Daylight Robbery but Why?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:28 pm

On the 24th June 1891 Andrew decided to go to his property in Swansea. Unusually, Abby decided to go with him. When they arrived back home the couple found there had been a robbery!

The desk in Abby's dressing room had been broken into, papers had been rifled through and Abby's small collection of jewellery, including a gold watch and chain, (and Russian leather purse) of great sentimental value, had disappeared.

Andrew had also lost items very precious to him, namely €40 in gold and €80 in notes. A book of horse-car tickets for the use of the family had been stolen too.

The only people in the house on the day of the robbery were Bridget, Emma and Lizzie. None of them saw or heard anything!
Now, I know Miss Lizzie became very excited and talkative when the police were called in, and drew attention to a nail in the cellar door, but I'd really love all your opinions, not so much on Whodunit, but why. What do you think was the motive for this very odd episode?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:53 am

The only people in the house on the day of the robbery were Bridget, Emma and Lizzie. None of them saw or heard anything!

sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:48 am

I don't want to sound silly but my first guess would be that someone wanted the money.

A family member broke into our home and did the same thing, to this day it hasn't been proven but she made so many mistakes that the whole family knows it was her. I cut her out of my will immediately after.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:09 am

And quite right too, Fargo. A pity Andrew didn't follow your example!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:07 am

Generally, home burglaries by strangers are oportunistic. Knock on the door, if someone answers, pretend to be lost, etc. If no one answers, break in grab the obvious stuff, get out. They are much more common in the rural area where no one will see them coming and going.
The other type of burglary is one where it is someone who is friends/family. They are familiar with the house, know where valuable stuff is, and go right for it. Other areas are NOT torn apart, they know nothing is there. Generally it is easy to tell the difference. The Borden case certainly looks like an "inside job". The silverware wasn't snatched from the dining room, an obvious valuable to a stranger. The target of the burglar was obviously Mr. and Mrs. Borden, as no other room was bothered.
Generally people think it was Lizzie, which makes sense. Rumor has it that when the tickets were traced, everyone said Lizzie gave them to them. Andrew quietly dropped the whole matter, and locked their bedroom door from then on.
As to why, Passive aggressive act I'd imagine. Like an angry puppy will poop on the floor, Lizzie probably was upset over something with Mrs. Borden, and wanted to scare her...after all one of the most vulnerable feeling in the world is to believe a stranger was in your bedroom rooting through your stuff.

By the way, not to be picky but in a legal sense, BURGLARY is breaking in to steal with no one around, ROBBERY is taking something by force, with implied violence to the victim.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:41 am

Sorry Possum! However, 'daylight stealing' doesn't have quite the same ring! I'd love to know what was happening round about that particular time. A John Morse visit, another proposed property deal, who knows!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:04 am

Curryong wrote:Sorry Possum! However, 'daylight stealing' doesn't have quite the same ring! I'd love to know what was happening round about that particular time. A John Morse visit, another proposed property deal, who knows!

LOL, just my nit-picky attention to details. I don't know much about the events surrounding it except that at first Andrew got the police involved; which says that he didn't consider it might have been his daughter. After a bit, he told the police to drop the case. Why would you want the case dropped? You didn't want a family member implicated.

Some on this forum have suggested that she was setting the stage to say the neighborhood wasn't safe, then when she killed them, she could say "see, I said it wasn't safe" The only problem I have with that is that it was too long before the murders. NOBODY is that patient. However, she could have been trying to convince Andrew to move, and proving the unsafe condition of the neighborhood would be how she did it. Obviously, Andrew didn't move, so it failed.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:31 am

You don't think the rob.. er stealing of the money, jewellery, may have been a cover for seeing whether Andrew had drafted out a will? It just seems strange that papers were pulled out, though, no doubt Lizzie got some satisfaction from depriving Abby of her watch etc., anyway.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:30 am

how long was it before the murders, anyway? i was just wondering that. did this happen before or after her grand tour trip? i think after, but couldn't swear to it.

i don't think it was about lizzie trying to prove to andrew they weren't in a safe neighborhood. that may have been a perk, until he caught on. i think it was about aggressively invading their 'turf,' a lashing out in anger, and probably about getting the items themselves. it's also *very* likely lizzie was looking for a will. i still think it's very strange that andrew, a bank president, and 70 years old, didn't have a will. not that he'd be the first or the last to do (or not do) this, but it is strange.

i don't know if lizzie was setting the stage for the later 'mystery' of someone getting into and out of the house, in broad daylight, unseen, or not, but i do think the fact that she succeeded - on the surface of it (to police, etc.) - played into the murders.

