Exploring the David Anthony/Ruby Cameron theory

[Catbooks]

i'm willing to give it a go. just found this old post of kat's:

by Kat » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:48 am

Rebello, pg. 62+

"Yacht Mabel F. Swift of Fall River is now at Marion [Massachusetts]. Her owner, Charles W.
Anthony, is cruising with a party of friends, including Hon. Simeon Borden, Hon. James F. Jackson and Messrs.. Holder W. Durfee, William Winslow and R. W. Bassett."

"The following ladies from Fall River are stopping at Blake's Point: Mrs. James [Frederick] Jackson, Misses Edith Jackson, Jennie Stowell, Anna [Covell] Holmes, Mary [Louisa] Holmes, Mabel H. Remington, Louise O. Remington, Alice [Lydia] Buck, Isabelle [Isabel] J. Fraser, Louise [Holmes] Handy, Elizabeth [Murray] Johnston, Annie [Childs] Bush and Lizzie [Andrew] Borden." New Bedford Evening Standard, July 26, 1892: 4.

"Sloop yacht Mabel F. Swift was at Marion, Monday, where the following ladies from Fall River are stopping at Blake's Point: Mrs. James F. Jackson, Misses Edith Jackson, Jennie Stowell, Anna C. Holmes, Mary L. Holmes, Mabel H. Remington, Louise O. Remington, Alice Buck, Isabelle Fraser,
Louise H. Handy, Elizabeth Johnston, Annie C. Bush, and Lizzie A. Borden." Fall River Evening News, July 27, 1892: 8.

--Charles Anthony was David Anthony's uncle.
I have included a bit more info on this craft in The Hatchet, May/June 2006, pages 29 and 30: "Jay Gould's Yacht."
BTW: Ruby's middle name is spelled "Frances."

so 8 days before the murders, lizzie was on david's uncle's yacht, and marion was where she was planning to go on a fishing trip sometime shortly after the murders.

it ain't no smoking gun, but it's interesting.

[Catbooks]

one thing this (or a killer other than lizzie, but someone known to her) would explain is lizzie's strange 'bridget come down! someone’s killed father!'

it's such an odd thing to say if she'd truly just gone out to the barn, leaving her father resting on the sofa, then returned and found him hacked to bits. but if david did it, it makes sense she'd mention someone killed him, without really thinking about it. she'd be covering for him with the anonymous 'someone.'

she said the same to mrs. churchill - 'oh, mrs. churchill, do come over. someone has killed father.'

again, it's odd if she's innocent, or doesn't know the person who killed him. 'oh, mrs. churchill, do come over. father's dead' would make more sense.

i'm trying to figure out how this might have gone down, and it's not easy. need to find gramma's early posts to see what exactly ruby cameron said lizzie said on that. will post that here when i find it.

meantime, the idea of david coming over to the borden's that morning, getting so enraged (by something abby said? andrew was gone) and then going somewhere on the borden property, grabbing a hatchet, running back upstairs after abby, sneaking up on and cornering her, then waiting for andrew to come home and doing it again, wow. that's a real stretch, unless ruby somehow describes it in a way that makes sense. david would have to have been pretty intimate with the borden's house to know where to go to find a hatchet.

anyway, it would also explain emma, bridget, and john morse's weird testimony and behavior.

i'd like to re-read lizzie's inquest testimony, considering the theory of david doing the killing, to see if it sheds any light or rings true in any way.

[Curryong]

Yes, Catbooks, same here, off to do some studying. The Anthonys were a socially prominent family, and Lizzie must have been in heaven at Blake's Point in former times with her friends from 'the Hill', though wasn't this the very short visit when she felt restless and unhappy and didn't feel like joking or talking?

The sloop owned by David's uncle had a group of Charles's male friends on board. I don't think it said the ladies from Blake's Point were sailing on the sloop were they, though the men may have met them when they went ashore?

This was such a short visit by Lizzie, she may not have been there then. I am sure the Anthony family were known to Lizzie, not in the sense of being close friends, but more 'bowing' acquaintances. Perhaps Charles and David went to the same dances Lizzie attended.

When Lizzie called out to Bridget and Mrs Churchill she probably said the first thing that came into her head, perhaps subconsciously setting the scene for 'horrible murder.' (Although I suppose when you have a parent lying in the sitting room with hatchet wounds to his head it could hardly be anything else, could it?) What she said could be taken a variety of ways, I suppose. To me, blurting out those contradictory remarks including being in the yard and hearing a 'scraping noise', are worse because she never repeated them again. You can almost feel her struggling to get her story straight sometimes.

[debbiediablo]

one thing this (or a killer other than lizzie, but someone known to her) would explain is lizzie's strange 'bridget come down! someone’s killed father!'

it's such an odd thing to say if she'd truly just gone out to the barn, leaving her father resting on the sofa, then returned and found him hacked to bits. but if david did it, it makes sense she'd mention someone killed him, without really thinking about it. she'd be covering for him with the anonymous 'someone.'

she said the same to mrs. churchill - 'oh, mrs. churchill, do come over. someone has killed father.'

again, it's odd if she's innocent, or doesn't know the person who killed him. 'oh, mrs. churchill, do come over. father's dead' would make more sense.

First, thank you Curryong for starting this thread. I've been out driving in this God-awful Iowa winter all day so this is my first glimpse. The best any of us can do is look at this with 'unknowing' and objective curiosity. The world is full of strange happenings, many far stranger than the David Anthony theory.

So we have established that the Anthony and Borden families were acquainted...or more. I'm somewhat amazed that even this much could be found!! Thank you!

And yes, Catbooks, earlier I commented on Lizzie's odd phrasing but not in context with David Anthony...simply that it was odd. Most of the time 911 calls involve the victim first: "My wife is dead!" Or, "My baby isn't breathing!" rather than, "Bridget come down. Someone's killed father." I thought then that she knew who the killer was (herself) but it could also point toward someone else she was protecting.

Here is interesting research on eye witness testimony. I didn't edit because even the parts that aren't applicable to the 1890's can be extrapolated to some degree for the times we live in:

Errors in Eyewitness Identification Procedures

Marc Green

Abstract

Eyewitness testimony may be questioned on three scientific grounds. First, visibility conditions may be poor - low light, poor weather, etc. Second, many research studies report that even under good visibility, humans are poor at facial identification. Third, the procedures used to obtain the identification may be biased. This article addresses the requirements of a proper and unbiased eyewitness identification procedure rather than the ability of individuals to perform face recognition.

Introduction

Jurors treat eyewitness identification as compelling evidence in both civil and criminal trials. The strength of eyewitness testimony is demonstrated by a study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) that recorded verdicts in a mock trial. Two separate sets of the jurors heard evidence differing only by the presence or absence of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, only 18% of jurors gave guilty verdicts. Addition of an eyewitness identification increased the proportion of guilty verdicts to 72%. Moreover, even when the identification was impeached, the guilty rate was still 68%. Several other studies have similarly found that juries tend to base their decision on a confident eyewitness identification even when other factors (such as poor visibility or bias) question its validity.

Although jurors rely heavily on eyewitness identification, there is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness identification is highly fallible and that eyewitness confidence is a poor guide to accuracy. Here are just a few examples:

A recent study (Wells, et al, 1998) examined the first 40 cases where DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. In 90% of the cases, mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role. In one case, 5 separate witnesses identified the defendant.

Huff (1987) studied 500 wrongful convictions and concluded that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60%. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1981).

Cutler and Penrod (1995) examined eyewitness identification accuracy from controlled studies performed in "natural settings." In the typical study, a person enters a convenience store and performs some memorable action (such as paying in pennies) to ensure drawing the clerk's attention. Later the clerk views a photospread and identifies the "customer." The percentage of correct identification ranged from 34-48% and the percentage of false identification is 34-38%. It is hard to know how far to generalize such studies, but they suggest that eyewitnesses are almost as likely to wrong as to be correct when identifying strangers. Moreover, these results occurred until highly favorable circumstances: extended duration, good lighting, clear visibility, and no "weapons focus."

