Room to rent?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:20 pm

I believe firmly that Lizzie did it. But once in awhile I find something that is, to me, interesting enough to expand on to see where it goes.I was reading the testimony of Mrs. Churchill again.I have a theory, I have thought of this before, but there really isn't any way to check it out. Mrs. Churchill mentions she lets room for rent. They are all on the side of her house facing the Borden house.So if someone who had rented a room was responsible for the killings, they could've possibly seen when everyone came and went, could've possibly seen Bridget washing the windows, they could've seen an opportunity to get in. The idea that no one was seen on the street in blood stained clothing could be because they had to go no further than next door. This has probably already been discussed, I think every theory possible to the imagination has been,but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on it?

page 353 / i375

Q. I mean those that-
A.Then we let rooms to other people.

Q.I do not care for that.You live on your side of the house

page 354/ i 376

towards the Borden's?
A.Live all over the house.

Q.Oh, do you?
A. Yes.

Q. Well your living side is on that side?
A. The kitchen and two lodging rooms are on the south side , down stairs.
-------------

Q. You spoke of renting rooms.Let me ask if you had care of the rooms?
A.Yes, sir.

Q.And making them up in the morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many beds did you have to attend to that morning?
A.I did not have all that morning. My sister helps me some.

Q.I mean how many were there to be attending to that morning?I am not very particular about it.
A.I guess five that morning.

Q.Were all these on the side of the house toward the Borden house?
A.Yes, sir.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:55 pm

Look at all the people living at Adelaide's house on Second Street in 1910! Also, notice those living at Lizzie's & Emma's house!
2 boarders and the Townsends.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:57 pm

I think the boarders at Churchill's are listed in the paper?
I've asked that same question, about the boarders.
Not only the boaders are suspicious, but their friends are too! They could have bragged about Andrew's money, and his safe, to anyone!
That could account for the robbery. The murders seem more personal, tho.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:08 pm

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning Kat? Where can I read this information? And how relevant is it since 1910 is 18 years after the murders?

Guess I posted right as you were posting? Thanks for the information Kat!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:16 pm

You sure are fast when it comes to providing information Kat. You always amaze me with how readily you obtain information. I posted my reply and noticed you had already replied again

. Yes, I think that anyone who was staying there could have easily kept track of the comings and goings, and have easily found an opportunity to get in without being seen.But what would their motive have been for the murder? There are so many possiblities that exist it's hard to come up with just one.Could've been someone with a grudge against the Borden's for some reason? Or someone Lizzie conspired with?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:33 pm

Wow ! Townsends on that list ! Hmmm...maybe I DO have some sort of Lizzie connection in my past huh ?

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:23 pm

Kat @ Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:55 pm wrote:Look at all the people living at Adelaide's house on Second Street in 1910! Also, notice those living at Lizzie's & Emma's house!
2 boarders and the Townsends.

You can never trust a Townsend.. Never...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:40 am

Audrey?
.............
Anyway, in The Evening Standard, dated November 17th, 1892, supposedly these people were sitting on Mrs. Churchill's steps the morning of the murders:

..."Charles Cook, William L. Hacking, George L. Douglass and Oliver Durling, who together were sitting talking on Mrs. Churchill's steps when the terrible deed was done and who saw no one enter or leave the Borden premises... ."

These were amongst a list of witnesses to the grand jury. The paper came out with some outlandish rumors which they claimed were leaked from the grand jury, but which is debateable, because the inquiry was secret.

I'm looking for the names of Mrs. Churchill's lodgers as we have that info around here somewhere.

I'm still thinking the police would check these people and I believe they were all employed: the boarders, that is.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:14 am

theebmonique @ Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:33 pm wrote:Wow ! Townsends on that list ! Hmmm...maybe I DO have some sort of Lizzie connection in my past huh ?

Tracy...

Audrey @ Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:23 pm wrote:
Kat @ Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:55 pm wrote:Look at all the people living at Adelaide's house on Second Street in 1910! Also, notice those living at Lizzie's & Emma's house!
2 boarders and the Townsends.
You can never trust a Townsend.. Never...

See????

A lame attempt at a joke??

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:33 am

Kat...she's right. You can't trust us...we're French.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:34 am

EEEK. This is getting worse

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:36 am

It was all the little devil faces which threw me...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:42 am

Sorry to get so off topic. Yes, Audrey and I were just joking around.

I do wonder though, if the Townsends listed in that census are distant relatives. I should probably look into it.

