All About Andrew

This the place to have frank, but cordial, discussions of the Lizzie Borden case

Moderator: Adminlizzieborden

Catbooks
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:31 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Catbooks
Location: U.S.

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Catbooks »

Curryong wrote:...
What I do get very tired of, and you see it in forums that are devoted to international events, is that, immediately no 'rational' explanation for some event appears, the 'tin-foil hats' appear, pushing their theories! The age of the Internet has been such a boon for these people, honestly!
...
i'm so with you there. i've stopped reading comments on articles, youtubes, etc. for the most part. sometimes it scares me to know these people are out on the streets :cool:

as far as i know, bridget only handled the downstairs cleaning, and the bordens took care of upstairs. although, it may be that a few times a year bridget did the upstairs windows. they wouldn't get nearly as dirty as the ones downstairs.
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

You are probably right. Maybe Andrew got his egg man from Swansea to go over the upper windows. Can't see him doing it himself! One of the doctors (think it was Bowen) got quite excited over a mark on the outside of one of the guest room windows, but it turned out it was a smear of mud!

As far as 'tin hats' are concerned, I used to quite enjoy one of the forums that are devoted to chatting about members of various Royal families, though I wasn't a member. It was quite international, though, as an English-speaking forum it was naturally dominated by English and Americans.

Hardly any of them liked Kate, who is the wife of Prince William, the second in line to the British throne. So, when she became pregnant, because she is extremely thin, some of the posters became convinced that she couldn't be pregnant.

Therefore, she was wearing, as her pregnancy advanced, a foam belly to cover up this deceit! These posters believed that she would have a pretend miscarriage.
When she went into hospital to give birth, some believed that a surrogate mother had been smuggled in, others that a friend of Prince William's who was in the hospital at the same time, had given birth to twins and gave the Royal couple one of them!
Because the baby, Prince George, hasn't really been photographed since his christening, the posters believe it is because he doesn't resemble William or Kate.
So a whole conspiracy has been born, involving a cast of hundreds, including Kate's family, the Royal Family, the obstetrician (who was given a knighthood; in their eyes a pay-off) hospital staff, Royal protection officers, the surrogate and family, etc, etc. I now only read the posts on that Forum when I feel like a good laugh!!
Catbooks
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:31 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Catbooks
Location: U.S.

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Catbooks »

i can see andrew washing the windows if it'd save him a penny. but not at 70 years old. at least i hope not. although, considering what happened to him, i guess it didn't matter in the end.

oh, that's interesting. what would a smear of mud be doing there? as peculiar and penuriously run as the household was, i always imagined it pretty spotless. although i suppose it could have been from something as relatively innocent as neighborhood boys throwing mud at the house.

omg, that's just *crazy* about the intricate imaginings about the royal baby! humans, we can be so strange.
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, I can imagine Andrew not being overly popular with the neighbourhood boys. He put barbed wire over the back fence, didn't he, to prevent his precious pears being taken? One rainy day, a handful of sloppy mud, what could be more satisfactory!

Incidentally, the whereabouts of this missing Malaysian jet is becoming more mysterious by the moment!
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

PossumPie wrote: As we speak a Malaysian plane has disappeared. The first talk on the news was terrorism. BUT why hasn't any terror group spoke up and taken credit? What kind of dumb group takes down a plane, then is silent? The mundane idea that they had electrical problems has been ignored, or marginally discussed. When it's all said and done, they probably lost communications, tried to go back, getting lost, running out of fuel, and crashing into the HUGELY empty expansive ocean. The simpler explanation isn't always correct, is always more boring, but the odds are in it's favor.

For sure, the ferocity of the attacks on the Bordens, the vicious damage looks at first glace like the work of a man. But that is Misogynous. We can't say a woman wouldn't have the anger or ability to pulverize a man's skull with an ax. It does make me have a doubt though...We can speculate the person had a certain hatred/fury during both attacks, you don't give a beating like that just to kill.
We can't say a woman could not be so enraged as to commit such a crime, but it's a statistical improbability. Just like the hijacking of the Malaysian airliner that was really hijacked:

http://news.yahoo.com/malaysian-investi ... 44022.html

A friend of mine (Marine DEFCON One in 1969-71) was assigned to Air America during the Viet Nam conflict. All those stories about the CIA commandeering and then selling mega tons of opium to finance the war....well, they're true. My friend laughs and says his second PhD was in psychology, but his first PhD was a double dissertation in assassination and drug trafficking.

Or read the book Nemesis by Peter Evans...even if you choose not to believe the connection between Aristotle Onassis and the death of Robert Kennedy, the behind the scenes behavior of the rich and famous, particularly Jacqueline Kennedy, is an eye opener. The baby she miscarried in 1956 could have belonged to then Senator Kennedy or to actor William Holden. She had a revenge affair and then threw it in her husband's face. Except then Mrs. Kennedy realized she was pregnant with the baby she called Arabella.