Why is mistaken identity so common? One reason is poor encoding at time of initial perception. This could be due to poor visibility (bad lighting, brief duration, long distance, etc.) or to the tricks played by human perception. A second reason is faulty memory. Memory has several quirks which affect reliability, including 1) low resolution (a remembered face is not as clear as one actually viewed), 2) the tendency for memories to be constructed so that missing information is supplied from expectations/biases or from an external source (TV, newspaper, other witnesses, the police, etc.) or from other memories and 3) systematic perceptual distortions in memory (small sizes grow and large sizes shrink, colors are remembered as brighter, etc.)

A third reason for error lies in the procedures used during photo-identifications and lineups. Below, I briefly review the mistakes commonly found in identification procedures.

Error Sources in Lineups and Photo-identifications

From a scientific viewpoint, valid finding of fact requires that the outcome is not contaminated by confounding variables (those other than the ones whose effects are explicitly being measured) or biased toward desired results. Moreover, each observation should be independent and unrelated to any other. Photospreads and lineups generally fail to meet these criteria because they offer many opportunities for a biased result.

1. The witness is often not told explicitly that the culprit's1 picture might not be among the alternatives.

Eyewitness research has repeatedly found that identification is a relative, not an absolute judgment. That is, the witness does not simply compare each picture to memory, making a series of independent yes-no decisions. Instead, the eyewitness looks at all the pictures and then picks the one most likely to be the culprit.

There are several consequences of this decision strategy. One is that the witness is highly likely to make a "false alarm," pick a picture even if the criminal is not in the array, even when unsure. First, an eyewitness probably starts with the assumption that the culprit must be among the alternatives. Why else would the police bother with the photospread/lineup? Then, likelihood of false identification increases when the police put pressure on the witness to make an identification. Moreover, anything which causes a witness to expect that the culprit is present in the array (e. g., police say "we think we have our man") will increase false alarm rate.

Many studies show that explicitly telling the witness that the culprit may not be in the array greatly reduces false identifications while have little effect on correct ones. The result is much higher overall accuracy. Therefore, the identification examiner should always inform the eyewitness that the culprit might not be present. In fact, the person calling the eyewitness to setup the lineup/photo-identification should also say that the culprit might not be present.

2. The "distractors" are poorly chosen.

Since the eyewitness chooses the "best picture" relative to the others, it is important that the suspect not stand out from the "distractors" (other photos or people) due to different height, weight, coloring, clothes, behavior, etc. In photospreads, there are numerous ways that one picture can be subtly different: lighting, color tone, brightness, sharpness, viewing angle, background, location of face in the frame, etc.

People who constructed the identification procedure will likely say that the distractors were similar to the suspect, but they seldom present any objective evidence to support their assertion. The only real way to be sure is to test "naïve observers," people not present at the crime with the same alternatives. In a photospread, for example, naïve observers would view the same pictures and then make a choice. In a fair test, they should pick pictures at random, since they cannot use memory to select. However, if there is something innately suggestive or distinctive about a suspect's picture, it may be chosen at a rate above chance. Such a result would seriously question the photospread's validity. Attorneys who have any doubts about the fairness of distractors in a photospread (and this is hard to know a priori because even subtle differences can be critical), should have an experimental psychologist design and conduct an unbiased test.

It would be more difficult to retest a lineup, since the distractors (people this time) may not be available or wearing the same clothes. In addition, there is no guarantee that they will behave the same way as during the identification. It should be remembered, however, that a lineup following a photo-identification is not an independent event. If someone identifies a suspect in the photospread, the witness will almost certainly identify the same person in the lineup - for consistency's sake. Who would want to appear a fool by picking a different person from photo and from a live group? Moreover, the lineup would be, at best, not a comparison of people vs. memory but rather of people vs previously seen photographs (and previous composite or identi-kit sketches if there were any). In fact, eyewitnesses have strong tendency to stay with initial identifications even when they are later proved incorrect (e. g., Brigham and Cairns, 1990). Therefore calling a photo-identification into question automatically raises doubts about any subsequent lineup.

3. The person conducting the photospread/lineup knew who the suspect was.

There are two reasons that neither the person conducting the lineup/photo-identification nor anyone else in the room know who the suspect is. First, there is a possibility that he/she will intentionally or unintentionally signal this expectation. The signal need not be blatant ("look at no. 3's picture again!") as even subtle changes in body posture can be enough to tip off the witness. For example, a slight lean forward while the eyewitness views a picture can be enough to draw a big red circle around it.

The tendency to signal expectations is so pervasive that drug and other important scientific studies are rejected without a "double blind" procedure, one where neither the subject nor the experimenter knows the expected outcome. Similarly, courts now generally require that surveys conducted to support litigation in intellectual property cases be performed by questioners who have no knowledge of the desired outcome or even of the issues in dispute. It is ironic that criminal courts, where there can be much more at stake, freely permit introduction of such potentially biased evidence as identifications conducted without double blind procedures.

There is a corollary to the necessity of double blind procedures: the witness must be told that the examiner has no idea who the suspect is. Otherwise, the eyewitness might look for a sign of confirmation, real or imagined. Some personality types constantly seek approval from authority figures, such as the police. They are likely to seek affirmation in feedback from the examiner.

Second, the examiner can easily influence witness confidence after the choice. If the examiner says "good" or "um hmm," after the choice, the eyewitness will feel more confident and likely later express a stronger belief in his/her accuracy. This can be crucial because juries look at not just the identification, but also at the witness's certainty. In fact, one study found that witness confidence is about the only aspect of an identification that jurors consider (Cutler, et al, 1990). This is probably one of the reasons the correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy is low (Bothwell, et. al, 1987)

Conclusion

Although eyewitness identification is highly fallible, it still carries great weight with jurors. There are some situations where identification is more likely accurate. For example, if the suspect is someone previously known to the victim, then high accuracy is more probable. When it comes to strangers, however, identifications are frequently in error. Lastly, eyewitness confidence provides only modest assurance that the identification is correct.

Above, I have briefly discussed sources of eyewitness error, focusing on procedures in photo-identifications and lineups. Since the law does not require that suspects be represented at the time of a lineup or photo-identification, an attorney who takes a case afterward (or even before) the identification procedure can have no compelling method for evaluating fairness. The best chance of challenging the identification may be scientific evidence obtained by testing the photospread with naïve observers.

Notes

1The term "culprit" refers to the person who actually committed the crime. "Suspect" refers to the person whom the police believe committed the crime. They may or may not be the same person.

References

Bothwell, R. R., Deffenbacher, K. and Brigham, J. (1987) Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.

Brigham, J. and Cairns, D. (1990) The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1394-1410.

Cutler, B. and Penrod, S. (1995) Mistaken Identity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.

Cutler, B., Penrod, S., and Dexter, H. (1990) Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.

Huff, C. (1987) Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 99-115.

Loftus, E. and Doyle, J. (1992) Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. The Michie Company: Charlottesville.

Loh, W. D. (1981) Psycholegal research: Past and present. Michigan Law Review, 79, 659-707

Wells, G., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R., Fulero, SD., and Brimacombe, C. (1998) Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.

[Curryong]

debbie, please forgive me for not making reference to your long post on eyewitness testimony. Apart from the generalisation that I know that eye-witness testimony is often worthless I don't have anything to contribute, as I'm not scientifically trained.
However, on another subject, which I was thinking about this afternoon. Does anyone know why Andrew would object so strongly to David as a suitor? Of course, if he was presented with evidence that Lizzie was pregnant, that might be a different matter, but I've been into the archives a bit (thank you Mara!) and everything I've read about David Anthony doesn't present a picture of a young man any father would find unacceptable.

