A reason for the 90 minute+ gap between the murders

[Mara]

By law, if Abby had outlived Andrew, even by a short time, her family would have stood to inherit much of the Borden estate. If Lizzie did the murders and did it for money, it would stand to reason she would want to make sure the law would see clearly that Abby had died first. Am I the last kid on my block to realize this?

[Curryong]

Reason for the 90 minutes between the two murders? Totally agree that Lizzie had money in mind when she murdered Abby first. I also feel that she felt a deep-seated rage and loathing against her stepmother, fearing that her father's will might very well be changed in Abby's favour. Uncle John's visit could well have triggered fear of him witnessing such a will before leaving town and intensified her bubbling rage.
By the way, I am new to this fascinating forum though I have lingered here for some time. Hope to join in further discussions about Miss Lizzie in the future. Curryong.

[PossumPie]

By law, if Abby had outlived Andrew, even by a short time, her family would have stood to inherit much of the Borden estate. If Lizzie did the murders and did it for money, it would stand to reason she would want to make sure the law would see clearly that Abby had died first. Am I the last kid on my block to realize this?

LOL, we had a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago. By law, it had to be shown that Abby was dead clearly before Andrew, so that his money would not go to Abby's relatives. even just a few minutes between deaths would have been ambiguous enough to argue that Abby's family should get it. There had to be clear evidence that Abby was dead first. Clotted blood and undigested food was the clear evidence...The question is was Lizzie smart enough to know that? Someone else made a good point, upon Andrew's death the money went to Emma, who CHOSE to give half to Lizzie. Was that taking a risk on Lizzie's part? Maybe.

[Aamartin]

By law, if Abby had outlived Andrew, even by a short time, her family would have stood to inherit much of the Borden estate. If Lizzie did the murders and did it for money, it would stand to reason she would want to make sure the law would see clearly that Abby had died first. Am I the last kid on my block to realize this?

LOL, we had a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago. By law, it had to be shown that Abby was dead clearly before Andrew, so that his money would not go to Abby's relatives. even just a few minutes between deaths would have been ambiguous enough to argue that Abby's family should get it. There had to be clear evidence that Abby was dead first. Clotted blood and undigested food was the clear evidence...The question is was Lizzie smart enough to know that? Someone else made a good point, upon Andrew's death the money went to Emma, who CHOSE to give half to Lizzie. Was that taking a risk on Lizzie's part? Maybe.

Which is why I still contend although she had a plan, she hadn't done the proper research, etc. I think the murders had to happen that day for reasons we will never truly know. Something happened to escalate her plans.

[leitskev]

I don't get the sense that Lizzie was a meticulous planner or in any way shrewd. More the opposite.

It's hard to speculate on what's in someone's head. I can imagine anger building with Lizzie over time. The conversation the night before with Alice, if we can rely on Alice having uncontaminated memory, suggests Lizzie was planning or expecting to do something(or was expecting something to happen). Killing Abby first makes sense regardless of the inheritance laws, since Lizzie wants to isolate people. Once Andrew comes home, it's too late if Abby is still alive. With Bridget outside washing windows, maybe she just figured she had the opportunity.

And maybe she knew both Bridget and Andrew generally took a nap at 11:00.

[Mara]

From what we know of Emma's proprietorship over Lizzie (if only as a stand-in for their biological mother), Lizzie probably assumed that Emma would share, and share generously. It's pretty interesting that after the long separation between the sisters, Emma provided very generously for friends and charities galore, but very pointedly left just a thousand bucks to Lizzie. (Of course Lizzie never even received this, having died days before Emma.) I wonder if Emma ever resented having shared the inheritance -- especially given what she may have learned, ten years or so post facto, about the murders/murderer.

[leitskev]

Lizzie seems to have developed a certain dominance over Emma, maybe. On the tour we see that Lizzie's room is a main bedroom, Emma's just a little room to the side. But the situations had once been reversed, and Lizzie had achieved a switch, I think when she returned from her European trip with a bunch of stuff that required space. Still, could she be sure Emma would split the inheritance, especially if Emma suspected Lizzie of the murders?

[Franz]

...
By the way, I am new to this fascinating forum though I have lingered here for some time. Hope to join in further discussions about Miss Lizzie in the future. Curryong.

Welcome to the forum.

I would like to say that we are here not for discussions about Miss Lizzie, but about the Borden case.