As for the JFK assassination conspiracy theory, this video is interesting, especially since Josiah Thompson comes with exceptional credibility. In 1963 he was hired by LIFE magazine (Time, Inc) to analyze the Zapruder film which Time owned. He then wrote Six Seconds in Dallas one of the seminal books about November 22, 1963. Fifty years later after dozens of other investigations including the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing...fifty years later Thompson changes his mind. This may not cause you to change your mind, but it will make you think...especially after you hear four shots (two of them too close together to come from the same rifle) the synchronization of an open microphone on one of the police motocycles and the Zapruder film. Whether you believe this or not, Josiah Thompson has a reputation for diligence and honesty:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHllYzzFWc
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

I believe your Marine friend, debbie. The CIA has manipulated and interfered all over the world in the decades since its establishment. I also believe that Jackie Kennedy had tit for tat affairs, probably with William Holden, a well-known womaniser and drunk, and perhaps with her brother-in-law, who knows.

As far as Sirhan Sirhan is concerned, however, he strongly identified as a Palestinian Arab, (a dispossessed people I, incidentally, feel a strong sympathy for.) Sirhan lived in the refugee community in the United States, imbibing the hatred of Israel present there, and hearing the stories of injustice.
He had become anti-American, and was feeling alienated. I just don't think that he needed to be hypnotised, (to become a Manchurian Candidate-type), in order to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Kennedy was about to, in my opinion, sweep into the White House later that year, and, like most American politicians, was a firm supporter of Israel. (Would that they could see the Palestinian point of view occasionally.) June 5th 1968 was the first anniversary of the humiliating (from an Arab point of view) Six Day War, and that was no doubt a huge spur for Sirhan to act.

Having said that, I feel nothing but contempt for Aristotle Onassis really, a totally corrupt, amoral person, with far too much power.
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

PossumPie wrote: As we speak a Malaysian plane has disappeared. The first talk on the news was terrorism. BUT why hasn't any terror group spoke up and taken credit? What kind of dumb group takes down a plane, then is silent? The mundane idea that they had electrical problems has been ignored, or marginally discussed. When it's all said and done, they probably lost communications, tried to go back, getting lost, running out of fuel, and crashing into the HUGELY empty expansive ocean. The simpler explanation isn't always correct, is always more boring, but the odds are in it's favor.
The mystery of the Malaysian airliner is starting to look a lot like the Lizzie Borden mystery. How can a hatchet disappear? How can an entire passenger jet disappear?


'Good night': Haunting final contact from missing Malaysian jet



By Anshuman Daga, Niluksi Koswanage and Tim Hepher


KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - The last words from the cockpit of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 - "all right, good night" - were uttered after someone on board had already begun disabling one of the plane's automatic tracking systems, a senior Malaysian official said.

Both the timing and informal nature of the phrase, spoken to air traffic controllers as the plane with 239 people aboard was leaving Malaysian-run airspace on a March 8 flight to Beijing, could further heighten suspicions of hijacking or sabotage.

The sign-off came after one of the plane's data communication systems, which would have enabled it to be tracked beyond radar coverage, had been deliberately switched off, Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Sunday.

"The answer to your question is yes, it was disabled before," he told reporters when asked if the ACARS system - a maintenance computer that sends back data on the plane's status - had been deactivated before the voice sign-off.

The pilot's informal hand-off went against standard radio procedures, which would have called for him to read back instructions for contacting the next control center and include the aircraft's call sign, said Hugh Dibley, a former British Airways pilot and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

Investigators are likely to examine the recording for any signs of psychological stress and to determine his identity to confirm whether the flight deck had been taken over by hijackers or the pilot himself was involved, he said.

Malaysian investigators are trawling through the backgrounds of the pilots, crew and ground staff who worked on the missing Boeing 777-200ER for clues as to why someone on board flew it perhaps thousands of miles off course.

Background checks of passengers have drawn a blank but not every country whose nationals were on board has responded to requests for information, police chief Khalid Abu Bakar said.

No trace of the plane has been found more than a week after it vanished but investigators believe it was diverted by someone with deep knowledge of the plane and commercial navigation.

Malaysia briefed envoys from nearly two dozen nations and appealed for international help in the search for the plane along two arcs stretching from the shores of the Caspian Sea to the far south of the Indian Ocean.

"The search area has been significantly expanded," Hishammuddin said. "From focusing mainly on shallow seas, we are now looking at large tracts of land, crossing 11 countries, as well as deep and remote oceans."

The plane's disappearance has baffled investigators and aviation experts. It disappeared from civilian air traffic control screens off Malaysia's east coast less than an hour after taking off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing.

Malaysian authorities believe that, as the plane crossed the country's northeast coast and flew across the Gulf of Thailand, someone on board shut off its communications systems and turned sharply to the west.

Electronic signals it continued to exchange periodically with satellites suggest it could have continued flying for nearly seven hours after flying out of range of Malaysian military radar off the northwest coast, heading towards India.

The plane had enough fuel to fly for about seven-and-a-half to eight hours, Malaysia Airlines' Chief Executive Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said.

Malaysian officials briefed ambassadors from 22 countries on the progress of the investigation and appealed for international cooperation, diplomats said on Sunday.