On the 24th June 1891

oops

okay, so a little more than a year before the murders.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:51 am

I quite like the idea that she was looking for Andrew's will. It gives an excuse to break into his private areas, and rummage through. Take a few things, looks like a burglary. Andrew's will was never found. He doesn't seem like a person who didn't have a will, even if it was just a Holographic will. (Written in his own hand without witnesses) Nothing was found, so the estate would have gone to Abby, Lizzie, and Emma, except Abby was dead also. so it all went to Emma and Lizzie.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:04 pm

Didn't John Morse give evidence that Andrew had once had a Will made out, years before during his first wife's lifetime? That one had of course been made invalid by Sarah's death.

Maybe Andrew kept on procrastinating because he knew that after his death all hell would break loose over Abby's head if she was left anything like an equal share. Lizzie and Emma hadn't proved very enthusiastic landlords with the property he had sold them, and maybe he was planning to leave each of them a sum of money and bonds, while, under John Morse or the family attorney's supervision, Abby would be left much of the property.

He certainly should have made things clear to his daughters (that they would be getting a third each) as the sisters appear to have discussed it and were becoming quite certain that Abby could quite well get the lot!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:13 pm

that's interesting. so andrew knew the importance of having a will, and once had one. he would have been a young man then. so why, in the years afterwards, before things went so terribly pear-shaped between the sisters and abby, didn't he draw up another one? or did he, and it got destroyed. or were plans to draw one up imminent.

yes, the fair and right thing to do would have been to split his estate three ways, and let everyone know that.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:02 am

Hardly could it be a coincidence that the items taken from Andrew were money and tickets while the objects taken from Abby were sentimental and irreplaceable.

My daughter with autism had an acquaintance (borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder formally diagnosed by a psychiatrist) who would steal when annoyed with someone - targeting not items of financial value but items of emotional value. Sue had a beautiful Victorian vase that belonged to her grandmother, and she loved it just as she loved her Nan. It disappeared right off her coffee table after a visit from Misty (as in Play Misty for Me). When the family moved and their house was empty, we did a walk-through with the owner. The vase was smashed in the corner of the basement behind a pile of junk. No way could this have happened accidentally.

Who knows? Abby's prized possessions may be hidden somewhere next to bloody hatchet for all eternity.

This is exactly how I see Lizzie. I also am beginning to wonder if her rage at Abby was partly jealousy, not only about money, but also about being Andrew's favorite. It's a little odd for Andrew to wear a ring from Lizzie - that's generally a symbol of love and commitment from a wife, not a daughter.

Lizzie was supposedly in the barn looking for something to make sinkers. Perhaps using those sinkers as an excuse (symbols of fishing trips alone with the father who wore her ring like a husband wears a wedding ring) had more meaning than one might think at first glance. From my perspective there's very little coincidence in this life. I'm not saying their relationship was incestuous, but I am saying there may not have been normal father-daughter boundaries.

This sends my imagination to a scene where Lizzie confronts Andrew with the murder of Abby, admitting she did it, thinking he will be pleased to be rid of the old cow. Now their family can be together like it was before Andrew remarried. Or like it was when she was younger, and Andrew had the energy and desire to spoil her with all his attention.

When he explodes in fury, the hatchet comes out from behind Lizzie's back and she strikes him at least once from the front with his fists doubled up in shock and anger. One blow sends him slumping to the side, already unconscious or most likely dead. Which explains his odd position for a nap. Then she puts on the coat and bludgeons his face beyond recognition. Partly for money, but mostly because he had just proved that he loved Abby more than her. And because she truly did love him as much as she could love anyone (and he may have loved her equally unwell) she then places the coat under his head.

Although it seems odd that Andrew Borden would not have a will, I cannot imagine any testament he might have not being prepared by Andrew Jennings who would keep a copy on file. So maybe that was the topic of conversation overheard by Lizzie when she came home from Miss Russell's. Suddenly Abby's death became more imminently necessary.