Kind, shy, rather quiet, a member of a good family, probably went to Church regularly, independently wealthy, apparently. He sailed, enjoyed music, what is there not to like? Of course, there is a large age difference, but, all things considered, he seems admirable. Lizzie was 32, entering spinster territory, no better offer in view. You would think Andrew would be doing cartwheels of joy!

[Catbooks]

okay, i've now read almost all of gramma's posts. it is interesting. i wish we had access to the newspaper articles she's talking about. frustrating that any of the photos/attachments posted on the old forums are gone so i can't see what they're talking about, but am so glad we still have the threads themselves archived.

curryong, from what i read (although not clear in that snippet i quoted), it appears lizzie was on david's uncle's yacht, along with those other women. not 100% positive, but that's what it's looking like.

a point i haven't been able to figure out. how did word get to the anthonys that david had killed the bordens and needed help? the anthonys lived on north main street. not sure how far from the bordens. ruby's parents, a young couple, soon to be wed, worked for the anthonys, and according to ruby and gramma, were the ones who helped clean up the crime scenes (along with bridget), and took david away in a meat wagon. they hid him at their house for a while until things cooled down.

according to gramma, lizzie told ruby about this because in conversation during the week ruby nursed lizzie, ruby told lizzie that her parents worked for the anthonys, and doubtless lizzie figured out who they were. so lizzie wouldn't be telling a perfect stranger, not at all involved in any of this, someone she'd only known for a week, all that she's supposed to have told ruby.

ruby's mother was very upset that ruby was nursing lizzie, so ruby left. (one puzzling thing is why, then, did ruby's mother allow 8-year-old ruby to ride on the back of david's motorcycle when he went to visit lizzie? maybe she didn't know.) lizzie died about a week later.

one interesting thing is david lived in new bedford, and that's where lizzie stayed those 3 days, getting a hotel room and doing a bit of shopping. although, i have to verify that's where david was living at that time, and not on north main street with his family.

from what i read, andrew thought david was too wild, perhaps even crazy. also it would definitely be talked about if lizzie, a spinster at 32, suddenly married a young man 10 years younger than she. it would have been a scandal. although not nearly as much as what actually happened! even 20 years ago it would raise eyebrows, 50 years ago more so. in victorian new england it just Wasn't Done, especially not by a borden and the daughter of the man who sat on the boards of several banks.

if too she were pregnant, that would have been even more of a scandal. even if he married her right then, people would know. they could have claimed the baby was early, as many did, but people would know, and talk. that would have been anathema to conservative andrew.

i can see all of this being covered up by jennings & co, the mchenry story squelched. the bordens had money and power. other bordens with money and power wouldn't want the family name dragged into the mud, so i could see them joining in to help, even if they despised lizzie, and even andrew. even after the trial, there was a lot of closed-lippedness on the part of the people of fall river. seems like the town wanted it forgotten asap, regardless of her guilt and them ostracizing her. the whole world came to know fall river, not because of the mills, but because of the murders.

ruby seems to have not gone into lizzie's part in this, and portrays her as a victim. probably that's how lizzie painted it, if this is true, but it's simply not possible she wouldn't have been an accessory.

the mchenry story is very interesting. i'd never read it before last night. there's one part of it that seems unbelievable, but there may be some actual truth in it that's helpful.

[Catbooks]

here's an interesting post. david's relatives owned the new bedford evening standard, so they would have had some amount of pull with the local newspapers.

by nbcatlover » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:20 pm

This following link pertains to members of the Anthony family who were considered Rhode Islanders. They, like the owners of the New Bedford "Evening Standard", are relatives of David Anthony. They were a family with their own share of clout in the region.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/article49.html

You need to hit the underlined Continued and scroll down for more. There are about 3 pages of prominent Anthonys. The list ends with the generation before David M. Anthony Sr. as the Rhode Island boundary changed and the successful members were now located in Massachusetts.

I haven't had time to hit Probate Records, but I am curious about the size of the estate David M. Anthony Sr. left to David and his 2 siblings. I have seen David's and Harold's houses on Bay Pointe Road on the water at the base of Gardner's neck. They weren't poor. There is a possibility that they were better off than Andrew Borden.

David's house was built in 1895 and was an easy bicycle ride (David) or pony cart ride (Lizzie) from the Borden Farm, which Lizzie and Emma kept after the murders. They didn't have a lot of neighbors on Gardner's Neck who weren't related to one of them.

i've seen a photo of the house david built in 1895. it still stands. it's big and beautiful. david and lizzie could have first met in swansea, when the bordens had gone to the farm to summer.

also a man so much her junior may have appealed to lizzie, after being under the thumb of a very controlling andrew for so many years.

this is fun, having a new path to investigate.

[Mara]

Good work, Catbooks! I really enjoyed poring over those photos of the Swansea properties last night. Incidentally, I'm beginning to get familiar with some old Massachusetts names that match up with a few people I've known, some of whom I never realized had such distinguished roots. The list grows with every new link to a new source of enlightenment. Thanks y'all. I wish I weren't so busy catching up on work time lost while a damaged backup drive was being restored. Meanwhile, all I can do is cheerlead from the sidelines.

[Curryong]

Catbooks, you've done a terrific amount of research on this. Well done! I'm surprised about Lizzie on the sloop as she was only with her friends at Marion for one day.
Sorry to be a 'squasher' but I'm still pretty sceptical of the David Anthony theory as there is no evidence that David and Lizzie even knew each other, except perhaps by sight.
Kat also posted on an early thread that no trace had been found in the academic records of the university Ruby claimed she attended of her being awarded a degree in bioscience (or any degree.) This makes me wonder what else she told fibs about. So I'm sitting this one out on the sidelines, unless I absolutely have to post because I'm bursting!

[debbiediablo]

Lack of academic records doesn't bode well for Ruby's veracity, and perhaps speaks for her desire for attention.

Hunches are far from probative, but I see red flags when Bowen testifies. What was he hiding? Either he's the most precise man evah or he's evasive. As for Bridget's testimony, she was honest but perhaps not to the point that her 'tell all' would keep her from finding and keeping new positions. Servants were privy to everything and expected to be silent unto death. Somehow it's like we have the tip of the iceberg, and everything else is under water. I'd love to know if David Anthony is part of what's submerged.

Thanks to Catbooks, we now know the Anthony family had some social connection with the Borden's. Lizzie's being on that yacht makes me wonder whether she was as "excluded" as some historical accounts would lead to believe. She must've had the personality, clothing and friends to travel in this social circle. And I am in love with the Anthony house! Clearly they lived a daily life far different from Andrew's family.

[Curryong]

Yes, again the evidence is contradictory isn't it? Some witnesses said Lizzie had few dresses and darned gloves, yet we know she loved clothes and had far more dresses in the closet than Emma or poor old Abby. It's clear that she did have some social contact with folks 'on the Hill' and would have needed a new wardrobe when she visited Europe with Anna Borden and the others.They also kept in touch afterwards, hence the visits to Blake's Point, Marion, etc. Did Anna and the others come to Second St? Doubt it somehow, and that would have stung, surely.

Dr Bowen seems to me to have got himself in a flap when he saw his neighbours' bodies. Didn't he fiercely deny during his testimony that he had been seen crying when he came downstairs after viewing Abby? Nothing wrong with a few many tears say I, but then I'm not a Victorian doctor!

[Catbooks]

Okay, let's look at this from another viewpoint. Lizzie is pregnant and wants to marry the baby daddy David. Andrew threatens to disinherit her. She has an abortion. David is furious. He confronts Andrew.