PILOTS' HOMES SEARCHED

On Saturday, police special branch officers searched the homes of the captain, 53-year-old Zaharie Ahmad Shah, and first officer, 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid, in middle-class suburbs of Kuala Lumpur close to the international airport.

An experienced pilot, Zaharie has been described by current and former co-workers as a flying enthusiast who spent his days off operating a life-sized flight simulator he had set up at home.

Police chief Khalid said investigators had taken the flight simulator for examination by experts.

Earlier, a senior police official said the flight simulator programs were closely examined, adding they appeared to be normal ones that allow players to practice flying and landing in different conditions.

Police sources said they were looking at the personal, political and religious backgrounds of both pilots and the other crew members. Khalid said ground support staff who might have worked on the plane were also being investigated.

A second senior police official told Reuters investigators had found no links between Zaharie, a father of three grown-up children and a grandfather, and any militant group.

Postings on his Facebook page suggest the pilot was a politically active opponent of the coalition that has ruled Malaysia for the 57 years since independence.

A day before the plane vanished, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to five years in prison, in a ruling his supporters and international human rights groups say was politically influenced.

Asked if Zaharie's background as an opposition supporter was being examined, the first senior police officer would say only: "We need to cover all our bases."

Malaysia Airlines has said it did not believe Zaharie would have sabotaged the plane and colleagues were incredulous.

"Please, let them find the aircraft first. Zaharie is not suicidal, not a political fanatic as some foreign media are saying," a Malaysia Airlines pilot who is close to Zaharie told Reuters. "Is it wrong for anyone to have an opinion about politics?"

Co-pilot Fariq was religious and serious about his career, family and friends said.

The two pilots had not made any request to fly together.

(Additional reporting by Anshuman Daga, Al-Zaquan Amer Hamzah, Stuart Grudgings and Anuradha Raghu in Kuala Lumpur, Michael Martina in Beijing, Paul Sandle in London, Mark Hosenball in Washington, Sanjib Kumar Roy and Nita Bhalla in Port Blair, India, Sruthi Gottipati in Visakhapatnam, India, Frank Jack Daniel and Douglas Busvine in New Delhi, Jane Wardell in Sydney, John Irish in Paris, Jim Loney and Andy Sullivan in Washington; Writing by Alex Richardson and Frances Kerry; Editing by Rosalind Russell and Paul Tait)
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
Catbooks
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:31 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Catbooks
Location: U.S.

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Catbooks »

i guess this is the best place to put this. i know we were talking about andrew's lack of a will, but you can imagine searching on the words 'andrew' and 'will' didn't get me very far. so, all about andrew, it is.
Charles C. Cook made the following statement. “I am business manager for Mr. Andrew J. Borden, for the Borden Block. I did not see Mr. Borden Thursday. I have had charge of the Block almost since it was built. He used to come in once in a while, but not every day, nearly always alone. The only other person who ever came with him was his wife, excepting once when Lizzie came with him to sign a deed conveying some property she owned to her father. This property was owned jointly by the two sisters, and was situated on Ferry street. Lizzie has been here three or four times, once came to ask me about the value of the property she was going to convey to her father. I told her, and she went away.”

(Question.) “Mr. Cook, have you any reason to believe Mr. Borden had, or had not, made a will?”
(Answer) “I do not think Mr. Borden had made a will, unless it has been made recently. I will tell you how I know. He came to my office one day when I was writing, and waited until I finished, when I told him I was just writing a will. He said “Charles, do you know that is something I have never done yet, but I must attend to it.”

(Question) “Mr. Cook, do you know of anything that would lead you to imagine that Lizzie and her
father did not get along well together?”
(Answer) “I do not like to answer that question on account of my position as custodian of property, as I do not know what my relations may be with the family, when this thing is settled.”
so there we have it. his business manager knows andrew had made no will, unless he'd done it shortly after the conversation took place. (not entirely true though, as he'd made a will when he was married to sarah.)

i find his response interesting when asked if he knew of anything to lead him to think lizzie and andrew didn't get along well. as it turned out, i believe this is the same mr cook who did manage lizzie and emma's property.
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, talking of wills, didn't Lizzie leave the obliging Mr Cook some property in her will?

Incidentally the search area for the mysterious Malaysian jet is getting near to the Cocos Islands and the Western Australian Coast! I came by ship to Australia, and we crossed the very empty Indian Ocean, nothing but sea to be seen for days. It'd be like looking for a needle in a haystack! I visited Malaysia a couple of years ago. My best holiday ever! We used Malaysian Airways to get there and back but nothing exciting happened. Fortunate, I guess!

It is a real mystery! I wonder, if nothing is ever found, whether people will be discussing various solutions to the disappearance in a hundred years time!
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

This is an interesting Op-Ed in today's New York Times. Although about Malaysian Flight 370 it's equally true about Lizzie. There is so little we know compared to what we don't.