Andrew was supposedly seen carrying a white package into the house. Perhaps it wasn't a package but more like an envelope with a will inside. Or a deed to the house in Abby's name. The problem with this is that if Andrew Jennings drew up the will (or the deed) it's unlikely that he would've defended someone he knew was guilty of murdering his client for the purpose of evading a legal document he had just drawn up.

Attorneys cannot suborn perjury. Every lawyer in the country knew O.J. was guilty when he testified under oath during interrogatory, making up a totally bizarre story instead of opting for the 5th, and his attorney Howard Weitzman withdrew two days later.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:02 am

Andrew Jenning's emphatically denied, at the time of Andrew Borden's death, that he had drawn up any current Will for him. Of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't talk of one. After all, Andrew may have been postponing it but he was at the biblical 'three score years and ten.'

Jenning's as yet unreleased diaries do speak, it seems, of a much more pleasant and considerate individual than the hard business figure of legend. I'm sure Lizzie and he did love each other, though Andrew was probably not at ease when showing his emotions. It's much easier, too, to express love to a small child than to a grown woman if you are a buttoned up old Yankee!

We've all speculated on the part Emma played in making Lizzie the sort of woman that she was. Probably it was being constantly quietly emphasised to Lizzie every time husband and wife spent time together, "see, this is how it's going to be from now on!"

What a dreadful woman your particular 'Misty' must have been to do that!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:32 am

Misty spent six months jail for a plethora of bad deeds, but nothing was changed when released. Thankfully she moved from the area.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:06 am

Debbie, what an interesting thought you have come up with! Lizzie’s rage toward Abby may have been due to jealousy, money and Abby being Andrew's favorite, makes a lot of sense to me.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:30 am

debbiediablo wrote:Hardly could it be a coincidence that the items taken from Andrew were money and tickets while the objects taken from Abby were sentimental and irreplaceable.

My daughter with autism had an acquaintance (borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder formally diagnosed by a psychiatrist) who would steal when annoyed with someone - targeting not items of financial value but items of emotional value. Sue had a beautiful Victorian vase that belonged to her grandmother, and she loved it just as she loved her Nan. It disappeared right off her coffee table after a visit from Misty (as in Play Misty for Me). When the family moved and their house was empty, we did a walk-through with the owner. The vase was smashed in the corner of the basement behind a pile of junk. No way could this have happened accidentally.

Who knows? Abby's prized possessions may be hidden somewhere next to bloody hatchet for all eternity.

This is exactly how I see Lizzie. I also am beginning to wonder if her rage at Abby was partly jealousy, not only about money, but also about being Andrew's favorite. It's a little odd for Andrew to wear a ring from Lizzie - that's generally a symbol of love and commitment from a wife, not a daughter.

Lizzie was supposedly in the barn looking for something to make sinkers. Perhaps using those sinkers as an excuse (symbols of fishing trips alone with the father who wore her ring like a husband wears a wedding ring) had more meaning than one might think at first glance. From my perspective there's very little coincidence in this life. I'm not saying their relationship was incestuous, but I am saying there may not have been normal father-daughter boundaries.

This sends my imagination to a scene where Lizzie confronts Andrew with the murder of Abby, admitting she did it, thinking he will be pleased to be rid of the old cow. Now their family can be together like it was before Andrew remarried. Or like it was when she was younger, and Andrew had the energy and desire to spoil her with all his attention.

When he explodes in fury, the hatchet comes out from behind Lizzie's back and she strikes him at least once from the front with his fists doubled up in shock and anger. One blow sends him slumping to the side, already unconscious or most likely dead. Which explains his odd position for a nap. Then she puts on the coat and bludgeons his face beyond recognition. Partly for money, but mostly because he had just proved that he loved Abby more than her. And because she truly did love him as much as she could love anyone (and he may have loved her equally unwell) she then places the coat under his head.

Although it seems odd that Andrew Borden would not have a will, I cannot imagine any testament he might have not being prepared by Andrew Jennings who would keep a copy on file. So maybe that was the topic of conversation overheard by Lizzie when she came home from Miss Russell's. Suddenly Abby's death became more imminently necessary.

Andrew was supposedly seen carrying a white package into the house. Perhaps it wasn't a package but more like an envelope with a will inside. Or a deed to the house in Abby's name. The problem with this is that if Andrew Jennings drew up the will (or the deed) it's unlikely that he would've defended someone he knew was guilty of murdering his client for the purpose of evading a legal document he had just drawn up.