[Mara]

Franz, I have to take issue with you on this. I think we are very much here to discuss both Lizzie and the case. I don't know how you can possibly separate the two, even if you believe Lizzie to have been innocent. Please let's not chase away a new contributor to the Forum who sounds like an intelligent and interesting person.

[Franz]

Franz, I have to take issue with you on this. I think we are very much here to discuss both Lizzie and the case. I on't know how you can possibly separate the two, even if you believe Lizzie to have been innocent. Please let's not chase away a new contributor to the Forum who sounds like an intelligent and interesting person.

Sorry but I think you misunderstood me, Mara. I never separated Lizzie from the Borden case. On the contrary, if one says to be here for discussions about Miss Lizzie, it seems to me that there might be the risk to --- if not serapate Lizzie from the Borden case --- identify Lizzie as the Borden case as the whole. Lizzie is only one part --- the major one. it's true --- of the Borden case: this is what I mean in my previous post.

[Curryong]

I believe you took me a little too literally, Franz. While it is true that on the balance of probabilities I believe Lizzie to be a murderer, that is just my belief. I do find the WHOLE Borden case both mysterious and fascinating. It was just a poor choice of words on my part. And thank you Mara for your kind words.

[Franz]

I believe you took me a little too literally, Franz. While it is true that on the balance of probabilities I believe Lizzie to be a murderer, that is just my belief. I do find the WHOLE Borden case both mysterious and fascinating. It was just a poor choice of words on my part. And thank you Mara for your kind words.

Excuse me if my post offended you, I have no such an intention. Yes, you are right: the whole Borden case is just mysterious and fascinating, it's for this reason that we are here. Me too I am a new member of the forum. Have a good time here!

[PossumPie]

I believe you took me a little too literally, Franz. While it is true that on the balance of probabilities I believe Lizzie to be a murderer, that is just my belief. I do find the WHOLE Borden case both mysterious and fascinating. It was just a poor choice of words on my part. And thank you Mara for your kind words.

Excuse me if my post offended you, I have no such an intention. Yes, you are right: the whole Borden case is just mysterious and fascinating, it's for this reason that we are here. Me too I am a new member of the forum. Have a good time here!

Franz is a very polite and gentle member, English is his second language and sometimes things get misinterpreted, and he was misunderstood. Having said that, I also totally disagree with his wild theory that Uncle Morse paid two men to kill the Borden's for some totally unknown reason!

[PossumPie]

Lizzie seems to have developed a certain dominance over Emma, maybe. On the tour we see that Lizzie's room is a main bedroom, Emma's just a little room to the side. But the situations had once been reversed, and Lizzie had achieved a switch, I think when she returned from her European trip with a bunch of stuff that required space. Still, could she be sure Emma would split the inheritance, especially if Emma suspected Lizzie of the murders?

In another thread, Leitskev you imply that they had a large home with all the modern conveniences, Thus cutting into the "Lizzie did it for money" theory.
But I agree with what you say in this post more...She returned from Europe, having seen the luxury, and rich and famous, back to her tiny room and was discontent. After she was acquitted, the first thing she did was sell the old house, and buy a luxurious mansion in a better part of town, carve a poem into the mantle, NAME the place like it was a millionaire's home, and carve the name into the front walk. She sure was wallowing in opulence then! A much different mindset than being content peeing in a bucket and not having a phone or bathroom inside.

[Curryong]

Thank you Franz for your welcome, and you didn't offend me at all!

[Franz]

Lizzie seems to have developed a certain dominance over Emma, maybe. On the tour we see that Lizzie's room is a main bedroom, Emma's just a little room to the side. But the situations had once been reversed, and Lizzie had achieved a switch, I think when she returned from her European trip with a bunch of stuff that required space. Still, could she be sure Emma would split the inheritance, especially if Emma suspected Lizzie of the murders?

In another thread, Leitskev you imply that they had a large home with all the modern conveniences, Thus cutting into the "Lizzie did it for money" theory.
But I agree with what you say in this post more...She returned from Europe, having seen the luxury, and rich and famous, back to her tiny room and was discontent. After she was acquitted, the first thing she did was sell the old house, and buy a luxurious mansion in a better part of town, carve a poem into the mantle, NAME the place like it was a millionaire's home, and carve the name into the front walk. She sure was wallowing in opulence then! A much different mindset than being content peeing in a bucket and not having a phone or bathroom inside.