The Folly of Thinking We Know

The Painful Hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370


By PICO IYER MARCH 20, 2014

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — WE’VE most of us, surely, heard all the figures: Humanity now produces as much data in two days as it did in all of history till the year 2003 — and the amount of data is doubling every two years. In the time you take to read this piece, the human race will generate as much data as currently exists in the Library of Congress. For that matter — yes, your inbox and Facebook page would reflect this — 10 percent of all the pictures ever taken as of the end of 2011 were taken in 2011. Yet as we think about how an entire Boeing 777 has gone missing for almost two weeks now, we’re also painfully reminded of how much we can’t — and may never — know, even in the Knowledge Economy.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist and psychologist Daniel Kahneman has noted, after decades of research, that it’s our nature to overestimate how much we understand the world and to underestimate the role of chance. And it’s our folly to assume we know very much at all. There’s “a highly objectionable word,” he writes, “which should be removed from our vocabulary in discussions of major events,” and that word is “knew.”

I think of this as I watch one expert after another offer informed guesses about the fate of the missing plane, even as all we know about it so far is how provisional — and contradictory — our speculations have been. I also recall how the words that most convey authority and credibility whenever I listen to any pundit speak are “I don’t know.” Whatever the field of our expertise, most of us realize that the more data we acquire, the less, very often, we know. The universe is not a fixed sum, in which the amount you know subtracts from the amount you don’t.

As Gardiner G. Hubbard, the first president of the National Geographic Society, said in 1888, when his magazine set out to chart everything in the known universe, “The more we know, the greater we find is our ignorance.” And it can often seem as if nature — or something beyond our reckoning at least — intrudes every time we’re tempted to get above ourselves. Whenever we begin to assume we can command or comprehend quite a bit, some Icarian calamity pushes our face, tragically, in the limits of our knowledge.

It’s been humbling, as well as horrifying, to see the entire globe, in an age of unprecedented data accumulation, up in the air, more or less, but poignantly aware that, whatever we do learn, a grief beyond understanding is likely to be a part of it.

We imagine how those with loved ones on the plane must be trying to fill the absence, of knowledge as well as of their sons or wives, and how they may fear, even if at times they long for, certainty. We imagine the people on the aircraft, whose not-knowing might have been felt on the pulse, accelerating, as the vessel suddenly changed course. We translate the story into our own lives, and think about how the things we don’t know haunt and possess us as the things we do seldom can.

Even if we do learn more about the fate of the airliner, it’s unlikely that all of our questions will ever be answered. And the memory of how much we didn’t know — and how long we didn’t know it — ought to sober us as we prepare for the next sudden visitation of the inexplicable.

We’re all grateful that we know as much as we do these days, and enjoy lives that are safer, longer, healthier and better connected than those of any generation before ours. Yet each day that passes, Malaysia 370 keeps hovering like a terrible blank in our minds, more visible the longer it’s out of our view.
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, indeed, deb, that article is so true, of both mysteries. Coverage of the missing airliner is already receding, having reached saturation point a few days ago. If nothing is ever found, including the black box, then people's thirst to know exactly what happened will remain unassuaged and that might well be the same even if it is found. No-one will ever know exactly what occurred.
Just like the Borden case really. Look how many times the motivations and personalities of various people, including Lizzie, have been discussed on this forum. Yet we'll never know any of them or the truth of the case, for sure.
User avatar
Mara
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:55 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Mara Seaforest
Location: Rural Virginia
Contact:

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Mara »

Catbooks, that's a fascinating Lizzie bit. Thanks so much for posting it. Cook was a prudent man, apparently. I find it odd that a man of Andrew Borden's holdings and business acumen would fail to have a will drawn up. Maybe men like that think they will never die. (Well by golly, I guess somebody showed him! )
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, Cook would have known all Andrew's business dealings as he was to later with Lizzie and Emma's holdings and he was rewarded for his diligence in Lizzie's will. It seems Andrew was one of those people who keep saying "Yes, I must do that..." and it never gets done.
All the same, I do wonder about the rifling of Andrew's desk in the daylight robbery of 1891. Looking through his papers for a will, perhaps?

Also, uncle John perhaps came to be regarded as a bird of ill omen by Lizzie, as Andrew discussed business affairs with him. It just seems to me that after the Whitehead purchase the sisters seem to have made up their minds that their stepmother had a lot of influence over Andrew, and were losing hope they would get their due reward when the time came!

Dd Lizzie think that Uncle John's latest visit heralded some kind of a shift, a settlement of the Swansea properties away from them and to Abby? I can't remember where I read it but Uncle John had visited the Swansea farms a little time before (though not on this last visit), with a potential housekeeper. His doing so again, even if he did so alone and brought eggs back, could have rang warning bells in someone's brain!
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

One aspect that amazes me is how Abby was viewed as a usurper of Andrew's estate rather than a deserving partner. Fact is she was married to him during the time he built the majority of his fortune. She should've been the rightful heiress with the girls getting their own equal pieces of the pie. It's not like she entered the picture late in his life. There was plenty enough money to go around and properly keep all three of them until the end of their days. Andrew's estate was worth slightly over $12,000,000 in today's money. That's $4,000,000 each. Without touching the principal and earning a paltry 2.5%, that would still be $100,000 a year in interest income. In this state an intestate person's wealth will be distributed 1/3 to spouse and 2/3 divided among children. Which might have been how Andrew would choose to divide it anyway had he written a will.
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, it is such a screwed up way of looking at things, but then, the family dynamics were screwed-up, weren't they? I do think that meek and mild Emma, while showing no obvious concern for money and social status herself, did load sister Lizzie's bullets for her.