Again...sorry about being off topic.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:47 am

I do not mind going off topic a little, it provides some comic relief

. I am trying my best to find any information about Mrs. Churchill's boarders.I would think that the police would have checked them out thoroughly, but you never know.They did so many other things that left me wondering...well...anyway. I appreciate the information Kat. I'm having a hard time finding anything to go on just yet myself.Still looking though.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:59 am

Well, I "Word" searched :
The Evening Standard
The Fall River Globe
Newspapers Various
Rochester NY papers.
--for "Lodge" & "Board"

Then I looked thru the Sourcebook, TheCasebook and Rebello.
We have the info- I just don't recall where, so here is where people need not look. Unless you really really want to look again thru Rebello...

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:48 am

In June of this year, Harry and I had a back and forth on the forum that involved some speculation about Mrs. Churchill's boarders. A Mrs. John Gomeley was a lodger at 90 Second Street [which is the Churchill house]. She was interviewed in the Witness Statements (p.8-9) and said she heard nothing that morning.

Harry checked the January 1998 LBQ, and in the Lizbits column by Neilson Caplain on the Churchill house he found the following on page 19.

"She [Mrs.Churchill] also said that her household consisted of her mother, sister, son and a niece. While the 1892 City Directory does not list these relatives, it does list three people as boarders at that address; a theater manager, a teacher, and a paper hanger. Adelaide's mother, Comfort, resided in the house until she died in 1899."

So according to Addie Churchill's trial testimony -- her son, her sister, her mother, her niece, Thomas B. [aka the man who works for us], and Mrs. John Gomeley lived in the house. And if we try to reconcile this with the 1892 census -- maybe it's conceivable that Thomas was a paper hanger and Mrs. Gomeley was a teacher -- but we're left with a theater manager. Maybe he was Mr. John Gomeley?

That's as far as we got on that tack, I think.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:27 am

Yay! I was going to go to the LBQ's next! Yay!
The "Thomas" was Thomas Bowles, right? He worked for Mrs. Churchill's family for a long time, I believe.

Remember this?:

"Augustus Gunning, who now resides at 308 Plainfield street, Johnsonville, R. I., near Providence, was at that time a lodger in Mrs. Churchill's house..."- Evening Standard- from the Trickey-McHenry news article!

--I am glad to know there IS a Mrs. Gomeley and not an Augustus Gunning!
These names are from the City Directory I take it? I wish I had one of those!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:29 am

Ooops

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:02 pm

Yes, Thomas B. was Thomas Bowles or Thomas Boulds -- he is referred to as both in different places -- but appears to be the same person, i.e. the Churchill handyman/lodger. Various newspapers and books use Bowles or Bolds -- but according to Hoffman -- Boulds is the spelling used by the FRHS.

Mrs. Gomeley and Thomas B. are the only 'names' we have. Mrs. G. appears in the W.S. and at trial, Mrs. Churchill says Thomas lives there.

Caplain does appear to be using the 1892 city directory as his source. But that excerpt from his article only indicates there was a paper-hanger, a theater manager, and a teacher lodging at the house. I was just speculating as to which names go with which.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:15 pm

William L. Hacking is OBVIOUSLY a pseudonym for Billy Borden! "Hacking," for goodness sake? How much clearer could this clue be? The "L" stands for "loves," as in the phrase "William loves hacking," which is what he was planning to do to his father.

There, I've solved it. See you all over at Jack the Ripper...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:04 pm

Ha-Ha Bob!

When I was looking at the census, I found out Adelaide's father was a BUTCHER!
Too bad he died in 1871 (Rebello, 98).

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:20 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:15 pm wrote:William L. Hacking is OBVIOUSLY a pseudonym for Billy Borden! "Hacking," for goodness sake? How much clearer could this clue be? The "L" stands for "loves," as in the phrase "William loves hacking," which is what he was planning to do to his father.

There, I've solved it. See you all over at Jack the Ripper...

I have to say thats pretty good stuff. Very creative

.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:23 pm

the spirit of Rays lives on..

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:01 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:15 pm wrote:William L. Hacking is OBVIOUSLY a pseudonym for Billy Borden! "Hacking," for goodness sake? How much clearer could this clue be? The "L" stands for "loves," as in the phrase "William loves hacking," which is what he was planning to do to his father.

There, I've solved it. See you all over at Jack the Ripper...

XOXOXOXOX Bob...

Is it any wonder that I absolutely adore you???

I really need to get you on my mailing list..