Is it possible that after Lizzie was acquitted, the two sisters decided toghther to live no more in the old house where their parents had been so barbarically murdered? Today the Borden case amateurs are all eager to visit the house, to pass the night there, sleep especially in the guest room, or even lying at the very place where Abby's body was found. But the things could have been very different for the Borden sisters: to continue to live there, to pass before that sofa in the living room or pass by the guest room... all this could be a nightmare for them.

Emma could have not made this decision alone when the destiny of her younger sister was still uncertain. And I find nothing of wrong if they bought themselves a big house, in a more nobile zone, with more modern commodities: they could offer themselves all this luxury, so why not?

[leitskev]

They lived well. There is a longstanding meme out there that they did not, that they lived with a cheap old man who didn't care. The meme has been disproved. Check with the Fall River Historical Society for a more authoritative source.

They did not live as well as Lizzie would have liked. Not unusual, really. Andrew was old school, rose from poverty to wealth. No doubt he developed frugal habits. The Bordens bought only the most expensive of meats and foods...but they wasted none, getting every once out of the meat to the point of possibly getting food poisoning. The house was well stocked with fine furniture...but it did not have modern conveniences. The kinds of things that and old timer would see as new and unnecessary. It took me years to get my parents to get the internet! And they could afford it.

I posed this in another thread, let me also pose it here(more succinctly): what if there really was an intruder, a stranger that sneaked in and killed the Bordens? And Lizzie was completely innocent. Wouldn't she still build the house she thought was appropriate for a Borden?

Isn't it rather normal for people who inherit wealth to spend it in the way that they think is appropriate? Andrew probably wanted to live on the bottom of the hill to be near his business interests. Lizzie didn't care about that stuff.

[PossumPie]

True... my parents had money enough to buy central air but were old school so they didn't. That did NOT make me content- it frustrated the heck out of me. The Meme/urban legend is over-blown that he was a miser, BUT Lizzie was discontent. Doesn't make her the killer, but she could have also lost the chance at the equivalent of Ten Million if dad died and Abby didn't. Was Lizzie willing to take that gamble? I don't know. Every witness that discusses Lizzie's relationship with the rest of the family made a point to say she didn't eat with them, talk to them much, and with regard to Mrs. Borden, Lizzie was sometimes outright mean to her. This doesn't sound content.

[NancyDrew]

Old school or not, Andrew Borden was one of the wealthiest men in Fall River, and he could have afforded many luxuries that really weren't luxuries, but would have made life much more humane for women. You try having your period without running water or a shower or flush toilet. He made them eat leftovers for days on end, he threw his slop bucket all over the back yard. Sorry, I think he sounds perfectly horrid. His poor wife was vomiting (alongside him) violently for 2 days, and he wouldn't even let a doctor, who was a neighbor, check her out--he ordered him out because he was too cheap to pay for a house call. I don't call that living 'fine.' I call that bondage.

Yes, he made it the old fashioned American way--from the ground up---and then he should have shared that success with those that were closest to whom. He DiDN'T. Why didn't the girls have suitors? Could it have possibly been because their living situation embarrassed them to much to receive male callers?

Who gives a fig about fine furniture? They needed space,and room to breathe, and some of the things that the new emerging technologies could have provided. There was no reason for Andrew NOT to do this except plain pig-headedness. He had a reputation for being a ruthless and cut throat businessman. I think I read Lizzie's allowance was $15 a week. That seems a bit paltry considering the hundreds of thousands he had racked up. What was he saving all his money for? Lizzie and Emma weren't going to marry; and Emma was well beyong child bearing age...or getting there fast.

I don't agree that they lived well. I've BEEN in that house. It is tiny. I can't imagine 5 people living there comfortably.

[Mara]

I'm with you, NancyDrew. I've been trying to imagine what it must have been like to take care of personal hygiene in a coal cellar. "Throwing slops in the yard" alone is nauseating, especially when you consider it was also apparently commonplace to pick pears up off the ground not far distant, for eating on the spot.

Spinning off that topic, given that the cellar privy was indeed close to the house coal and wood supplies, I imagine it was a chore to keep one's petticoats from becoming soiled during visits down there. Perhaps all the Borden ladies had developed a method, refined to second-nature status, of bundling them up -- perhaps even covering them up somehow -- when headed "down cellar." Such a skill might have served one of them especially well on the day of the murders.

[leitskev]

Mara and Nancy, you are looking at this from our perspective, not from that of their time. How many houses had showers back then? People had lived that way for centuries. The first flush toilets were just coming into invention in the 1880s, and were leaky.

