Odd behavior.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:57 pm

Sex and death...what else is there?

I'm bothered by the odd position of Andrew's body. Even if his upper body did slide down a little between the time it was found and when the photograph was taken, the original position wouldn't have been conducive to a pleasant nap either, much less a snooze of quick onset. This brings me back to whether his body was manipulated when the murderer placed the coat under his head as an act of undoing (or to disguise blood splatter on the coat which is a popular theory) or did he do it himself. Being murdered in an odd position isn't an odd behavior but it is odd. If the blood splatter were less conclusive, I'd say he was struck a fatal blow once from the front to his left and then slumped to the side where the killer obliterated his face. Does anyone have a personal photo posing on the sofa in that exact position with pillow in place? Could a person really sleep like that?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:01 am

I jotted down (before I joined the Forum) some information Allen posted about the couch. It was 7 feet 1 inch long, including the arms. The seating area was 4 feet 11 inches. Andrew was 5 feet 11 inches tall, so I agree, it would not have made for a comfortable snooze. Few Victorian couches would have been able to accommodate a tall man reclining full-length, of course.
I read somewhere, god knows where, that the afghan and the pillow resided on the couch, and if Andrew was in the habit of relaxing on it he may well have fluffed up that pillow against the upper part of the arm and slept with his head elevated, or more elevated than it looks in the photographs.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:24 am

(edit this post isn't about any one thread particularly)
I have made a few observations. First, I posted many many months ago an observation by the famous Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson. If we take a book, and look at it under a microscope, we see wood fibers, blobs of black ink, and can't understand it's meaning. If we place that book across a room, we see it is pages bound together with ink on, but we can't understand it's meaning. Not until we hold it 18" from our face can we read the true meaning of the book. I want to continue to be the voice in the wilderness here, saying that when we micro-examine possible clues, ESPECIALLY for psychological meaning, we are on thin ice. I have noticed we currently have nobody who is opposed to the "Lizzie did it" theory, so we have no balance. I have held back many times from putting on my Counselor's hat and diagnosing Lizzie. Allan once said she was a "monster" and "Psychopath" While I agreed with her on many points, I disagree there. "monster" is a meaningless label. Psychopath is a very specific personality disorder which also doesn't seem to fit completely. She loved animals, and the complete lack of caring for any other human-we just don't have enough evidence. Personally I like the banter over who was where when and time elements b/c they don't entail such nebulous speculation into a mind that we just don't have a large enough window into. Just my early morning two cents...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:52 am

On the question of balance, PossumPie, it is a pity we can't lure some old posters back, both pro and anti Lizzieites, to post some more. By the way, Franz and I wished each other happy year of the horse on the Stay to Tea Forum and he said he was busy but he would pop in to see us from time to time. Perhaps next time he will have a brilliant new theory!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:16 am

Tyson also says, "If scientists invented the legal system, eye witness testimony would be inadmissible evidence."

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:08 am

Curryong wrote:On the question of balance, PossumPie, it is a pity we can't lure some old posters back, both pro and anti Lizzieites, to post some more. By the way, Franz and I wished each other happy year of the horse on the Stay to Tea Forum and he said he was busy but he would pop in to see us from time to time. Perhaps next time he will have a brilliant new theory!

Yes, he frustrates the living heck out of me, but at least I give him credit for creativity and obstinance! Oh, and a gracious attitude! I like a back and forth disagreement so it keeps things lively (as long as we don't have nasty condescending arguments!)

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:45 pm

I'm still a bit new and not sure if tacking on to old posts is the thing to do, but I see some things here that are still discussed in more recent posts. Some things that seem odd or suspicious are just the way life was then.

1) Wood stoves sure beat paper shredders if one chooses to permanently discard something. I have no idea if Fall River had any garbage pick up service. I would gues not and that householders hauled certain things to the dump wherever it was. We are now instructed to separate our garbage for recycling, etc. In Lizzie's day that was an automatic necessity. Burnable things got burned or used to start fires in stoves. Metal, paper, rags and possibly even bones and grease could be sold for pennies to businesses that recycled these articles. Rag pickers collected this sort of thing and some may have gone door to door to obtain such items.~~~Anyway, for privacy a note could be burned or perhaps the stove took the place of a wastebasket. It wouldn't have been unusual for Abby to read a note and toss it in the stove afterward, or Bowen either although Bowen's total actions seem odd.