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:53 pm

..."maybe it's conceivable that Thomas was a paper hanger and Mrs. Gomeley was a teacher -- but we're left with a theater manager. Maybe he was Mr. John Gomeley?"--Diana

In the first post by Allen, it says 5 beds, and Diana's post says 3 boarders, and Mrs. Churchill says 2 rooms.
So that sounds like 3 official boarders occupying 2 rooms- which might include 5 people. (Maybe the 5 beds- if there was a married couple). Or not. Maybe Thomas B. shared a room, or had one room and the other 2 boarders shared a room, which still is 3 beds, so maybe some of those 5 beds she made were for family members, like Adelaide's mother.
Otherwise there could be one married couple in one room, and 3 single people in another. (Just checking the permutations of 5 beds...

)- or 2 married people in one and Thomas in the other as per DIana, which makes sense.

Anyway, did Mrs. Churchill have a servant? Or just her sister sometimes helped?
Their living area in the daytime seems to have been on the other side of the house, and Mrs. Churchill went out of sight of the Borden's before she came over in order to inform her mother she was going. If the 2 downstairs rooms were for boarders on the Borden side and if they were at work all day, no one would see anything on Thursday in the day- but they may have known somewhat of what was going on next door if they kept their winbdows open and heard things, in the evenings.
The kitchen of Mrs. Churchill was on the Borden side as well, but who knows how long a woman would stay in her kitchen? If she had a cook, not too much time, but if she is feeding family and boarders herself, maybe she's always in the kitchen!

I visited The Waterhouse house lately to see their "Mourning Exhibition" and on a tour of the house two little marks were shown to me embedded in wooden the floor in front of the stove. I was told that the lady of the house spent so much time in front of the stove that her little footprints had worn away the floor there! (LITTLE footprints is right! Like a size 4 !)

Prelim.
Churchill
Page 282

Q. When you went in, you put these articles down on your kitchen table?
A. A long bench that runs across the south side of the kitchen, directly in front of the window.

Q. As you put them down there, you saw Lizzie through the window?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Standing in the screen door?
A. Inside the screen door.

Q. You say she appeared to be very much distressed?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Rubbing her face?
A. Yes Sir, I think so.

Q. Did she look pale and frightened?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. So much so you opened the window and asked her what was the matter?
A. Yes Sir.
..................

Q. When you went out of the house, did you go immediately?
A. I stepped to the north west door in the front entry and told my mother that I was going over; that something had happened to Mr. Borden.

Q. Then you went immediately out?
A. I went right over.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:43 pm

I got the idea that Mrs. Churchill did not have a maid and that she might have done the cooking herself. When asked who resided in the house she named off only her family members, her hired man, and mentioned the fact that she let out rooms to rent. Unless they were not live- in help?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:10 pm

I keep wishing we had an 1890 census, but alas!
The 1889-91 City Directory online doesn't search out who lives together.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:24 pm

I would think it would have been very difficult to have live out help in those days.... Usually room and board was the main attraction for domestics. Many of them sent their meager wages "home" since they didn't need their income for living expenses.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:59 am

Yes, most of the help in those days was live- in.That seems to have been the norm. The vast majority of domestics were unmarried, young , immigrant females. It is unlikely that there was a maid/cook/butler that was not a live-in at the time, but not entirely impossible they employed some type of help from outside their home. I bookmarked this site while looking for information on victorian Rules of Etiquette, it has information about 19th century domestics also, among many other topics.It's pretty interesting, if anyone has not already had a look at it.

http://www.geocities.com/victorianlace2 ... vants.html

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:37 pm

Thanks Melissa, that was very interesting! "make
yourself as invisible as possible, averting your eyes..." I wonder if Bridget went to those classes?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:17 pm

I thought it was pretty interesting as well, glad you enjoyed it Nancie. It gives a good impression of what it was like to be a domestic in the 19th century.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:21 pm

I found a match to the City Directory of Fall River, 1891:

Name: Thomas Bould
Location 1: 61 Locust
Location 2: house 8 York
Occupation: coachman
Year: 1891
City: Fall River
State: MA

--He is not yet listed as living at Mrs. Churchill's, #90. At least there is an *approved* spelling here of his name!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:38 pm

http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/lizzie/images ... ondst.html

On this link,which I also provided under Fall River and Its Environs,
it shows him listed in the household in this transcription of the 1880 census. But they are not sure how to spell his last name (Bowles(?), Thomas) and he is listed as a boarder.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:07 am

Thanks. That sent me back to the 1880 census. Here is Comfort Buffinton and Adelaide Churchill and Thomas B.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:09 am

From The Knowlton Papers, Glossary A:

"BOULDS, THOMAS 1845 - 1896: born in England. He emigrated to the United States and was residing in Fall River, Massachusetts, by 1889. He remained in that city until the time of his death. A laborer and gardener, he boarded at 90 Second Street, the residence of his employer, Mrs. Adelaide B. Churchill, in 1893. Washing a carriage in the yard of his employer at the time of the Borden murders, he gave testimony pertaining to his actions and observations that morning."