The doctor came to visit Andrew. Abby went to see him at his house.

I'm really not sure why I am arguing this post. Don't take my word, I'm just some jack a$$ in a forum. Check with the Fall River Historical Society.

This stuff is nauseating to you...because it's 2014! You grew up with hot showers, air conditioning, disposable tampons, toilet paper, flushing toilets, television, and so on. You have to try to put yourself in their world.

That house was no smaller than the houses surrounding it, several of which were owned by doctors.

What did $15 dollars a week buy in 1892? And they had a substantial amount of money in the bank, also.

But this story tells you what you need to know: a few years before, when Abby's sister was in jeopardy of losing their home, Andrew bought it for them! For his sister in law! That's a very generous act.

To say the Borden girls lived in virtual bondage...well, people need to make an effort to understand the culture and circumstances of the time.

[PossumPie]

Mara and Nancy, you are looking at this from our perspective, not from that of their time. How many houses had showers back then? People had lived that way for centuries. The first flush toilets were just coming into invention in the 1880s, and were leaky.

The doctor came to visit Andrew. Abby went to see him at his house.

I'm really not sure why I am arguing this post. Don't take my word, I'm just some jack a$$ in a forum. Check with the Fall River Historical Society.

This stuff is nauseating to you...because it's 2014! You grew up with hot showers, air conditioning, disposable tampons, toilet paper, flushing toilets, television, and so on. You have to try to put yourself in their world.

That house was no smaller than the houses surrounding it, several of which were owned by doctors.

What did $15 dollars a week buy in 1892? And they had a substantial amount of money in the bank, also.

But this story tells you what you need to know: a few years before, when Abby's sister was in jeopardy of losing their home, Andrew bought it for them! For his sister in law! That's a very generous act.

To say the Borden girls lived in virtual bondage...well, people need to make an effort to understand the culture and circumstances of the time.

Even the 'culture of the time' back then had a dichotomy. The poor and even middle class didn't have the luxuries we have today, BUT the wealthy had them. They had indoor plumbing in 1876 in the wealthy homes. Electric lights were rare, but available to the rich. Phones were in the "better homes" The question is not how common these were back then, but did Lizzie want to BE common...

[Mara]

Leitskev, I grant you (speaking only for myself) that a little perspective can be a dangerous thing. When the perspective is a hundred-plus years long, distortion will certainly occur.

That said, however, I want to tell you that I am a serious student of Victoriana and women's history. The two subjects collide in particularly dramatic fashion in the US. Without getting into the particulars of why I feel Lizzie might well have deeply resented the want of conveniences for ordinary hygiene in the Borden home -- conveniences which were becoming commonplace in newly constructed houses of the time, and that she'd have been exposed to in magazine ads if nothing else -- I though I would add a few tidbits to our communal knowledge of menstrual care in Lizzie's day.

First, I offer for your edification (and amusement -- it's a delightful site), the following source for this subject: http://www.mum.org. Now the tidbits, for those who don't want to wade through the museum. Some people have posted here with references to "rags" that women would pin to their bloomers during their periods. Not necessarily so. Some women wore cloth straps around their waists, next to the skin, with tabs fore and aft to which absorbent fabric folded into a pad could be affixed with pins or even buttons. After use, these cloths would be unfolded and placed in a bucket of soapy water to let until it was convenient to wash (maybe even boil) and dry them. Fall River being a mill town, it might have been cheap enough to just throw away used cloths, maybe muslin or flannel, and use fresh the next time. I imagine Lizzie might have done that. In any case, they may have been referred to as "rags," but they were not the sort of torn up, relatively small, thin and rough cloths used for household chores in the days before Handi-Wipes. If what police saw in that bloody bucket were truly menstrual cloths, I doubt they'd have described them as "rags." A woman would know the difference if the police didn't. And by the way, 19th century women did indeed use tampons, in the form of small natural sponges with strings attached for easy retrieval and a quick rinse in a pan of water. It is said that women once soaked them in a vinegar solution before insertion as a form of birth control.