Attorneys cannot suborn perjury. Every lawyer in the country knew O.J. was guilty when he testified under oath during interrogatory, making up a totally bizarre story instead of opting for the 5th, and his attorney Howard Weitzman withdrew two days later.

the only things of value abby may have had may well have been those items, which happened to have sentimental value to her, so i don't know how intentional that was. although lizzie undoubtedly would have thought that was a plus. in her mind, abby would have deserved it.

if lizzie thought andrew would have been happy to be free of abby, she wouldn't have had any reason to have the hatchet with her, so she could whip it out and start bludgeoning him. apparently that was his usual napping/resting position on the couch, so that i don't have a problem with. there's testimony that his body had slumped from the position he was originally found in, when the photos were taken, so it does look even more uncomfortable than his usual position on the couch actually was.

but i do think there was an element of jealousy involved. not just on lizzie's part, but on emma's too. they were his own children; they had his blood running through their veins. abby didn't. abby, as far as lizzie and emma were concerned, was and had always been an 'intruder,' not an actual member of the family. how could andrew, their own father and flesh and blood, favor abby - or even treat her equal to them - when it came to his estate? or even aside from the estate, in his daily dealings with all three of them? in their minds, it was a huge betrayal on his part. it might have been different if they liked and accepted her, but they never did and were never going to.

good point about jennings having a will on file, if there was one. even if one were imminent, you'd think andrew would have mentioned it to jennings, being his family lawyer. i think possum may be onto something there, about andrew having something in writing, an unofficial will of some sort. lizzie probably knew or suspected that. hence the 'burglary.' who knows, maybe she found and read it, and it edged her that much closer to committing these murders.

i forget now the exact testimony on the description of the package andrew was carrying, or where it is, but it wasn't the size of documents. it was too small and too thick. i sure would love to know what it was though, and what happened to it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:40 pm

Even if Lizzie entertained the idea that Andrew would be happy to be free of Abby or, happy or not, that he would protect her, Lizzie would've been smart enough and self-focused enough to know what would happen if he were not. And she would've prepared for whatever might happen.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:01 pm

personally, i think she knew, after she'd killed abby, she had to kill her father too. he might have covered for her with the police about the 'burglary,' but he also let her know he knew she'd done it. and this was murder. plus he'd already proven to her he'd give abby property, but not she and emma. not until they made andrew and abby's life even more miserable. and don't forget, she tried to get bridget out of the house by tempting her with that one-day sale of fabric for a dress. … i wonder, did anyone check to see if that shop actually was having that sale on the fabric? probably, but i never heard about it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:17 pm

Catbooks wrote:personally, i think she knew, after she'd killed abby, she had to kill her father too. he might have covered for her with the police about the 'burglary,' but he also let her know he knew she'd done it. and this was murder. plus he'd already proven to her he'd give abby property, but not she and emma. not until they made andrew and abby's life even more miserable. and don't forget, she tried to get bridget out of the house by tempting her with that one-day sale of fabric for a dress. … i wonder, did anyone check to see if that shop actually was having that sale on the fabric? probably, but i never heard about it.

My work requires that I get into the minds of kids and young adults to determine why they behave as they do...what triggers the behavior, what rewards it, what might extinguish it. If my carefully laid plans don't work, then I attempt to find a different perspective and develop a new strategy that does.

This seems to be how I am about Lizzie. Possum might say I'm so open minded that my brain is falling out!

The Borden killings will never be solved unless evidence comes out of an attic in Fall River – or the Robinson law firm in Boston – that explains everything (which is much less likely than winning Powerball). I do think determining to the closest possible solution with what we know and can extrapolate will not be based on epiphanic case facts or overlooked evidence – not after having been examined by thousands of people over the past 121-plus years. I'm more inclined to think modern forensics and psychological profiling will point to the killer or killers.

Even though John Douglas's interview strategy seems hokey when diminished to a few paragraphs, and some of the minor case facts are in error, I do think his analysis of Lizzie is spot on. I'd ask Possum if he agrees with me on this: it's amazing, sometimes horrifying, what people who seem like moral upright citizens do behind closed doors. Many times family, friends and neighbors are aware that something is amiss except they don't want to confront it, to believe it. All of us are very good at not knowing what we cannot bear to know, even when it's a huge elephant standing in the corner. And it's almost impossible to think like a patricidal murderess if we have no desire to kill a parent we love. I don't know that Lizzie would've confessed to John Douglas. But given the right opportunity, most people will talk about almost anything to the person who seems most understanding. Social mores change; human nature does not.