The 1880 census says this Thomas is 21. That would make him born in 1859. The FRHS has his birthdate as 1845. I don't think this is the same Thomas.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:06 am

Here's another reference to Boulds. This is from the Rochester newspaper, The Democrat & Chronicle dated June 15, 1893:

"Dr. Benjamin H. HANDY, Fall River, said: " ... I saw a medium sized young man, very pale in complexion, with his eyes fixed on the sidewalk, passing slowly towards the south; he was acting strangely; in consequence of his appearance I turned in my carriage to watch him as he went by; I have a faint idea that I had seen him before. It was not Thomas BOLLES; he used to work for me; it wasn't he. This man was well dressed in a light suit of clothes. I have tried to find him since, but have been unable to do so; I have never seen him since."

This man's last name is spelled numerous ways making it hard to trace him.

Here's Mrs. Churchill at the Preliminary hearing, p-273:

"Q. Where did you go?
A. I went a little way down Second street on to the west side, to a Sale Stable that was there, and got a young man that I thought I should find there, that works for us, to go and get a Doctor.
Q. What is his name?
A. Thomas Bowles."

If he was born in 1845, he would have been 47, yet Mrs. C. refers to him as a "young man". Addie Churchill was born in 1850 which would have made her 5 years younger than Boulds. That would be odd for Mrs. C. to refer to him that way when he was older than her.

Cunninghan, the newsdealer who phoned the police, refers to a second Tom Bowles (prelim, p216)

"Q. Do you know Tom Bowles?
A. That keeps the meat market?
Q. No, that works up around the Buffington house?
A. No Sir."

It's also interesting that Boulds went to Dr. Chagnon's to see if he could get him. Lucy Collett testified that a man, whose name she didn't know, as coming to the Chagnon residence asking for the doctor.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:30 pm

Yes, it does seem odd that she would refer to him as a young man, when he was indeed older than her if we go by the 1845 birth date. Maybe the Thomas Bowles listed on the 1880 census is closer in age to being that young man Mrs. Churchill was talking about.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:52 am

Actually, Mrs. Churhill's birth year has been changed to 1849. Stef had received proof which convinced her to change the date on the web-site, by a relative or interested party.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... acters.htm
1849, vs. someone born 1859.
43 vs. 33.
If I was 43, I don't know if I would refer to someone 33 as a young man. This is just an aside.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:25 am

It would make more sense for her at the age of 43, to me anyway,
to call someone at the age of 33 a young man, than it would to call someone who is still older than her by 4 years a young man.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:48 pm

Yes, I understand. I don't understand Mrs. Churchill saying that- if I put myself in her place. (As an aside). It almost sounds like she is referring again to someone else.
Maybe the "young man" phrase is a euphemism, where she denotes his staus as below her or a servant, or the man who works for her.
I'm just trying to figure this out, not having any servants myself!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:15 pm

Is it possible there is all this confusion because they are indeed two different people who lived at the Churchill house. Thomas Boulds could be the hired man, and Thomas Bowles ( as it is listed on the census) was a boarder but did not work for Mrs. Churchill? If this is so, then how do we know that they did not get mixed up in the papers and by authors as well?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:31 pm

Kat @ Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:48 pm wrote:Yes, I understand. I don't understand Mrs. Churchill saying that- if I put myself in her place. (As an aside). It almost sounds like she is referring again to someone else.
Maybe the "young man" phrase is a euphemism, where she denotes his staus as below her or a servant, or the man who works for her.
I'm just trying to figure this out, not having any servants myself!

"Garcon" literally means boy...

It is also what most well heeled French people call their all in one man and what you call waiters in a restaurant.....

In England... They tend to use "old boy" and even "Old man" for relatively young poeple, especially when they are in either peer, or inferior positions....

Not many poeple would refer to someone superior to them (in employment, socially, military, etc) as "young man" under any circumstances!

Of course--- In the past a married lady, even one of 16 was immediately elevated to "Maam" and treated differently.