It wasn't just the dislike of Abby that Emma seems to have reinforced through nearly thirty years of brainwashing but the perception that Abby didn't deserve anything because she was 'only' the second wife, and not their mother!

I do think though, that the ball was in Andrew's court. He could have quite easily made an equable Will, announced what it contained, and put an end to most of the nasty under-currents emanating from the fact that the 'girls' seem to have been worried that they might have been disinherited. If they were dissatisfied with that then they should have been made to explain their reasons why!

Andrew used money as a form of control. That's obvious. Knowing that Lizzie at least was unhappy at home and that was impacting on his wife, the sensible thing to have done would have been to have bought his very mature daughters a home of their own. It needn't have been on 'the Hill', just in a nicer district. He could then have settled a reasonable sum of money on them through a Trust Fund arrangement and he and Abby could have settled down to a peaceful home life.

Instead the silly man used no common sense whatsoever, kept his daughters on short leashes/ small allowances, and didn't seem to understand what the conflict constantly brewing in his home was about.
User avatar
PossumPie
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
Real Name: Possum Pie

Re: All About Andrew

Post by PossumPie »

My wife and I married 7 years ago. We discussed a will, then forgot about it. Finally, about a month ago, I got to it and wrote a will and advanced directives as to how much 'heroic medical procedures' should be done should we be diagnosed 'terminally ill'. It isn't fun, but it makes your wishes known after you have gone. I think most people fail to write a will b/c they don't give much thought to dying. Luckily I get along splendidly with my two step-daughters, so I don't lock all of our doors! :}
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Thank heavens for that, Possum!

But I do think, at 70 and with a huge fortune to leave, Andrew should have grasped the nettle and just visited Cook. We don't think 70 is that old nowadays but in the 1890's it was. If he didn't want to face his own mortality at that advanced age then when was he going to?
User avatar
snokkums
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
Contact:

Re: All About Andrew

Post by snokkums »

debbiediablo wrote:I'm greatly learning from and enjoying Curryong's suggestion All About Abby so let's please do one about Andrew, too. Focused on his demise: the conjectures, contradictions, physical evidence, testimony, everything. We've touched on this elsewhere, many times, but putting it all in the same place allows me to think more critically about what everyone offers.

• The position of the body (as I've stated elsewhere) doesn't look comfortable enough to relax much less fall asleep. This makes me wonder if Andrew was sick enough that he couldn't get upstairs. Or napping while awaiting a visitor.

• Lizzie talked about pillows and drafts and helping him get settled. I'm confused as this was hot weather in August, hot enough that a draft would be more like a welcome breeze. This is another of her statements that seem to fly in the face of fact.

• I'm of the opinion this is a classic textbook staged domestic homicide right down to the pillow under his head to 'undo' the act. (She undid it for a final time by being buried at his feet.) Not everyone agrees...food for discussion.

• I also think that her 'finding' him was a reenactment of how she approached him with the hatchet. I know PossumPie isn't fond of psychological analysis but...:-)...I don't think she could kill him until she could do it without his ultimate realization. And i wonder if he knew in those last moments.

• I also wonder if the locked house (was there a club under the bed...some of what I recall is so old I can't remember when and where) indicated he was fearful or paranoid or just behaving like most people during that period. Did he and Abby sleep behind a locked door?

• His fists appeared to be clenched which is not normal for napping. So he either clenched as he died or he didn't cease consciousness at first strike. This leads back to did he know who was wielding the hatchet.

• Whatever happened to the jacket? Did she wear it as a shield for blood splatter? If she did, then why is it under the pillow and not under his head. There was no promise that blood would travel down and disguise the splatter unless it was #1 in the pile. Instead it was #3 under the pillow and a white tidy.

• Didn't he go out the side door in the morning? Everyone seems to have used the side door including John Morse. Why come in the front door? Could he have been expecting a visitor? Or was this regular for his arrival home?

• Somewhere in a less than documented source I read that Lizzie had a high hysterical laugh that popped out at inexplicable times. She laughed at the top of the stairs knowing she was going to kill her father once he got through the locked door. And standing only a few feet from where Abby lay in a pool of congealing blood. This is interesting...and creepy.

Thank you all for providing such thought-provoking comments in all the threads.