Why would she confirm him as the killer to assuredly send him to the gallows when she could take her chances with the court knowing he would confess before she would hang.

debbiediablo wrote this in a different current thread. thought i'd copy it here to help keep the david/lizzie stuff in one place.

it got me to wondering, because it would have to be part of the david/lizzie theory, if it's true. the part about david allowing lizzie to be tried, and possibly hung if convicted.

which made me wonder how that would have worked out in reality. no one knew for certain what the jury was going to decide until it was announced. so let's say they instead pronounced her guilty. then what?

david trots himself down to the police station and confesses. he can't confess all though, because lizzie is still an accessory. he'd have to explain where lizzie was during that hour and a half, and why she didn't stop him. i would hope that he'd also want to protect ruby's mother and father, who'd helped clean the crime scene, got him out of the house and into the meat wagon, took him into their own home for a while to protect him, and kept quiet about it all. likewise bridget.

so how would he convince the police he'd done it, while protecting lizzie et al, and get her conviction overturned so she and the others were still safe?

curryong, as you can see, i'm playing both sides of the fence :D. it's fun for me - an exploration, an exercise. i don't know what i'll end up thinking about the ruby cameron story and david. i just want to see how much play it has, and doesn't have.

no matter what, i think lizzie's guilty. the question in my mind is, how guilty? either she did it by herself, which presents considerable problems, or, she was involved and had help - someone unknown. it's clear we don't have all the facts. there's something else under the surface, and somehow, somewhere there were people who knew about it. maybe it was ruby and her parents, and david. maybe not.

to me there's something amiss about bridget, emma, dr. bowen, and john morse's testimony and behavior. and of course lizzie's! i believe mrs. churchill and alice.

i did read that post of kat's about being unable to find records of ruby's degree. there may be a reasonable explanation for that, or she was lying. i don't know.

did anyone testify lizzie only had a few dresses? i don't recall that. i think she likely had the average number, but not average for being a member of a wealthy family. not nearly as many as the people on the hill and as she'd have liked!

[twinsrwe]

I don’t know if anyone has run across the following topic, but I thought this would be an appropriate place to put it; my apologies if it isn’t.


I found the following topic titled, The Ruby Story, which thanks to Kat we have a more complete insight into the David Anthony and Lizzie Borden connection. Kat did an absolutely awesome job of researching and presenting us with the facts.

Check it out:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... ystory.htm

BTW: Within the above thread, there is a post submitted by Audrey that really made a lot of sense to me:

It just struck me....

If Lizzie experienced an abortion on or about the time of the murders she would have still be bleeding, rather heavily a week later when she was arrested.

She would have done so for upwards of 6 weeks.

Surely the matron at the prison would have noticed an exceptionally long menses such as this and any woman would know what a period of this length and "strength" would have meant....

[Curryong]

That is so true, twinsrwe, as well not being in any condition to rush about helping clean up evidence on the murder day. Where did the theory that Lizzie had just had an abortion come from, anyway? I know debbie started a thread on it, but before that? It wasn't part of Ruby's story unless I'm mistaken, but it was discussed on early forums. Where did it come from? Gramma?
You see, Catbooks, I can't keep away!

[PossumPie]

I'm going to step in here with a question. Why would anyone help the killer clean up and get away? Any co-conspirator in a murder is just as guilty of said murder as the actual perpetrator. Translation: "You help, you're guilty too." Ruby's parents would have hung. Lizzie would have hung. This Anthony guy who let's pretend did kill them would have hung. I can MAYBE see Lizzie sticking up for him, but Ruby's parents? What the heck did he have on them for them to risk hanging? Doesn't make logical sense. Even if my own brother (whom I love) came to me, said he got angry and killed two people and asked me to hide him and help him clean up, I'd say no. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life in prison or go to the electric chair for my brother's temper...

[twinsrwe]

… Where did the theory that Lizzie had just had an abortion come from, anyway? I know debbie started a thread on it, but before that? It wasn't part of Ruby's story unless I'm mistaken, but it was discussed on early forums. Where did it come from? Gramma? …

You are not mistaken, Curryong.

As Kat stated in her very first post of the link I provided: "G" says Lizzie had an abortion about the time of the murders. This part is "G"s story but is not in the RUBY articles.

[Catbooks]

twins, she could have had an abortion, or miscarriage, weeks before this happened, so that aspect doesn't bother me. i'm not sure yet what i think about the miscarriage/abortion theory, but i haven't ruled it out.

the earliest i know of talking about an abortion was, i believe, the tricksey/mchenry article. i don't think ruby included it in her story, but i'm pretty sure gramma did. post away, curryong! :D

ruby said her parents (and i gathered the same went for bridget) helped with the clean-up and covering for david because they were recent immigrants, employed by the anthonys so were loyal to them and did as asked of them (not uncommon for servants in the day, even if not for cleaning up after a murder!), and they feared deportation.

i'd wondered the same about bridget, because i'm positive she lied for lizzie and emma on the stand. but bridget was an irish immigrant, was the only other known person in the house at the time of the murders, and if lizzie had wanted to, she could have pointed the finger at bridget. so bridget had good reason to not tell all she knew, even without the cleaning up after david theory or considering loyalty to lizzie and emma.

one positive about this theory is it gives *plenty* of time for cleaning up after andrew's murder, and an easy way to have gotten the murder weapon and anything else incriminating that they could think of, out of the house. the accompanying negative is, how did no one see these 3 people entering and exiting the house into a meat wagon parked on the street? i'm willing to set that aside for a while.

i know there was something wrong with that dress lizzie burned. emma and lizzie lied about it. alice told the truth. so if the david anthony did it theory is correct, what about that? it's possible she got blood on it while cleaning up. remember, her dresses in general, and the bedford cord in particular, were longer than usual and this one had a small train that dragged on the floor, so she had to get rid of it because it would incriminate her, even if she didn't actually kill her parents.

[twinsrwe]

I'm going to step in here with a question. Why would anyone help the killer clean up and get away? Any co-conspirator in a murder is just as guilty of said murder as the actual perpetrator. Translation: "You help, you're guilty too." Ruby's parents would have hung. Lizzie would have hung. This Anthony guy who let's pretend did kill them would have hung. I can MAYBE see Lizzie sticking up for him, but Ruby's parents? What the heck did he have on them for them to risk hanging? Doesn't make logical sense. Even if my own brother (whom I love) came to me, said he got angry and killed two people and asked me to hide him and help him clean up, I'd say no. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life in prison or go to the electric chair for my brother's temper...

I agree, Possum. I'll be darned if I will allow myself to go to jail for someone else's actions!!!

[Curryong]

Yes Possum, I have to say that much as I love and adore my children, if ever they were in that kind of a mess (which they wouldn't be) I'd be spending my energies persuading them to take a trip to the police station.
Not one bit of the Dave Anthony theory makes any sense to me, but everybody knows that, so I'm not entering into a debate! I'm out of here!

[twinsrwe]

twins, she could have had an abortion, or miscarriage, weeks before this happened, so that aspect doesn't bother me. i'm not sure yet what i think about the miscarriage/abortion theory, but i haven't ruled it out. …

I was not the one who made the statement regarding an abortion, which I posted above; that was a statement made by Audrey. Lizzie may or may not have had an abortion; personally, I don’t believe she did. I mean NO disrepect toward Gramma, but as far as I am concerned, the entire David Anthony story is unbelievable.

[Catbooks]

twins, yes, i know that. you posted audrey wrote it. you then said it made a lot of sense to you. i added another perspective that could explain it.

we can't just put our regular modern-day non-servant selves into the position these people might have been in and say we wouldn't cover for our siblings, children and so on if they committed murder.

if you were a recent immigrant, employed by a wealthy and powerful family, asked by them to go help at a certain address, you arrived and saw what you were supposed to help *with*, what would you do? easy to say you'd just turn tail and run, but if you're a servant you're used to taking and following orders. you know if you turn tail and run back to the house, gather up what belongings you have (IF you could manage to sneak past your employers), you'd then both be out of a job/money, and who knows what kind of punishment would follow. you'd certainly not get any recommendation for future employment!

i already have my pet theory that makes the most sense to me: lizzie alone, in the bedford cord dress, convinced emma she was innocent and emma covered for her, etc.

but so far i haven't come up against anything that absolutely says the david anthony theory couldn't be true, and it's fun thinking about it.