2) John Morse' actions seem very odd however in witness statements there is an interesting interview with Mrs. Emery. She is reported to have said that she asked Morse to stay to dinner, "...but he declined saying something about going to New Bedford, to which place they understood he was going after leaving the house..." While this could open up new ideas of odd behavior, maybe it explains some other odd behavior. Morse was the only one left alive to say Andrew had invited him back for dinner. What if he wasn't invited back to dinner and that was just his excuse for casually showing up when he did? How fast might news of the murders have spread? Telephones were in existence, it was a double murder in broad daylight with a hatchet yet. Look at the class structure of Fall River. I can fairly imagine folks hollering from backyard to backyard, "Stingy Old Man Borden just got murdered!" What if Morse was near public transportation planning to go to New Bedford when he heard the news? He then takes transportation back to 92 Second, carefully memorizes everything he saw for self protection, wanders into the yard and sizes up the situation before he reacts? Works for me.

3) Andrew's nap position is not odd to me. I've done that since I was a little kid because it was never allowable to put one's shoes up on the couch. If shoes slip off easily they can be but if it is more difficult or you plan to get up soon, why bother? I also sometimes lie down that way because I have chronic stomach issues and it can be more comfortable. Andrew had recently had stomach trouble. I have also bundled a coat under a few thin cushions but modern clothes/fabrics are far more forgiving than for example Andrew's Prince Albert coat. Another reason to lie like that is if you don't want to actually sleep but simply to rest a short time. I have wondered if he did fold and lie down on his coat for some reason, like maybe there was something in the pocket he wanted to protect. I have rested in public places on couches this way, wrapping my purse in my coat and lying on top of all of it, kind of hugging the bundle as well as using it for a pillow. I'm not saying this is the absolute explanation but I don't find his nap position~if it was just that~to be that odd.

4) I always took it that Andrew emptied the slop pail on the ground but could he have emptied it into the privy in the barn? Even if he emptied it on the ground hopefully it wouldn't have been under the pear tree. In those days they probably didn't understand cross contamination like tracking pathogens from one area to another.

5) Picking up ripe fruit off the ground was common. People didn't waste. The ripest fruit hits the ground so it's eaten fresh. Pears don't exactly ripen on the tree. They can be picked and brought inside to ripen. The best ones fall on the ground. I pick pears off the ground under my trees BUT I have no livestock near the trees and have modern plumbing. I know this seems risky in modern times because we have the terrible antibiotic resistant e. coli, listeria, etc.

6) Burying clothes~we have no idea about Fall River garbage disposal do we? Both of my Victorian houses have areas in the yard where garbage was buried as was the custom. This is great for antique hunters. Especially if the old privy can be found because frequently liquor bottles were dumped in the privy to hide them. Unfortunately most of this refuse breaks up to shards over the years. One of my houses did have clothing working its way up through the ground which was bad for the lawn mower. Sadly this was all polyester knit from the 1960s. I dug down hoping for antique buttons but didn't find any.~~~I would suppose nobody wanted to clean or keep clothing from Abby and Andrew and maybe it was respectful to bury it. Jewish custom was mentioned above. Jewish custom counts shed blood as part of the body so bloody garments might be included in a burial but I have never heard of this in Christian custom.

7) Regarding "summer complaint", Dr. Bowen testified that Abby was concerned about baker's bread and cake, that she had heard bakers cakes could be poison. Bowen then comments that she had eaten cream cake but doesn't elaborate. A common cake filling can be custard, made with eggs. With no refrigeration there is a problem. Even some modern makers of custard pastries warn customers to refrigerate the product. Usually commercial custard fillings these days come out of a can and are full of preservatives.~~~Maybe an early version of Boston cream pie sickened the Bordens?

8) Abby instructing Bridget to wash windows~~in those days people worked, no matter how sick they were. Bridget says in her testimony that she awoke with a "dull headache". Then she mentions vomiting in the yard. In another place she mentions "sick headache" which is Victorian for migraine. Headache + vomiting tends to equal migraine. Perhaps she was used to working through such attacks. However it was I grew up with stories of my own family members going to work while very ill because "that's the way it was in those days". It was a mark of strength not to give in to illness and to do the job no matter what. That being the general attitude I don't necessarily see Abby wanting the windows washed that day as too unusual.

Just a few observations.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:13 pm

Can I just post a quick reply to your points?

(1) I entirely agree about wood stoves, recycling etc. As far as Bowen is concerned, I am not so suspicious of him as some others are. I tend to see him as a man who got into a bit of a state that day because neighbours and patients he knew quite well had been murdered. I think his note burning consisted of papers to do with the telegram to Emma.

Abby did not dress as if she intended on going out. She had few friends and her sister was at the picnic. There's no evidence anyone sent her a note. The police advertised. They searched high and low. They appealed to the public. No-one in Fall River came forward.

(2) John Morse doesn't seem the formal type. If he told Mrs Emery that then he (a) may have intended to go to New Bedford but after lunch and she may have misheard or misunderstood him (b) he may have thought "I can't stand that woman's cooking. I'll make an excuse."

