of the stove with an old cloth or brush every day. If the stove is greasy wipe it off with a piece of flannel

page 37 continued

dipped in hot water containing a little washing soda. Polish the stove with blackening once or twice a week. The fire should be out or very low when you do this. ....."

[Yooper]

A clinker is the leftover non-combustible matter from a coal fire. It resembles volcanic rock, porous and hard. A coal stove generally has a shaker grate which shakes the ash and small clinkers down into the ash pan. Larger clinkers are removed with tongs from above the grate. There is also the danger of a sulfur gas explosion if burning embers are completely covered with coal. The newly added coal gives off the gas as it begins to ignite and when a flame finally pops up, KABOOM! A coal fire is banked, the coal added by piling it to the right and left alternately, leaving burning embers exposed. If a small amount of burning embers were left from a previous fire, I doubt that coal would be added directly. It is more likely that kindling would be added first to establish enough material to fire the coal properly.

[Allen]

Thanks Yooper. I included the (explain clinckers) because that's actually what it said on the page lol. Thank you for explaining what it meant. That's my point about the fire. Lizzie claimed to have added sticks of wood to the fire, or kindling. And there is evidence of paper being added as well. All signs someone kept a fire going.

[Allen]

To heat the oven after a days fire is sometimes very difficult. In such cases it is best to shake and clear the grate, in part, and put on kindlings and build a new fire. A fire which is in part exhausted will not produce enough heat to extend under the oven. It is sometimes necessary to clear the grate entirely, but generally is is sufficient to clear the grate and pick out cinders and any dead coals till the air can get through and kindle the new fire.

[Yooper]

Well, it sounds as though Lizzie knew how to re-fire the stove properly, at least theoretically. The trouble is, Harrington saw a very small bunch of embers, likely the remnants of the breakfast fire. He said it appeared to have been a coal fire. He also saw what had been a rolled up sheet of paper, but no sign of the stick of kindling Lizzie said she put on the coals. Two or three sticks of kindling would have fired up much sooner than a single stick, which would have smouldered for a while. To start the fire properly from coals, the paper would have gone on the coals and the kindling on top of the paper, all with the draft and damper wide open. The kindling would have crushed the remnants of the paper, there would have been no roll of paper visible as a result. It just doesn't sound as though Lizzie made a serious attempt to keep the fire going. It sounds more like she burned a roll of paper on top of the left over coals. Lizzie said nothing about burning paper in the stove, just a single stick of kindling. If she wanted to cover someone looking in the stove and finding ashes on top of the coals, she might have substituted burning a stick of kindling instead of burning a roll of paper thinking one would resemble the other when reduced to ash. Another remote possibility is that Harrington mistook a hatchet handle for a roll of paper, but I doubt it. I think that for some reason, Lizzie didn't want to mention burning a rolled up sheet of paper. Either that, or Andrew threw a roll of paper on the fire at some point. There should have been the remnants of the stick of kindling Lizzie supposedly put in the stove in addition to the paper and the coals, in any event.