[Curryong]

By the way I took a quick look at a modern map of Fall River on MapQuest. N Main St and Second St are now separated by a gigantic highway, but in those days it wouldn't have been too far away. A quick run to S Main St and then a trot up to 90? Main St, which apparently leads off S Main would take a servant like Bridget about ten minutes at a quick pace to take a message. Not sure how long it would take a meat wagon.

[Catbooks]

great minds and all :D

i'd looked at it on google maps, but didn't recall the address on north main, so had no sense of how far away it was from the borden's. does make you wonder what the conversation might be on bridget's end, 'uh, mrs. anthony, we need the meat wagon and the anthony's to come, um, help, uh … david. with … something.'

[Curryong]

Poor Bridget would certainly have needed a drink of water after ten minutes hard walking in the sun and gasping out that request! Would the meat wagon have been kept at the Anthonys ? I thought they were supposedly prominent and rather posh. You'd think they'd keep it at a nearby livery stables or something, along with the horse. Wouldn't the meat wagon be out on the road at that time, or did they only deliver on certain days?

[Catbooks]

oops, i mean the camerons, not the anthonys.

good question about the meat wagon (which does make me giggle a bit, i mean, meat wagon?). the anthonys and swifts were in partnership of some sort together in the swifts' meat packing business. okay, that's fine, but as you said, what would a meat wagon be doing at the anthonys?

i got the impression from reading gramma's posts that ruby said the camerons had gone to the bordens with david - something about hitching a ride into town? - although i may be wrong on that.

i read all of gramma's early posts, but need to go back and put together what ruby told gramma, what she told the press, and what was gramma's theory. it's frustrating that i can't locate the ruby articles she refers to to read them myself (which she repeatedly suggests), or any of the other articles.

i like that gramma says she's not out to convince anyone of what she thinks, that she keeps saying to read the information for yourself and decide, or even say much herself about what she thinks (ok, i don't like that part, lol! spit it out, woman). i like that she's an insider of the area, and that she and ruby tested one another on what they knew, and passed one another's tests.

i also like that gramma had studied lizzie for a long time and was suspect about ruby's story.

but i got questions! doubts.

[Catbooks]

found this post by nbcatlover, who (along with kat) did extensive research on ruby and the david theory.

there is some possible reasonable explanation why ruby's college degree couldn't be located.

by nbcatlover » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:34 am

Well, I found the Jewish Children's org (Hewbrew Home for Destitute Jewish Children & Hecht family) she said she worked for and found a photo that "might" be young Ruby at Campobello with Eleanor Roosevelt + Lorena Hickok from the FDR Presidential Museum & Archives. (They say she is an unidentified woman, probably hired help). Ruby was probably a little loopy, but she wasn't daft. The problem is that many of the schools she went to and orgs she worked for have been absorbed several times. I had written to Mass. General's School of Nursing about the records of an older Nursing School she had attended and spoke to people at Columbia University about schools they had absorbed as well as a university down south about her so-called doctorate and the programs they used to run.

I had even written and telephoned her attorney, trying to locate Ruby's research (which had been seen by Gramma) and seem to have been conveniently "thrown away" when her house was emptied.

My problem is that I lost a lot of my Ruby research when my old desktop computer shorted out and had a small electrical fire. I still have the machine but have had no luck retrieving info from the burnt hard drive (without spending mucho bucks). But I had found enough of a kernel of truth to, at least, keep an open mind. Lots of the old paper records of schools that have been absorbed are long gone and I had been reduced to searching captions on old photos, etc., to find pieces of Ruby. But I found enough not to label her as a liar. I believe her childhood memories may have part of the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth.

My late cousin had a similar problem (but fortunately had kept the letters from the schools which said he could use the new name). He could say he graduated from the University of Massachusetts now, but he really went the New Bedford Institute of Technology (which became SMIT, then SMTI, then SMU, and now UMass-Dartmouth) and that's in the day of computerized records.

I used to believe the David M. Anthony story, but I have a new alternate theory now. I think the police should have paid more attention to the anxious young man with the suit & hat seen in front of the Borden house, and to the team of horses in front of the house. Lizzie never tells the whole truth, but she doesn't actually lie.

I think the police should have paid more attention to the anxious young man with the suit & hat, and to the team of horses in front of the house.

I don't think William Davis did it either, but again, it is a theory that has a certain amount of plausibility. And I certainly don't believe a naked Lizzie was hacking away at her parents with an ax (but there's a porno movie in this scenario).

I wish I could afford to retire...I could spend entire weeks chasing my "clews."

For example, if men did enter the Borden barn searching for an intruder before the police began their examination and if they did search through bales of hay with pitchforks (as has been reported in some newspapers), how much dust would they have made and how long would it take for the dust to settle before a police officer could come along at 1:00 pm or so and truthfully say there was a layer of dust on the 2nd floor of the barn and no footprints to be seen. Common sense (and the dust in my house) says the policeman had flawed logic when he infers that the layer of dust proves Lizzie was never on the 2nd floor of the barn. It does not. My vote is for Brownie & me!!!

I believe Lizzie was in the barn...she just wasn't looking for a sinker (and she wasn't alone).

i wish someone would locate ruby's 125,000 word memoir. no matter what it said, it would be interesting to read it.

[PossumPie]

Ok, so PERHAPS the idea that they would have risked hanging b/c they didn't want deported MIGHT be a possibility....Considering how suspicious of immigrants everyone was back then though, I still am not sure they would have done that...and risk being the first suspects, But so be it.
My second skepticism stems from the fact that neighbors saw everyone that came and went that day. Every documented coming and going was seen by busy-body neighbors looking out windows for something or other....how did an entire troop of people and a meat wagon avoid being seen? Maybe I'm missing something.

[twinsrwe]

Good find, Catbooks!

i wish someone would locate ruby's 125,000 word memoir. no matter what it said, it would be interesting to read it.

You’re not alone on this wish; I think it would be interesting to find out the little details of the story, as well as seeing if there are some things that Gramma may have forgotten or misunderstood. However, as nbcatlover had stated in her post (Underlining is mine): I had even written and telephoned her attorney, trying to locate Ruby's research (which had been seen by Gramma) and seem to have been conveniently "thrown away" when her house was emptied.

[PossumPie]

Something everyone is forgetting here is the time element. Many of the times are just estimates, but several things we do know exactly.
Just about 10:40 Dr. Bowen's wife saw Andrew coming home. Give him 5 minutes to get in the house, and even assuming David Anthony is there waiting for him, we are at 10:45.
11:00 Addy Churchill leaves her house to go to market. Nothing unusual seen or heard.
11:05-11:10 Hyman Lubinsky and his ice cream wagon passes the house, nothing unusual seen going on, no meat wagon mentioned seen sitting in front. 11:10-11:12 The grocer notes Mrs. Churchill leaves the market and heads home. Nothing unusual noted.
11:10-11:12 Bridget goes across the street to get Dr. Bowen. The alarm has been raised.
11:15 The most accurate time we have, the police record that there has been a murder.
There simply is not a long enough time for a meat wagon to arrive, them to 'clean up' the whole lot of them to leave, someone to go and tell the police. And during that entire half hour, several witnesses passed the house and never saw a wagon parked near. The only witness to mention any kind of vehicle is Mark Chase, who happened to see an open buggy parked PAST the Borden home about 10:50.