Your theory is probably my favorite at the moment, but we really don't know whether money was the #1 motivating factor (both sisters gave away much of their fortune to worthy causes) or whether it was love, jealousy, feeling replaced by Abby as the apple of Andrew's eye. Andrew Borden had enough money for everyone to live happily ever after, and both daughters were smart enough to know this. So even though I'm thinking money may have been a factor, perhaps it wasn't the primary drive behind such a frenzy of overkill.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:32 am

Yes, there were probably several reasons why Andrew had to go once Abby was disposed of, among them greed and a fear of what he might do if he ever suspected her. Remember too, that Lizzie spoke of she and Emma not knowing if they would receive anything from their father's will.

It was a house where money ruled, and Andrew doled out property as a means of keeping the peace, a house where 'he who pays the Piper calls the tune'. Maybe Lizzie decided she wanted to pay the piper for a change.

I'm sure I've seen a discussion in an old thread about the sale that was on that day. Will try and look it up.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:54 am

Info on Sargent's and the sale.
Half way down, Under the tittle "If Bridget had gone shopping"

In my opinion, if this is an original advertisement Lizzie definitely wanted her out of the house and was prepared to tell lies to achieve it. Unless, of course, the sale was a week long affair and Lizzie was just talking about the Thursday sale.

http://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/au ... a/page/26/

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:12 am

ooh, thank you! very interesting seeing what's left of the sargent's building. but that ad says the sale is friday, the following day. what's up with that?

on a side and unrelated note, am i the only person who doesn't think this photo looks anything like lizzie?

http://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/20 ... r-lizzies/

i'm sure there must be compelling reason why those in the know thing or know it is she, but i don't see it at all. i look at the features - eyes, nose, mouth - and to me it looks nothing like her.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:39 am

Are we talking about the schoolgirl or the picture of the middle-aged woman with untidy hair standing behind a chair? In the second case yes, definitely her, light eyes etc., in the first case, no, child looks nothing like Lizzie and wouldn't have picked it in a million years!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:28 am

With regard to the Dress Goods Sale at Sargent's I have been trying my hardest to track down a thread 'The Sale at Frank E Sargent's' that I remember reading (from June 2008) but the search engine is giving me nothing! Urrgh!

There is a newspaper advert in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook that refers to a Special Sale on Monday 1st August. 'All on One Long Counter.'

In the thread 'If Andrew was an Axe-ident' (August 2005) Nancie posted 'the sale at Sargent's went on all week. I have the original newspapers so I know it's true.' (End Quote)

However Harry later posted (same thread) Quote: 'the Paper' (Fall River Evening News) 'of August 3rd makes no mention of a sale the next day. The Paper of the 4th refers to the sale as on Friday the 5th.' (End Quote)

So, like so much of this case, the evidence of a Thursday 'sale' is ambiguous or contradictory! Back to my search!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:29 am

yes, the child in the straw hat. it's supposed to be a recently discovered lizzie photo, but i sure don't see it.

dalcanton · Post by **dalcanton** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:07 pm

I wonder if the police had any inkling that Lizzie was the culprit of the daylight robbery prior to Andrew dropping the charges. Think if they had suspected Lizzie and then the double murder happened a year after. Would they have automatically suspected her of the killings? First a theft, now murder.

Also, if Lizzie was the culprit of the theft, I find it strange that both Emma & Bridget would be oblivious to anyone’s presence in Abby’s dressing room. If things were rifled through, wouldn’t they hear it? Not only that, but for Lizzie to do it, since the door was locked between her bedroom & the Bordens’, she’d have to go downstairs, walk through the downstairs rooms & climb up the back stairs that led up to the Bordens’ bedroom, possibly being seen by Bridget in the kitchen or whereabouts in that part of the house. Or, if she were already downstairs, follow the same pattern. There was no other way up to their bedroom.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:02 pm

dalcanton wrote:I wonder if the police had any inkling that Lizzie was the culprit of the daylight robbery prior to Andrew dropping the charges. Think if they had suspected Lizzie and then the double murder happened a year after. Would they have automatically suspected her of the killings? First a theft, now murder.