I think you are right on the first point. It doesn't look like a very comfortable position to take nap in .And I too am wondering about the breeze and stuff Lizzie was talking about. It was a hot day. I think it was staged by Lizzie.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
User avatar
PossumPie
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
Real Name: Possum Pie

Re: All About Andrew

Post by PossumPie »

DebbieDiablo, You make some interesting points. I love former forum member Allen's idea that she wore Andrew's jacket, then put it under his head EXCEPT for your point...why not put it right under his head? I tend to think she didn't use his jacket.
I agree that Lizzie, if she did it, wouldn't want Andrew's last sight to be her killing him. I would think she would take that first whack when he wasn't looking.
The position on the couch is very uncomfortable. I thought he may have been sitting up and fallen back, someone posted that they saw testimony that his body had been moved so we can't be sure of it's original position.
I strongly believe that the front door had NOT been used at all that morning until Andrew returned. Bridget assumed wrongly that Lizzie had unlocked the "night lock" that could only be opened with a key, which she hadn't done. Bridget fooled with the locks, found them all locked, and let out a "Pshaw" which Lizzie heard and laughed at. ANY THEORY involving people sneaking into the house through the front door is highly suspect. Obviously, if Lizzie or Bridget were neither the killer, it MUST have been someone from outside, which means they sneaked in the back or side door, past Lizzie, Bridget, or both; sneaked upstairs just at the moment Mrs Borden was there, killed her, hid for an hour and a half, sneaked down JUST at the moment Andrew was lying down resting, killed him, and sneaked out...highly improbable.
Witnesses implied that Lizzie's testimony of the loving careful attention to Andrew before his death were NOT her usual way of dealing with him. I also wonder about a "draft" on a summer day, although I have met some elderly people who are paranoid about drafts even if it is hot as an oven ...
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

I don't think her conversation with her father contained any concerned remarks about draughts, and making him comfy. I think her mind was on getting him bumped off before he went searching for Abby. By the way, although the consensus of opinion has always been that Thursday was a hot day in Fall River I'm sure I read in an early thread that someone had some evidence that it wasn't as sweltering as has been imagined. I'll have to try and look it up.

Andrew is in an awkward position on the couch I grant you, though didn't John Morse give evidence that he was in that position on the couch when he arrived the day before?

I'm still a fan of her using the Prince Albert, so handily in the dining room, as a cover-all. How else would she have covered the lower part of her dress from blood splatter? As for the position of the coat, rather than get blood on her hands from her father's head/hair, she quickly bundled up the coat under the cushion, using the cushion to hold her father's head in place as she did it.
User avatar
twinsrwe
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Judy
Location: Wisconsin

Re: All About Andrew

Post by twinsrwe »

Curryong wrote:... As for the position of the coat, rather than get blood on her hands from her father's head/hair, she quickly bundled up the coat under the cushion, using the cushion to hold her father's head in place as she did it.
Thamk you, Curryong. I was going to post this exact thought, but you beat me to it! :grin:
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

Curryong wrote:Thank heavens for that, Possum!

But I do think, at 70 and with a huge fortune to leave, Andrew should have grasped the nettle and just visited Cook. We don't think 70 is that old nowadays but in the 1890's it was. If he didn't want to face his own mortality at that advanced age then when was he going to?
I agree he should've done what needed doing. However it might have ended in murder anyway – for the same reasons they were killed with Andrew intestate. To get Abby's share along with their own. Really, they had no need to murder Abby before a will was drawn up so long as her share didn't revert to her relatives if she died first. Unless Andrew was showing signs of illness. I see this as about power and control; money was just a piece of whole P&C pie...maybe the tip of the iceberg. The damage done to Andrew's face is not just overkill, it's rage pent up over time. We have to ask ourselves what does it take for a daughter, supposedly a loving daughter, to butcher her aging father so brutally? I think it takes more than avarice and a lack of plumbing and electricity. What kind of a man raises the rent when the tenant gets a raise in wages? Rent should be based on value of the property rented, not on how much money can be squeezed out of the tenant.
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

Curryong wrote:I don't think her conversation with her father contained any concerned remarks about draughts, and making him comfy. I think her mind was on getting him bumped off before he went searching for Abby. By the way, although the consensus of opinion has always been that Thursday was a hot day in Fall River I'm sure I read in an early thread that someone had some evidence that it wasn't as sweltering as has been imagined. I'll have to try and look it up.

Andrew is in an awkward position on the couch I grant you, though didn't John Morse give evidence that he was in that position on the couch when he arrived the day before?

I'm still a fan of her using the Prince Albert, so handily in the dining room, as a cover-all. How else would she have covered the lower part of her dress from blood splatter? As for the position of the coat, rather than get blood on her hands from her father's head/hair, she quickly bundled up the coat under the cushion, using the cushion to hold her father's head in place as she did it.
Yes, it wasn't so sweltering that day, and beliefs about night air and drafts and sunshine on skin were far different than today.