[Catbooks]

i agree the problem of a meat wagon arriving at the bordens, unseen, with one or more people getting out of it, and then it staying there somewhere, presumably until shortly after andrew was killed, with at least two people getting into it and driving away, is a real problem. even taking into consideration that 2nd street was a busy street.

time is somewhat slippery, because, as you mentioned, a lot of those people were guestimating. even if they did happen to look at their pocketwatches or house clocks right before or after these events happened, unless they'd just synced them up to the town clock, how accurate could they be?

was mark chase the stableman who said he'd noticed an unusually fine horse and vehicle stopped in the shade of a tree?

twins, yes, thanks. i'd read that, but the '*seem* to have been' part leaves me some hope that it's still out there somewhere. maybe a relative or friend of ruby's took it and it'll surface sometime in the future. it would be so great to be able to read it!

i wish gramma hadn't been so close-mouthed about what ruby told her and what she herself had figured out. since she was very interested in and had studied the case for many years, she had to have had the same questions we're having. so, how did she resolve them? what about no one seeing the meat wagon or any of these people entering or leaving the bordens?? how did word get to the anthonys in the first place?

[Curryong]

Yeah, Mark Chase was the stable hand (ostler) at the stables over the street. He was an ex policeman and exceptionally tall. Apparently he caused some amusement in court by extending his arm to its fullest extent when he took the oath!
He was questioned first by our old friends Officers Donohue the bed mover and Harrington the fashion expert. At that time (it's in the witness statements) he just told them he had been between the stables and Wades store practically the whole morning (or 'fore-noon) and had noticed nothing unusual. Later he remembered seeing the open buggy.

[twinsrwe]

i agree the problem of a meat wagon arriving at the bordens, unseen, with one or more people getting out of it, and then it staying there somewhere, presumably until shortly after andrew was killed, with at least two people getting into it and driving away, is a real problem. even taking into consideration that 2nd street was a busy street. …

How did Mrs. Churchill miss so much activity? According to Kat’s post, it was after the murders that 1 person left the Borden house, and then 4-5 people and 1 meat wagon arrived at the Borden house to help Lizzie clean up. Once finished 4 people got onto the meat wagon and left. Again, HOW in the world did Mrs. Churchill miss all of this activity?

The reason I say, 4-5 people and 1 meat wagon arrived at the Borden house, is because of the following partial quotes by Kat, and Gramma:

Partial post by Kat on Feb-28th-04 at 9:26 PM

After the murders, Ruby says Lizzie told her, Nora Donahue, the Borden's maid [sic], ran to the Anthony's house on North Main Street to get Maggie Jonsson, the Anthony's maid. Somehow, according to Ruby, Maggie got her fiance, John Cameron, to come to Second Street with his meat delivery wagon. He took David Anthony, Nora and Maggie to the Kempton Farm in New Bedford, where David remained in hiding, Ruby says.

Partial post by Gramma on Feb-29th-04 at 10:32 AM:

Nora and Maggie were maids at the Anthonys.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... ystory.htm

… twins, yes, thanks. i'd read that, but the '*seem* to have been' part leaves me some hope that it's still out there somewhere. maybe a relative or friend of ruby's took it and it'll surface sometime in the future. it would be so great to be able to read it! …

I see your point about the word ‘seem’. You may be right, maybe a relative or friend does have it, although I don’t think I’ll hold by breath waiting for it to appear. I agree, it would be a very interesting read, should it ever surface.

… i wish gramma hadn't been so close-mouthed about what ruby told her and what she herself had figured out. since she was very interested in and had studied the case for many years, she had to have had the same questions we're having. so, how did she resolve them? what about no one seeing the meat wagon or any of these people entering or leaving the bordens?? how did word get to the anthonys in the first place?

I also wish Gramma had not been so closed-mouth about what Ruby told her. The thing I find interesting about Gramma is that sometimes she completely ignored a member’s question. For example:

Kat asked:

Gramma, can you tell us the story?

Gramma avoided the question by responding:

Good Heavens, no, no one else spoke for Ruby Cameron except Ruby!
The Boston Herald sent a reporter to Cherryfield and the picture taken was at Ruby's home there. Speaking of appearances, I had to laugh at the attempt to make Ruby look like a wild woman with the backlighting. Good photographic trick!
She did mostly phone interviews with the others except the New Bedford Standard Times.
The Providence Journal also ran at least one article.
At first they laughed at Ruby for saying she used to ride on the back of David Anthony's motorcycle to Maplecroft. They didn't believe there were motorcycles then (ca 1910). Then some good investigative reporter found the registration list at the Motor Vehicle department and found David on it. Then they found a picture of him with his motorcycle.
Ruby Cameron was a registered nurse and was "specialing" Lizzie the week before she died.

Gramma

There was one thing I meant to add.
Ruby broke the story to the little, tiny "Ellsworth American" newspaper in Ellsworth, Maine. The larger, more "local to the story" papers were not pleased at all!!!

Gramma

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... maruby.htm

I am left with a feeling of, Huh? Gramma, are you for real???

[Curryong]

How very interesting twinsrwe. Yes, I'm afraid Gramma seems to have both made mistakes and been purposely vague. Heaven knows, the poor woman was probably very elderly and muddled some of the 'facts' but I'm afraid, for me, Ruby's story resembles one of those urban legends, where you really have to suspend belief.

Sorry Catbooks, you have done such a good lot of research here, and yes, I know you enjoy it, and you are much more open-minded than I am, but even the evidence of David Anthony's character just doesn't add up.

Ruby seems to infer that he was some kind of motorbike riding wild spirit, just the sort who would fly into a temper and murder on an impulse. Well, my father, born in 1910, was a fanatical motor-bike rider as a teenager, and he and his friends were neither homicidal or particularly wild. David's niece, Mrs Wade, remembered her uncle very differently. It's suits the purpose of Ruby's story, of course, to have David as impulsive and volatile.

What is more, even if he was, where is there any evidence from anyone at all that David and Lizzie were sweethearts? It's all very well to say, well it was a secret romance so no-one saw them together. The more obvious explanation to no-one seeing them is that there was nothing to see because they were never together.

Then you get, from Ruby, some story about David being smuggled away under neighbours' noses by meat wagon to hide away while Lizzie gets arrested and carted away to jail. We know from her letters written from jail that Lizzie was quite down-hearted and low-spirited sometimes, but does her gallant young man rush to the police to tell them the truth?

Well, no! What is more, after her trial, he then allows Lizzie to remain in social isolation in her home town for the rest of her life, having a cloud hanging over her, being 'cut' by those who once accepted her. David, however, still visits her on his motorbike according to Ruby. And this woman, who we know was very capable of holding grudges, bore none towards him!
None of it makes any sense! Sorry for the rant.

[Catbooks]

i agree the problem of a meat wagon arriving at the bordens, unseen, with one or more people getting out of it, and then it staying there somewhere, presumably until shortly after andrew was killed, with at least two people getting into it and driving away, is a real problem. even taking into consideration that 2nd street was a busy street. …

How did Mrs. Churchill miss so much activity? According to Kat’s post, it was after the murders that 1 person left the Borden house, and then 4-5 people and 1 meat wagon arrived at the Borden house to help Lizzie clean up. Once finished 4 people got onto the meat wagon and left. Again, HOW in the world did Mrs. Churchill miss all of this activity?

The reason I say, 4-5 people and 1 meat wagon arrived at the Borden house, is because of the following partial quotes by Kat, and Gramma:

Partial post by Kat on Feb-28th-04 at 9:26 PM

After the murders, Ruby says Lizzie told her, Nora Donahue, the Borden's maid [sic], ran to the Anthony's house on North Main Street to get Maggie Jonsson, the Anthony's maid. Somehow, according to Ruby, Maggie got her fiance, John Cameron, to come to Second Street with his meat delivery wagon. He took David Anthony, Nora and Maggie to the Kempton Farm in New Bedford, where David remained in hiding, Ruby says.