Also, if Lizzie was the culprit of the theft, I find it strange that both Emma & Bridget would be oblivious to anyone’s presence in Abby’s dressing room. If things were rifled through, wouldn’t they hear it? Not only that, but for Lizzie to do it, since the door was locked between her bedroom & the Bordens’, she’d have to go downstairs, walk through the downstairs rooms & climb up the back stairs that led up to the Bordens’ bedroom, possibly being seen by Bridget in the kitchen or whereabouts in that part of the house. Or, if she were already downstairs, follow the same pattern. There was no other way up to their bedroom.

that's an excellent question. i've never thought about if the police put 2 + 2 together on that, or suspected at any rate. i suppose they had bigger fish to fry, and since there was no proving it, it never came out if they did suspect lizzie of the burglary, but probably there was talk about it in the police station.

we don't know a lot about the events of the day of the burglary. emma could have been out visiting, bridget could have been upstairs resting, or outside doing her weekly washing of the windows. it wouldn't necessarily make much noise. she'd just have to sneak up to their room, go into that closet, look through the drawers, and take what she wanted. no one had any reason to go into abby and andrew's bedroom and closet, until the elder bordens returned from swansea. so it wouldn't be discovered until then.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:28 pm

I agree with Catbooks that after the murders there would have been talk among the police, the detectives certainly. A sort of, 'what do we know about this family?' sort of thing.
Do we know if the family necessarily locked all the internal doors before the 1891 burglary in the way they did later? Of course Andrew's desk would have been locked but would the house have been divided, as it later was, into more or less two halves? Did furniture block access to doorways, etc?
I don't think Lizzie would have done anything while the other two women were in the house. Perhaps she took the opportunity of the two of them being out, (was it Bridget's half-day, for example?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:07 pm

as far as i know, the only change was locking the door on the stairway that lead to the elder bordens' room. probably the door between their room and lizzie's would have been locked even when it was emma's room - just for privacy. the door from the guest room that leads into lizzie's room had a large piece of furniture over it, and was kept locked. no doubt also for privacy.

then the locked clothes closet, that one still baffles me. i cannot think of a single reasonable reason to keep a closet door locked, used by two people, who had to get in and out of there a minimum of twice a day.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:33 am

Didn't Abby also have a few dresses kept in that particular closet? It just seems to have been another example of pettiness between the three women.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:00 am

It's always been supposed, by the way, that Andrew left the key to the 'dressing room' upstairs lying on the mantelpiece of the sitting room as a subliminal message/warning to Lizzie after the daylight robbery, hasn't it?

However, when Dr Bowen asked Mrs Churchill to go and get a sheet out of the dressing room to cover Andrew's body, he gave her the wrong key, so perhaps there were several keys just lying about on the mantel and there was no 'message' there at all, just personal convenience.

Keys,keys, keys!! Abby lost her front door key on the Tuesday before the murders. According to Mrs Bowen Abby said that 'they' had taken it, but didn't specify who 'they' were!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:28 pm

Curryong wrote: Keys,keys, keys!! Abby lost her front door key on the Tuesday before the murders. According to Mrs Bowen Abby said that 'they' had taken it, but didn't specify who 'they' were!

Hmmm. An interesting coincidence.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:03 pm

Curryong, that quote from Mrs. Bowen is fascinating. I'm not asking you to do my homework for me, but could you point me in the right direction to find it? I'd love to read whatever more there might be to it.

I've always been a little skeptical about the "message" thing. It never made sense to me. I know of no other report about Andrew's character that would suggest he was given so such subtle mind-games, but who knows? Maybe mind games were what made him his fortune.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:01 pm

hmm, i wonder who 'they' could be? abby was hardly prone to flights of fancy, so it would be a literal meaning. lizzie and emma? andrew and ???

more than one person, but who?

i wonder where dr. bowen got that other key. he wouldn't have known where which key was kept, but from whence did he get that wrong key? i do still think it most likely that andrew put the key to his and abby's bedroom in plain sight as a message to lizzie.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:36 am

Mara, before I joined this forum I jotted down a few things that interested me while I was rifling through early threads. However, I didn't take notes in any systematic way! Would that I had!