I'd like to ask John Morse if The Coat was in the same position the day before. That coat can be there for one or more of three reasons:

• Andrew placed it there before his nap;

• Lizzie placed it there after wearing the coat to shield her clothing. Which begs the question why not directly under his head...why become squeamish now that Daddy's blood, bones and eyeball are all over the sofa and the coat you're holding in your hand and the hatchet you're also holding in your hand? If you simply wanted it to protect from blood splatter then toss it down and walk off. If you want to fool people about its use, then put it directly under his head where blood from the wounds will obliterate the splatter. If Lizzie committed this patricide then we must be careful not to attribute "normal" emotions to her, or make our judgments based how we would feel in the same situation, because what she did was so abnormal for a woman in any time period much less the Victorian, that there could be nothing "normal" about her in those moments. And most of us, probably all of us, cannot imagine doing something so heinous to someone we profess to love. I don't think the gore of his face impacted Lizzie one iota. If it had, she would've stop at blow #1, 2 or 3. When he was dead. There's enough talk about a broken hatchet handle that I wonder whether the hatchet's limitations stopped her while still getting warmed up:

A hatchet Lizzie took, and then
Whacked her father one and ten,
Four more score she thought to do
'Til damn that handle split in two.

• Lizzie placed it there after the bludgeoning as a means of undoing the crime...which fits perfectly with the forensic evidence often found in a staged domestic homicide. This gets my vote, although it leaves how she got away with no blood splatter unanswered.

I see Lizzie as more lucky than smart. And the police as more hesitant than professional. And everyone else acting a little oddly, too. Makes me wonder if some of them didn't think Andrew got a portion of what was due him.
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

My first vote for the 'guilty' hatchet is the Crowe's barn one. All the same, it is an intriguing thought isn't it, a hatchet handle that starts to split asunder due to some rough usage? Andrew was in many ways a strange individual, as we know. I believe he insisted his sister pay her part of a water-tax that was due, when he and she co-inherited a house. I think it was a matter of about $3.00 but he made sure HE didn't pay it.

Because of contamination of the crime scenes by so many individuals I don't suppose we will ever know what Andrew's original position was on that couch. The first police officer noted that his feet were crossed (on the floor.) The crime scene photos don't show that, of course.

That position is even more bizarre. Who goes off to sleep on a couch with their feet crossed and on the floor? Maybe he had read a bit of the newspaper and his head was lolling, and he was just starting to doze rather than actually settling down to sleep? Nobody has ever sorted out the parcel that was in Andrew's hand when he came home that morning, either, though I am inclined to think it was a newspaper.
User avatar
twinsrwe
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Judy
Location: Wisconsin

Re: All About Andrew

Post by twinsrwe »

debbiediablo wrote:... What kind of a man raises the rent when the tenant gets a raise in wages? Rent should be based on value of the property rented, not on how much money can be squeezed out of the tenant.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, whether property improvements are made or not, most, if not all, landowners do the very same thing, even today. After all, it’s all about making money.
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Even worse, here in Australia, tenants who are in public housing get slugged by the State Government for a rise in their rent (admittedly low, subsidised rent) almost every time they receive a raise in their pensions or benefits from the Federal Government.
User avatar
twinsrwe
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Judy
Location: Wisconsin

Re: All About Andrew

Post by twinsrwe »

You’re kidding!!! :shock: Now, that is horrible!
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, it is unfair, though the rent rise is about 25 per cent of the pension raise, not all of it is swallowed up, and pensioners here do get subsidised on a raft of things like power bills, car registration, public transport etc. So it's not all terrible!
User avatar
twinsrwe
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Judy
Location: Wisconsin

Re: All About Andrew

Post by twinsrwe »

Well, that's somewhat better.
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

Curryong wrote:Even worse, here in Australia, tenants who are in public housing get slugged by the State Government for a rise in their rent (admittedly low, subsidised rent) almost every time they receive a raise in their pensions or benefits from the Federal Government.
My youngest child has autism and formerly lived in subsidized housing with SSI payments of less than $800/month. Whenever the SSI increased even slightly, the rent went up, too. Food Stamps went down for everyone this year. I work in an area seriously impacted by poverty. The system is designed so work is less fruitful than non-working (my daughter is disabled enough that she cannot work) and anytime a person gets slightly ahead the government penalizes them. Uncle Sam isn't a whole lot different than Andrew the Landlord...although the caveat is public assistance should be means of survival with basic food, shelter and medical care and not much more.
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Disability Support Pensions here are $532 per fortnight for those 18 to 20 years and living independently. Plus Youth Disability Supplement of up to $118 a fortnight.

If you are over 21 and single (marrieds get more) you are entitled to $766 per fortnight, plus $63 a fortnight Supplement. There is rental assistance for all of the above if you are a tenant.

We don't have Food Stamps here, but having a Health Care card, which the aged and all welfare recipients carry, does entitle you to help with power bills, travel, car registration, optical care, medicines, and bulk-billing doctors (we have national medical care that encompasses everyone, but you can use private health companies too if you wish.)
User avatar
PossumPie
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
Real Name: Possum Pie

Re: All About Andrew

Post by PossumPie »

Just to put a balance on things, I've seen it argued that Andrew has been 'villainized' almost in an attempt to justify his murder. After all, he gave his wife's family a house, then gave his whinny daughters one after they complained. I'm not saying he is perfect, but I do love to look at both sides. The point of putting his coat under the cushion so not to touch his head makes sense...I always did like the theory that Lizzie wore the coat backwards then put it under his head, it was just the fact that it was third down that bothered me.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