There are ambiguous and contradictory tales about John Morse and when he heard the news. One concerns a telephone call to him. He always denied that however, and on the whole he appears to have been an honest and upright person. I don't see why he would say he had been invited back to lunch by his great friend Andrew if he hadn't been.

The police obviously suspected a man before a woman and they thoroughly checked his alibi out. (The main thing about John Morse, in spite of any eccentricities, is his alibi. He was downtown at the time Abby was killed and making his way back when Andrew was murdered.)

(3) Argue the one about Andrew's position out with debbie and Possum! Possum states that an elderly man with a hernia would not assume that position on the sofa as he would end up with a painful back and neck! debbie also says it is an unnatural posture. We all agree, however, that he had apparently slipped down a little (according to Bowen) by the time the photographs were taken and various people seemed to be moving furniture and bodies around with impunity that afternoon.

Andrew's coat was pure wool, and therefore easily creased. I tend to think that he put on his cardigan upstairs when he came home and the coat went up on its hook in the dining room. There have been many arguments as you know on threads about how it ended up under Andrew's head!

(4) Agreed!

(5) Agreed. There was a sort of sick running joke between us on some threads about pooey pears lying in vomit and being picked up and eaten by the Bordens and Uncle John.

(6) There seems to have been some lack of communication from Dolan as to what should be done with the bloodied clothing. In the meantime they probably just lay there in a pail stinking out the cellar.

John Morse finally got permission from the police to bury them. That saga could fill a small book! Then Dolan came back to the property and seemed to be outraged that the clothing had been buried. He was lucky it wasn't burned! The fate of the clothing etc to me just highlights the paucity of forensics then and the sloppy procedures.

(7) Who knows what caused the vomiting, whether off fish (consumed that Tuesday evening) or the mutton that had been around since the Sunday before, or creamy baker's food! I, like you, believe that in the days before refrigeration, strict bylaws etc a lot of food was contaminated, especially dairy products, even adulterated bread, and Abby may well have been correct. I think that is far more likely than any (toxic) poison attempt, though I do think Lizzie talked it up in the conversation with Alice that Wednesday night.

(8) Yes, agreed. Although Abby was a good employer I don't think she would have taken some nausea (whether from migraine or just queasiness) as an excuse for Bridget not to wash windows, and perhaps Bridget felt much better after her earlier vomiting as sometimes you do when you've cleared your stomach.

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:04 pm

Curryong; we're in agreement. Except for Morse I was mostly commenting on things that seem normal to me that seem odd to some. Gosh, I don't want to sound old. I'm still in my 50s but my parents were older when I was born and most of my relatives were ancient.

Morse might also have not wanted to hurt his hostess' feelings by seeming to favour Andrew's invitation. If the Emerys were happy to see him they may have said, "But you had breakfast with them, do stay with us for dinner." I never thought Morse was guilty though there is a psychic somewhere online that "sees" that Morse was the killer or something. (Need to hook her up with another I can think of. Collaboration can be a good thing.)

I'm not sure how bad the window washing would have been as it sounds like a scrub with brush, throw some water thing. That would be easier than having to polish each window. At any rate window washing outdoors on that warm day would have been much more humane than doing the week's baking for instance.

I was going to comment on Lizzie and the flats too. The fire in the stove would have been banked and allowed to dye down after breakfast, especially since the day was warm. It's very possible the flats wouldn't properly heat. If the fire in the stove was in a state of dying I wouldn't think the flats would get hotter as the fire died. (Now if we go into the case, the whole ironing activity is a convoluted mess that possibly took from 9:15 till about 11:45am.)

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:44 pm

irina wrote:Bridget says in her testimony that she awoke with a "dull headache". Then she mentions vomiting in the yard. In another place she mentions "sick headache" which is Victorian for migraine. Headache + vomiting tends to equal migraine.

In my personal world, headache + vomiting = pregnancy.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:13 pm

Debbie: Thank God I only have migraine...severe as it is, thank God it's ONLY migraine!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:50 pm

My smart mouth precedes my brain at times. We have BOBO in another forum discussing two servants, Mary Grein and Sarah Welch, whose families tell the same story. BOBO can no longer discuss this, but I'm about to speculate. And Possum is about to have an apoplexy given my complete lack of evidence and analytical thinking.

After BOBO's posts, my first thought was Andrew was impregnating the servant girls and then paying off Dr. Bowen to perform abortions. Or he was sending them home with a severance bonus plus a bun in the oven. Bowen knows. He may be able to overlook one indiscretion, but not repeatedly, especially if abortion is involved which could have cost him his medical practice and good standing in the community, and possibly his freedom. (I read the entire record of capital punishment in MA and they certainly had a lot of witchcraft and piracy executions!).