Partial post by Gramma on Feb-29th-04 at 10:32 AM:

Nora and Maggie were maids at the Anthonys.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... ystory.htm

… twins, yes, thanks. i'd read that, but the '*seem* to have been' part leaves me some hope that it's still out there somewhere. maybe a relative or friend of ruby's took it and it'll surface sometime in the future. it would be so great to be able to read it! …

I see your point about the word ‘seem’. You may be right, maybe a relative or friend does have it, although I don’t think I’ll hold by breath waiting for it to appear. I agree, it would be a very interesting read, should it ever surface.

… i wish gramma hadn't been so close-mouthed about what ruby told her and what she herself had figured out. since she was very interested in and had studied the case for many years, she had to have had the same questions we're having. so, how did she resolve them? what about no one seeing the meat wagon or any of these people entering or leaving the bordens?? how did word get to the anthonys in the first place?

I also wish Gramma had not been so closed-mouth about what Ruby told her. The thing I find interesting about Gramma is that sometimes she completely ignored a member’s question. For example:

Kat asked:

Gramma, can you tell us the story?

Gramma avoided the question by responding:

Good Heavens, no, no one else spoke for Ruby Cameron except Ruby!
The Boston Herald sent a reporter to Cherryfield and the picture taken was at Ruby's home there. Speaking of appearances, I had to laugh at the attempt to make Ruby look like a wild woman with the backlighting. Good photographic trick!
She did mostly phone interviews with the others except the New Bedford Standard Times.
The Providence Journal also ran at least one article.
At first they laughed at Ruby for saying she used to ride on the back of David Anthony's motorcycle to Maplecroft. They didn't believe there were motorcycles then (ca 1910). Then some good investigative reporter found the registration list at the Motor Vehicle department and found David on it. Then they found a picture of him with his motorcycle.
Ruby Cameron was a registered nurse and was "specialing" Lizzie the week before she died.

Gramma

There was one thing I meant to add.
Ruby broke the story to the little, tiny "Ellsworth American" newspaper in Ellsworth, Maine. The larger, more "local to the story" papers were not pleased at all!!!

Gramma

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... maruby.htm

I am left with a feeling of, Huh? Gramma, are you for real???

gramma was answering this question from kat:

--Do these last headlines mean that Ruby told someone and they are the ones who told the newpapers?

but she was reluctant to tell what *she* thought, and what, exactly, ruby had told her. i don't see that as evading kat's question; that's one of the questions kat directly asked her, and she answered. but what i want to know (as did kat), is what exactly was ruby's story?

that quote is so confusing, about how many people were involved! who was nora donahue? she wasn't the borden's maid. we know the borden's sole maid was bridget. so if bridget ran to the anthonys to get maggie jonsson and her fiance, and come back with/in the meat wagon ok. although why was the meat wagon at the anthonys? and if it wasn't there, where did they get it?

nora jonsson, her fiance john cameron, and david would make three people leaving in the meat wagon, although it doesn't make a great deal of different; we still have 3 people leaving the borden's, unseen by anyone that we know of.

*laughs* i'm not holding my breathe for ruby's memoirs to surface either, but it's within the realm of possibility, since we don't know for certain (just like so many things in this case) they were sent to the city dumop, never to be seen again.

edited to add: oh, about mrs. churchill. she was to the north of the bordens. traffic then, as now, went from south to north on that side of the street. so it's possible a meat wagon could have (and probably would have) parked either in front of or more probably below or more probably south of the borden's house.

[Catbooks]

How very interesting twinsrwe. Yes, I'm afraid Gramma seems to have both made mistakes and been purposely vague. Heaven knows, the poor woman was probably very elderly and muddled some of the 'facts' but I'm afraid, for me, Ruby's story resembles one of those urban legends, where you really have to suspend belief.

Sorry Catbooks, you have done such a good lot of research here, and yes, I know you enjoy it, and you are much more open-minded than I am, but even the evidence of David Anthony's character just doesn't add up.

Ruby seems to infer that he was some kind of motorbike riding wild spirit, just the sort who would fly into a temper and murder on an impulse. Well, my father, born in 1910, was a fanatical motor-bike rider as a teenager, and he and his friends were neither homicidal or particularly wild. David's niece, Mrs Wade, remembered her uncle very differently. It's suits the purpose of Ruby's story, of course, to have David as impulsive and volatile.

What is more, even if he was, where is there any evidence from anyone at all that David and Lizzie were sweethearts? It's all very well to say, well it was a secret romance so no-one saw them together. The more obvious explanation to no-one seeing them is that there was nothing to see because they were never together.

Then you get, from Ruby, some story about David being smuggled away under neighbours' noses by meat wagon to hide away while Lizzie gets arrested and carted away to jail. We know from her letters written from jail that Lizzie was quite down-hearted and low-spirited sometimes, but does her gallant young man rush to the police to tell them the truth?

Well, no! What is more, after her trial, he then allows Lizzie to remain in social isolation in her home town for the rest of her life, having a cloud hanging over her, being 'cut' by those who once accepted her. David, however, still visits her on his motorbike according to Ruby. And this woman, who we know was very capable of holding grudges, bore none towards him!
None of it makes any sense! Sorry for the rant.

i'm not (yet?) convinced that gramma was purposely vague. on the point twins brought up, she was directly answering one of the questions asked of her.

the bit about this nora, supposedly the maid of the bordens but we know wasn't, i don't know what to make of that. does it not make sense because ruby and/or gramma were befuddled, or because there's nothing to this? i'm still not certain. the fact that nbcatlover found ruby and gramma's theories credible enough to do a lot of investigating tells me it's not completely off the map. there are any number of elderly people who are sharp as the proverbial tack. (my belated great aunt and mother being two examples i've known personally.)

gramma denied nora and brigdet being one and the same, but at the moment i forget the particular.

curryon, i'm trying to be opened minded about this. god knows we've come up empty-handed and unfulfilled with the 'lizzie done it alone, but how??' theory.

i don't have a problem with david anthony being a wild spirit, and that driving a motorcycle was part of the evidence of it. they were new, they were thrilling, and only the more adventuresome would ride them. but i definitely *do* have a problem with a leap from there to his flying 'into a temper and murdering on an impulse.'

it can't have been on an impulse, it just can't have been. even if we move the times of death between abby and andrew closer to one another, the evidence remains that abby died a fairly good time before andrew did. her blood had started to dry, she was cold to the touch. his blood had not dried (some even said it was still somewhat flowing), and was not cold to the touch. nope, abby died first, by half an hour at a minimum, and more likely minimum of an hour.

there is no evidence lizzie and david were sweethearts. there's no evidence she was sweethearts with anyone, which in itself seems odd. unless you consider ruby's statements about david coming to visit lizzie on his motorcycle, when ruby was a child, as evidence. so i have to put this in the 'suspended disbelief' category until i come up against something that, to me, categorically disproves it.

we don't know that he was a 'gallant young man.' he and lizzie may have agreed upon something after abby's murder, or even before then, that would have precluded him from stepping forward.

[Curryong]

I'm not trying to be obstructionist, Catbooks, Im really not, and good on you for persisting.

On the subject of motorbikes, though, did Ruby say David had a motorbike when he was courting Lizzie, cos if she did then he was a real pioneer. There were some early comical-looking three wheelers about, driven by steam and low on the ground. If David was driving one of those he would have been the talk of the town!

However, according to Wiki, the first series production of a modern motorbike was in 1894 in Germany. Hildebrand and Wolfmutter made a few hundred of them. Excelsior Motor Co.in Coventry, England, began production of motorbikes for sale to the public in 1896. In the U.S. the first production motorbikes were Orient-Asters, made in Massachusetts in 1898.

[Catbooks]

curryong, i'm not sure when ruby said david first had a motorcycle or motorbike. she definitely said he had one when she was around 8 year old, somewhere around 1908 or 1910, which is when she remembers him taking her to visit lizzie at maplecroft.

i do remember reading that he was a 'wheelman' (first i'd heard of that word), and it was confirmed that he was in a race of some sort - don't know if it was motorcycles or what - a day or two before the murders.