Edited to add: I was just checking the site I mentioned and was reminded, in a paper written by the museum's archivist, that women in the 19th century actually menstruated less than women today. They started menstruating later in those days and stopped sooner. If they were having children, this would also affect their menses. She didn't say so in the paper, but I imagine tight corsetry and other cultural influences could have made a difference, too -- as would illnesses such as the "summer complaint" the Bordens seemed prone to by virtue of their reliance on leftovers. It's also true that stress and anxiety can put a woman off schedule. Okay, I'll shut up now :)

[Curryong]

I was born and brought up in England and a term older women used for that time of the month was 'on the rags'. It was obviously a saying from an earlier time and I'm just wondering whether the saying crossed the Atlantic in the 19th century with English migrants, and entered colloquial language that way, (referring to the cloths used.) I too love history and used to lecture on Victorian England here in Australia.

[Mara]

I've heard "on the rag" too, Curryong. It's considered vulgar; in my experience, it's only used in a particularly disparaging way, as dark humor. Of course, its provenance must be the use of cloth no longer fit for more elegant use. But I think by the 1890s women of some means and taught from childhood on that "cleanliness is next to godliness" would use something nicer than the nasty scraps we think of today when we speak of rags. Even the Sears catalog had nice belts and ready-made washable pads. But you know? I'm never sure about what I'm sure about anymore. It's always a good idea to back to school a bit.

Speaking of which, I'll bet your lectures would find eager ears here. :)

[NancyDrew]

Mara, thank you so much for your thoughts. I appreciate them, especially in light of your studies.

It doesn't matter what WE think of Lizzie's living situation, but what SHE thought...as Possum Pie pointed out...did SHE want to be 'common.' Just the night before the killings she was telling Alice Russell how rude her father was to everyone and how many enemies he had made. That trip to Europe surely made her see how much her life didn't resemble those of her debutante friends who went along. She was supposedly miserable, even though she brought back many items that would give her lifelong memories.

Her only close friends were women a bit older than she, and she had a hard time socializing. Even the Sunday school class she taught, which was very small, got out of hand (the Chinese students) and she had to step down. Lizzie was a mess, in my opinion. A miserable, seething mess. How unpleasant it must have been to live in a house with a woman that you had only known as your mother, but to whom you referred by the ultra-formal "Mrs. Borden"..."because I did not feel like calling her mother." (from the inquest).

We have strayed far afield of the original topic of this thread...my bad!

[Aamartin]

I've heard "on the rag" too, Curryong. It's considered vulgar; in my experience, it's only used in a particularly disparaging way, as dark humor. Of course, its provenance must be the use of cloth no longer fit for more elegant use. But I think by the 1890s women of some means and taught from childhood on that "cleanliness is next to godliness" would use something nicer than the nasty scraps we think of today when we speak of rags. Even the Sears catalog had nice belts and ready-made washable pads. But you know? I'm never sure about what I'm sure about anymore. It's always a good idea to back to school a bit.

Speaking of which, I'll bet your lectures would find eager ears here. :)

I worked with a woman who would boldly announce 'I've got my rag ' no one in the office was very fond of her.

[FactFinder]

The menstrual belt apparatuses, along with buttons on either end, were used up into the twentieth century. My grandmother clearly remembers using something like them. The term "being on the rag" is a vulgar term used for being on one's period and has been around for quite some time. Even in Victorian times. Victorians had a language of slang all their own as well. Words many people today have never heard. It arises from when women did literally use rags as menstrual napkins. I've read many books from the nineteenth century that have some really odd ideas about menstruation. One such book stated (this is kind of disgusting I apologize ) that a woman with a scanty menstrual flow should drink the menstrual blood of another with a healthy flow to encourage her own flow. This advice can be found in old medical journals, one of them being the Boston Medical Journal of 1898 no less. They might have not worn menstrual "rags", but their medical knowledge and advice was still something that we today would find left wanting.

[Curryong]

For me, the lack in the Borden home of a proper flush toilet, instead just basically a hole, would be the worst element, along with no hot water service. No washing of hands afterwards in hot soapy water either. Very hygienic! Imagine having to go down to the cellar on dark evenings as well, by the light of a flickering oil lamp or sole candle.
Here in Australia, especially in rural areas, outdoor toilets were often the norm until the 1950's. A trip to the 'dunny' as it was known, had its own hazards as apparently red back spiders would often lurk there! No electricity in these garden facilities either. The waste was taken care of once a week by the visiting 'night soil' man.
As far as the Bordens are concerned, however, although of course, many 19th century homes did not have hot running water or flush toilets, my guess is the lack of such facilities were becoming a rarity in middle class urban homes in America by the late 19th century. It's not as if flush toilets were a cutting edge invention by that time. There's a wonderful book called 'Behind the Scenes' which discusses water, lighting and heating throughout the ages in domestic homes and contains an advertisement for a 'twin-basin' water closet, with built-in security against 'sewer gas,' patented in 1889!