This is exactly what I put down at the time (around Xmas.)

Quoted by Kat Thurs April 28th 2005 in thread 'Could All the World Have Known That This Was Coming Down'.

Jennings notes from 'The Hip-bath Collection' by Barbara Ashton in Proceedings.

'Mrs Dr Bowen called and said that on Tuesday of the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs Borden and (spoke?) and (B saw?) said L wasn't up yet, but Mrs Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was, and went over there with Mrs Borden.

'Mrs Borden said she couldn't get in the front way 'for they had taken her key'. So she and Mrs Bowen went in the back door.'

I was fascinated by this glimpse into the Borden household. Shortly after I joined the Forum I did an advanced Search using combinations of 'Abby's lost key' or 'Keys' and to my amazement the Abby's keys being purloined? taken away from her,? lost, mislaid? seemed to be known to most of the early posters (2005-2006) and they speculated on who had taken the keys away from poor Abby. However, I never took any more notes. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

By the way, that little snippet shows a close household, (Sarcasm) but Mrs Bowen, who was fond of Abby, didn't speak of the lost key in her testimony, I believe.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:59 am

Witness statements Page 12. Mrs Churchill's statement.

'When the doctor returned he asked for a sheet. Bridget Sullivan, the work girl, was afraid to go upstairs alone so I went with her. Lizzie said we would find the sheets in the dressing room, which is off Mrs Borden's room. I think we waited for a key to Mrs Borden's room and I think Dr Bowen went into the sitting room to get it. If I am not mistaken he first brought out a bunch, but the one wanted was not among them; so he went in again and returned with a single key. We then went upstairs... '

Now, friends, having thought about it some more, did our Dr Bowen do some rifling of the pockets of his newly deceased neighbour and get a bunch of keys out for the ladies, (thereby disturbing the body some more,) or were these particular keys lying on the mantle next to the 'message' key, (which was apparently of a large size, and not on a key ring.) And if he did, how did he know Andrew had a whole bunch of them in his pocket? Unless he knew about the family habit of locking everything up, of course.

The undertaker handed Dr Dolan a 'ring of Keys' so maybe Bowen did go through his pockets. In which case he popped them back in said pockets, and you would be correct Catbooks, in stating that the dressing room key reigned alone on the mantle, as a message!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:58 pm

i'm still puzzling over who 'they' were. the only they that comes to mind is lizzie and emma. can't see it being andrew and lizzie, andrew and emma, or andrew and the girls.

about the ring of keys, my guess is the household keys were kept on a ring, probably in the kitchen and probably somewhere in plain sight, or the undertaker wouldn't have been able to find them very easily. we all have keyrings now and keep them with us, but back when, most people just had one key - key to their front doors.

i remember when i was a kid we had a ring of household keys. the house was built in the 30s, and many of the doors had locks - the old skeleton key types of locks. along with the easily identified skeleton keys were a number of mystery keys. no one knew what they were for, but we weren't about to throw them out, just in case ;)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:42 pm

Well, exactly! Maybe a couple of them had been grandfather clock keys or something! I thought Dr Bowen was in the sitting room the whole time while Bridget and Mrs Churchill were waiting for him upstairs (how creepy would that have been with the thought that someone might be hidden there) but I can see that he might have been in the kitchen, too.

Mrs Borden maybe was hinting about her two stepdaughters taking her key for spite. She might have been thinking about the daylight robbery and Lizzie taking something far more valuable, again for spite, but Mrs Bowen wouldn't have known about the inference.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:49 pm

Curryong wrote:Well, exactly! Maybe a couple of them had been grandfather clock keys or something!

or to broken padlocks andrew might pick up along the way! you never know.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:14 pm

Going back to Abby's key, unless she was being whimsical in her use of 'they', then the key must have disappeared before Emma went to Fairhaven. Sounds too, from that brief snippet, that 'L' alias Lizzie, was in the habit of skulking in her bedroom for most of the morning. Mrs Bowen seems, like many others, to have picked up on the strained atmosphere in the Borden home, but was quite willing to go over to the house for a gossip when the stepdaughters weren't around.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:53 pm

Curryong, thanks. That's intriguing. I wonder if this is when Lizzie (perhaps in concert with Emma) started taking control of locking the front door at night and opening it in the morning. Maybe the key Lizzie used for this had originally been Abby's.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:33 pm

i just don't see abby as the whimsical sort

i wonder how long before this conversation with mrs. bowen 'they' took abby's key.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:19 pm

Didn't Lizzie have her own key for the exterior front door lock, as she used it when she returned from Alice's on the Wednesday night, or do you mean she 'borrowed' that one from Abby and never gave it back? They were such a strange household, always trying to dodge each other, and so many keys in so many hands, (except Abby's apparently.)