Yes, I think Andrew tried to placate his daughters, especially the rather difficult Lizzie as much as he could. I think he was at a loss as to how to mitigate the slow-burning conflict in the house. It's for that reason I think he should have made a Will and bought his daughters a house. I don't think he was a miser in the traditional sense but I think he believed in 'waste not, want not' and was a bit eccentric about money, hence the expectations over the water tax!
User avatar
debbiediablo
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Deborah
Location: Upper Midwest

Re: All About Andrew

Post by debbiediablo »

PossumPie wrote:Just to put a balance on things, I've seen it argued that Andrew has been 'villainized' almost in an attempt to justify his murder. After all, he gave his wife's family a house, then gave his whinny daughters one after they complained. I'm not saying he is perfect, but I do love to look at both sides. The point of putting his coat under the cushion so not to touch his head makes sense...I always did like the theory that Lizzie wore the coat backwards then put it under his head, it was just the fact that it was third down that bothered me.
Whoever killed him, I don't think touching his head would've been problematic in the passion of the crime. The coat was under a pillow that was under a white frilly. Folded as it was an that far under the pile, I think blood splatter would've been evident on parts of the coat even with seepage through and around the pillow. Even in the 1890's, the police would have recognized the difference. If they bothered to look.

I agree. Andrew may have been somewhat villainized. It helps to remember this crime occurred less than 50 years after the law allowed buying and selling of other human beings, and indentured servitude was still common. So I'm more inclined to consider what neighbors of the time said about the family, rather than judging from a 2014 view point. One of them said the family was worse than insane. That's a ruminative construction. Bottom line is Andrew pi**ed off somebody enough that they were willing to hack his face to pieces, to destroy his identity. I doubt it was an overcharged tenant....
DebbieDiablo

*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'*
Even Paranoids Have Enemies


"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

I think you have summed it up debbie, at the end of your first paragraph, in the above post, about the police. 'If they bothered to look.' (Quote.) The trouble is, they didn't, did they?

A couple of them seem to have spent some time seeing whether it was possible for intruders to hide in closets, but didn't bother to inspect the contents of the closets in any systematic way. They took a look around the cellar and grabbed the handleless hatchet (or part of it) but didn't take a look at the roofs of neighbouring barns, etc., and we could go on with a half a dozen more examples.

They seem to have regarded the fact that the coat was bundled up under Andrew's head as a sort of old man's eccentricity. As far as I know no doctor took a look at it for blood splatter or anything else, and as we know from previous posts it seems to have disappeared from history at some time after the autopsy. I still think the sisters sent it to the cleaners and subsequently Andrew wore it in his coffin!
User avatar
MysteryReader
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:03 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Misty
Location: somewhere in GA

Re: All About Andrew

Post by MysteryReader »

I read somewhere (I'm going to go look it up once I post) that the movements of Andrew that morning had him leaving at around 10:00 AM- could he have been the first killer? And also, wasn't there a kitchen door as well as the side door and front door? If someone else was the killer, couldn't he/she have used the kitchen door?
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

There were two doors, the front door, which Lizzie and Emma were in charge of locking and unlocking each day, and the side door off the kitchen. With Emma away Lizzie had the keys. Significantly, the front door had not been unlocked that Thursday. Bridget had to let Andrew in when he returned at about 10:40. So the front door was locked during Abby's murder.

Andrew was chatting with John Morse, according to John's testimony, until John left the Borden home at about 8:45 to go visit his niece. Andrew let him out of the side door, which remained snibbed at all times. (The family were paranoid about burglars) and invited him back to the midday meal.

Andrew then cleaned his teeth in the sink and went off to his room to put on his work jacket, collar and tie. (He would have used the back stairs to get to his room.)
Lizzie came down the front stairs at about nine. She said she saw her father sitting down in the sitting room reading.
She also said to the police on the day that the last time she had seen Abby was when she was coming downstairs and she saw Abby in the guest room. She never repeated that statement. She later said she saw her stepmother downstairs that morning when there was a conversation about the note and Abby going out.

Lizzie then went into the kitchen were Bridget was and there was a brief conversation about breakfast. Bridget felt very ill and rushed out to vomit near the pear trees. She left Lizzie sitting at the kitchen table.

We don't know how long Bridget was out there but it was during this time that it has been thought that Andrew departed downtown. Mrs Churchill saw him standing near the side steps as if undecided as to depart. Bridget did not see him go. After she came back from being sick Lizzie was nowhere to be seen.

Bridget then gathered her things together to do the window washing. It was Lizzie who said her father left at 10 am. Other testimony places him downtown at times which meant that he must have left much earlier than that. When Bridget had collected her things there was a conversation between Bridget and Lizzie about locking the side door. With Bridget washing the outside windows Lizzie and Abby were the only ones left in the house.
User avatar
Curryong
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Rosalind
Location: Cranbourne, Australia

Re: All About Andrew

Post by Curryong »

This thread (especially the first two pages) discusses wounds, autopsy, blood splatter, etc.
Post Reply