[dalcanton]

Mara said, "After use, these cloths would be unfolded and placed in a bucket of soapy water to let until it was convenient to wash (maybe even boil) and dry them. Fall River being a mill town, it might have been cheap enough to just throw away used cloths, maybe muslin or flannel, and use fresh the next time."

Dear Lord - I just can't imagine reusing these cloths no matter how much they were boiled or cleaned. Just the thought of having to clean them is gross.

[FactFinder]

Now imagine that you are the maid that has to clean the soiled napkins of the household members. By hand in a large tub with no washing machine, after heating up the water to do so. I cannot imagine having the job of either a domestic at the time or a housewife who did it all without a maid. They were both equally hard. Many think Bridget could have started to resent her employers which lead her to kill them. Possible. But she was hired as a maid to do the job of a maid. She worked as a domestic the entire time after she arrived in the United States. None of her other employers ended up dead. And she had comparatively little work to do in her job. She did light cleaning downstairs only, the laundry, and cooked the meals. This job Bridget was paid to do versus the house wife who had care of the entire home, and the children, without being paid for it would lead one to wonder why more house wives didn't go off the deep end. Sorry if I went off topic. My mind tends to go off topic sometimes.

[PossumPie]

Getting back to "contentment"
As others have said, "contentment" with your place in life is relative. I know people worth over a million dollars who are not content with their standard of living. Friends of ours are bordering on poverty level, but are very happy with what they have. An American family that makes $100,000/year is in the top 1/2 percent of wealthiest families in the world. WOW, that puts things in perspective. Especially since that is middle class by American standards. People in the USA have more than most in the world, and yet we are never content. Lizzie bought a huge house with many amenities after she inherited the money. Someone said "Anyone would do that" but that is not true. I have close relatives who are wealthy enough to buy a Mercedes Benz but drive a Toyota. I know many people who live very simple lives without spending lavishly, who are worth upwards of a million. The key is how CONTENT Lizzie was with what she had. The answer is not very. I would be less suspicious of her if she moved to a small modest home big enough for her and Emma, after all, it went from 4 in the family to 2. In fact, a tactful person would not have flaunted that inheritance considering how she got it, but not Lizzie, screw what people think, she bought an opulent home on the hill.

[FactFinder]

I agree that Lizzie seems to have not been very content with her life style. Though I also agree they lived far better than many people below the hill in Fall River. She did not have to work and was provided for by her father. But I don't think Lizzie believed their life style was befitting her status as a Borden. It was Alice Russell who testified that the Borden sisters,Lizzie especially, wanted to be able to "go and do and see" but could not because of limited means. They could not because they lived off of Andrew and his wealth. He dictated where they could go, what they could do, and see to some extent. I think Lizzie got a taste of what life could be like on her trip to Europe. I think she started to brood over this as soon as the trip home. There is some testimony from her travel mates that amounted to Lizzie wishing she did not have to return home from the trip. Emma chose to live a quiet life and died almost in obscurity after the murders. Very few people in the town in New Hampshire where Emma lived at the time she died were even aware of who she was. She did not spend the money lavishly. She did not own her own home or a fine car. I think her trip to Scotland was the most lavish expense that we know of coming from Emma after the murders. She lived her life pretty much in the same manner she had before the murders occurred. I think this desire to live a quiet life is what ultimately drove Emma to part ways with Lizzie.

[Curryong]

Not that much is known about Abby is there? Perhaps there isn't that much to know! However, I do find it a bit odd that, as a kindly employer (and we know that Bridget liked Mrs Borden, who by the standards of the times didn't overwork her) Abby would send her servant out on a very hot day to wash all the windows. Did she know about Bridget's nausea, I wonder?
I know Abby was non-confrontational, but is it possible that she sent Bridget outside in order to clear the air with Lizzie while other family members were not around? To inform Lizzie of some decision about the Swansea property perhaps, to appeal to her stepdaughter's better feelings, to talk about the 'poisonings'. That wouldn't preclude her performing tasks in the guest room, and of course she would never guess that she could be physically attacked. After all, the atmosphere in the Borden home was getting extraordinarily toxic and Andrew shortly before had spoken of 'trouble at home'. Perhaps Abby didn't want the possible sound of raised voices wafting downstairs? Instead, of course, something far worse occurred!






to wash all the windows