You mean, Catbooks, that Abby didn't believe in those household imps who remove things from where you last put them and lose family members' socks, gloves, keys, etc?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:34 pm

Curryong wrote:...

You mean, Catbooks, that Abby didn't believe in those household imps who remove things from where you last put them and lose family members' socks, gloves, keys, etc?

apparently not. but *I* do. what other rational explanation is there?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:14 am

No. No. No. Not imps...everyone knows they are elves! The same ones that made off with the hatchet and the bloody dress....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:33 am

It would have taken a couple of dozen of them to have carried off that hatchet. Did they also take Andrew's Prince Albert?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:29 am

The keys have always fascinated me. To go from any upstairs room to another was virtually impossible without a key, and some rooms had furniture pushed up against doors!!! To go out the front door needed a key. To come in any other door needed a key.
The practice of locking INTERIOR doors in a family home is very dysfunctional. The only reason something is locked is lack of trust. Parents who have small children may lock their bedroom door for a short while when they are "intimate" because you can't trust a 4 year old to knock first. Of course, as the children get older, you don't need to lock anymore, they know to knock first. I know from working with very dysfunctional families in psychotherapy, there were times when interior doors were locked, the children were violent, or stole things, or autistic and didn't respect privacy, but in a healthy functional house there is no need to lock interior doors. Despite all we DON'T know about this case, that one fact shows the level of dysfunction.

The front door had 3 locks, 2 of which could be opened from the inside without a key, and a 'night lock' which needed a key from both outside and inside. This middle lock was unlocked in the morning, left open all day, and re-locked at night, usually by Lizzie. The fact that it wasn't unlocked yet when Andrew came home about 10:40 or so was a break in pattern. It also shows that IF an outsider sneaked in and killed the Bordens, they must have come in the side or back door. The front one hadn't been unlocked from the inside yet that morning.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:08 am

It certainly was dysfunctional! The very closet in which dresses were kept outside the bedrooms was under lock and key! The only time I have personally witnessed furniture being placed in front of a doorway was when we stayed in a very old hotel, and it was because of structural alterations 100 years before.

It would be interesting to know when all this interior locking up and furniture moving took place. The physical division between the back and the front half of the house happened after the theft in 1891. (By the way, was the lock on Andrew's desk actually forced on that occasion?) Before that, though, were the majority of the rooms locked or did it all occur after the quarrel about the Whitehead property, I wonder?

The whole family seemed to be in a fearful state about burglars, witness the club Andrew kept under his bed. Was the neighbourhood becoming so rough? If it was it's a great pity Andrew didn't do something about it and buy two houses in a nicer location. He would have saved everyone a great deal of misery, but instead he just let things go on and on.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:35 am

PossumPie wrote: The practice of locking INTERIOR doors in a family home is very dysfunctional. The only reason something is locked is lack of trust. Parents who have small children may lock their bedroom door for a short while when they are "intimate" because you can't trust a 4 year old to knock first. Of course, as the children get older, you don't need to lock anymore, they know to knock first. I know from working with very dysfunctional families in psychotherapy, there were times when interior doors were locked, the children were violent, or stole things, or autistic and didn't respect privacy, but in a healthy functional house there is no need to lock interior doors. Despite all we DON'T know about this case, that one fact shows the level of dysfunction.

In looking at a map of the locks, I wondered if Andrew (or Abby) feared someone? Or did something happen in those rooms that was so secret the doors had to be locked? On the other hand, the bathroom in the house where my daughter lives has two doors – one of them has a latch that doesn't catch so it stays locked to keep it from swinging open at any moment. I can also understand the lock between Lizzie's room and the back part of the house along with pushing furniture against the door. Wall space was often limited in Victorian houses, plus teen-agers want their own inviolable space. The lockdown in the remainder of the house seems very unusual; however, I've never been a house of that age where every single door couldn't be locked.