[Catbooks]

another thing that puzzles me about this ruby cameron/david anthony/gramma thing is that gramma intimates the reason emma and lizzie put bars on the lower windows of maplecroft is because they were afraid (ok, sure, that would be why - reasonable fear or not), but she also suggested or said outright that the person they were afraid of was david. really? why?

i can see perhaps this whole thing coming down as ruby suggests, and david and lizzie drifting apart over the years - in general and specifically because of what happened. if true, it would have been a darned big deal to both of them, for different reasons. but why, given that both of them would have the goods on the other (despite ruby's saying lizzie was a totally blameless victim, which i don't believe for an instant) would david want to harm or kill lizzie and/or emma, long after the fact? it doesn't make sense to me.

[Curryong]

I'm just going out so I can't source anything, but didn't Emma supposedly say, in later life "One day they will come for me." Sounds like she (Emma) was scared, not necessarily Lizzie, and it may have been, (as she didn't mention anyone specific,) she just imagined a bogeyman or two,with an axe in the dark. It was probably Emma who insisted on cellar windows with bars and male help on the premises at Maplecroft, etc.

I can't think of any reason, unless he went a little mad as he grew older, for David threatening Lizzie. I suppose he might have thought for some reason that she had spilled the beans to Emma and maybe he thought Emma wouldn't keep her mouth shut. He went to Maplecroft all the time on his motorbike though, didn't he, even after Emma left, and took Ruby, who ate jelly rolls in the Kitchen.

Why would Lizzie be scared of anything David Anthony might do? At the first threat all she'd have to say is 'If anything happens to me I've written everything down and it's in a sealed envelope in my lawyer's office, to be immediately given to the police in the event of my murder.'

[PossumPie]

You are correct that the times are guesstimates, BUT we are sure of two It was 10:40 when he arrived home (per a witness noting the exact time) and 11:15 (per the police official time) The rest of what I mentioned happened WITHIN those 35 minutes, so being off by a minute or 3 really doesn't matter. There were several umm....busy-body type women who saw virtually all the 'goings on' on the street that morning, and I just don't see an object as big as a meat wagon somehow missed by all of them. Wasn't Dr. Bowen's wife sitting at the window looking out expressly waiting for a visitor to arrive? She saw Andrew come home, and saw him fumble with the keys and holding a newspaper, so she was observant (both those things were later validated by Bridget) So Believability of Ruby, Gramma, and the rest aside, I just don't see the time element working.

I will look up more specific references later...I'm at work and just don't have time to find the exact testimony...

[Curryong]

A 'wheelman' at that time generally meant a cyclist, so he would have been in a bicycle race.

[Catbooks]

i remember reading somewhere, long ago, that emma had said 'one day they will come for me,' later on in her life, but never had any idea what she was talking about.

i'm not sure how often david anthony was supposed to have gone to maplecroft, but yes, if this story is true, they both had the goods on one another. so? couldn't have been about money. he had plenty of his own.

i thought someone (bridget, i think) said andrew came home at 10:30. but perhaps the 10:40 witness was more solid.

yes, mrs bowen was waiting for her daughter to come home. i could see mrs churchill being unable to see people coming and going from the front door, or even a wagon parked nearby. but what about mrs bowen, mrs kelly, and other people?

i'm less concerned about the time as i am how no one saw or noticed this activity.

right, wheelman referred to bicyclists first, and later motorcyclists as well.

[Curryong]

Yes, you would think that Mrs Bowen would be especially observant, as she was expectantly looking out of the window, but even pedestrians walking past would have noticed, and Mrs Kelly as she was rushing for her dentist's appointment. Wasn't her clock wrong?

[Catbooks]

pedestrians walking past, or people driving past, might not have paid any attention to seeing a meat wagon parked in front of or near a house on a busy partly residential/partly commerce street. presumably the meat wagon was used for deliveries of orders, so that may have been a fairly common sight. i don't know either way if meat was delivered to homes, the way milk and other goods were, or if it would have only been used to delivery to grocery stores. there was a grocers a short distance away on 2nd street.

we do know the bordens didn't usually have meat delivered to them (if in fact meat was delivered that way), because abby was in the habit of going out and buying their meat on a regular basis. given her age and weight, it would have to have been one nearby. perhaps the same one just a little bit down the street. so someone - a neighbor - familiar with the patterns of comings and goings at the bordens would have noticed a meat wagon if it were parked right in front, because that would have been unusual. a passerby wouldn't have any reason to take note of it.

[Curryong]

You've answered your own question about meat deliveries to private homes with your find on another thread. Do we know who lived on the other side of Dr Kelly and his family, and whether they were associated at all with the Bordens?

I suppose quite a few of the neighbours might have bought eggs, pickles etc from the house. When it was said in testimony that Andrew was always home between the hours of 11am to noon for 'business associates' I wonder whether that included his neighbours seeking eggs and pickled onions etc or did he leave the selling of those to Abby!

[Catbooks]

o damn. i meant to post that meat deliveries post on this thread.

yes, on the other side of the kellys was wade's store! i've been assuming that store was a grocery store, and likely where abby shopped, as it was so close, but need to see if i can confirm what kind of store it was. 5 houses/buildings north, west side of the street on the corner of 2nd and borden streets was another store - gorman's store.

good question about whether it was andrew or abby selling the eggs and so forth. i don't think andrew would have thought he was above doing it himself, and may have even enjoyed it - the part about collecting the money :)

[Curryong]

So that's where Wade's store was! For some stupid reason I always visualised it being over the other side of the road. If it WAS a grocery store you'd expect Abby to go to it, unless she liked going to different shops in Main St, butchers, fishmongers etc. (remember that horrendous fish meal they had that probably helped cause the vomiting.) You're correct, passersby wouldn't note a meat wagon especially one parked quite near a store. Mr Wade himself might have been a bit surprised, though.

[Catbooks]

just ran a search and found this:

Postby Edisto » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:59 am

Hoffman's "Yesterday in Old Fall River" has an item on Pettey, whose name is variously spelled in some of the Borden literature. According to Hoffman, Pettey has resided at 92 Second Street (then numbered 66) before Andrew Borden bought the property. Pettey found himself near the Borden house on August 4, 1892, and was invited inside by Dr. Bowen to view the bodies. (Dr. Bowen finally found somebody who wanted to look at the bodies!) Pettey had worked at his father's grocery store, Wade & Pettey, ca. 1869-79. That's the store that was located south of the Kelly home. Possibly Pettey knew Lizzie from the neighborhood, since she would have lived on Second Street during much of his tenure at the grocery store. His comments about Lizzie were given as part of Moulton Batchelder's "sanity survey," so he was probably referring to Lizzie's personality rather than her appearance when he used the term "ugly."

so wade's was a grocery store. and looky, there's pettey again. former 92nd street resident, and one of the people on the street who came into the borden house and viewed the grisly scene.

[Curryong]

What did old Bowen want to go picking out acquaintances to go and view the bodies with him for? It seems very unprofessional, to say the least, and it lends weight to the impression that the good doctor was in a bit of a state after viewing Abby.
Pettey moaned about the guest room being dark, didn't he? I posted it somewhere on the 'All About Abby' thread.
I didn't know Pettey worked in the store. He would have known the Bordens for sure. How convenient to have a grocery store two doors down!

[Catbooks]

apparently pettey was just walking by and bowen called him in, but it is kinda strange. unless they knew one another, neighbors? still strange though, since dr. bowen was after all a doctor and was acting in that capacity.

i think it was pettey who talked about how dark the guest room was. i didn't know he worked in the store either, or that his father owned it (or half of it), or that it was just two doors down from the bordens!