Suddenly we have Andrew, a curmudgeon if ever there was one, handing over property to Abby who is clearly no more than an unpaid nanny. What about this? Has he suddenly become Mr. Generosity or does Abby have him between a rock and a hard place. Bridget is pregnant which makes at least #3. Either he pays up or Abby spills her guts. Lizzie and Emma see their inheritance going to Abby's family one maid after the next.

Abby is attempting to cover up by pleading food poisoning when, in fact, all the vomiting is being done by Bridget and no one else. Emma is quietly furious and leaves home. Morse shows up either by accident or because Emma had told him what's going on, and he has come to have it out with Andrew. Maybe he brings the murder weapon.

Take a look at the locks within the Borden house. How convenient for a man who wants easy access to the maid upstairs without any interruption by his daughters, and knowing full well his wife is either cowed into doing nothing or being paid off.

Lizzie kills Abby. Bridget kills Andrew. The bloody rags may be from Lizzie's period but could also be from Bridget's abortion. Dr. Bowen knows exactly what has happened and becomes complicit in a murder that he sees as morally correct. The hatchet leaves with him when Lizzie asks that he telegraph Emma.

Share the guilt. Share the penalty. Share the silence.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:12 pm

Oh, debbie that is a fantastic scenario! I love it!

You'd think though, in between pocketing all that cash, that Bowen would have had a word to Andrew about spreading his seed so far and wide, and offered him a few alternatives, including some tie-on rubbers. Uncomfortable but did the job! And how brave of Bridget to wash windows after an abortion!

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:47 pm

Really good! You should write a book! Simple, direct, understandable, makes sense...

I was wondering if the maids' secrets could have had anything to do with Lizzie or Emma having a child, not necessarily fathered by a family member although it seems the whole town was interrelated.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:12 pm

Sometime back someone posted part of an interview with neighbors who were asked if the Bordens were a normal family, mentally healthy or somesuch. I don't recall the exact response, but one neighbor's answer essentially meant that they were crazy and treated each other abominably. Someone else here probably has the cite.

I'm not convinced abortions were involved. But I am pretty damn sure pregnancy was involved - more than once. Perhaps no abortions occurred. The good Catholic daughters of Ireland may have gone home claiming to be widowed or whatever else they could think of to save face. With some cash in their purses.

As for washing windows after an abortion, that is not an impossibility. If it really did come down 'thataway', then Abby was a vengeful sadist to order Bridget out in the heat knowing full well what had happened. She and Andrew would've been a matched pair...

Yep. I should write another book based on supposition....sex and death. All that would be missing is rock and roll....

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:44 pm

There is a post here from Knowlton's papers where a bunch of people were interviewed and they said various things but the ending line in each interview was that the person did not know of any insanity in the family, however they put it. I think I can find it. That was the piece where Lizzie is described twice as "ugly", which does refer to her disposition, not appearance.

I have wondered if Bridget was Catholic. Some Irish are protestant and I think the protestant Irish may have done a bit better gaining employment. I never heard Bridget say anything about going to mass and the story about her wanting to unburden herself to a friend never mentions a priest considering Bridget was supposed to think she was dying. In the mayhem of running for a doctor, etc. Bridget never mentions a priest. Granted the Bordens were protestant but with a couple murdered bodies in the house I would think a Catholic would want a priest for personal comfort if nothing else. Perhaps she did not follow any religion. It probably doesn't matter. Even if she confessed something to a priest the confidence must be kept.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:49 pm

Cinsidering abortion some have suggested Lizzie had one and that is why she stayed that one night at a hotel. That night in the hotel is odd unless I don't understand the geography. I am under the impression that where she was vacationing (Marion?) is only about 15 miles away. A place I used to live consisted of a valley with moderate sized towns 20 miles apart and a smaller town not quite in the middle. To me it would be like taking the train from a town at the end and staying in a hotel in the little town but close to home for one night. I don't want to use place names but I think it out that way and it is hilarious or ridiculous or both. What am I missing?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:23 pm

I wondered the same thing...whether the father was David Anthony, the UnSub...:-) or Andrew. Greed can be a strong motivator but the brutality of these crimes leads me to think the perpetrator(s) were enraged.

You are right. Ireland is also Protestant, and for the most part, what held immigrants together in those early years was their affiliation with a church, in particular those who were Catholic. So perhaps Bridget was Protestant. Either way, going home with an illegitimate child was a big no-no...as was an abortion.

It's really difficult to get a feel for things that are 100 years past and for whether people acted 'normally' for the times, but Dr. Bowen seems evasive in his testimony and protective of Lizzie. Burning the note seems bizarre. Emma is gone which is unusual. Morse shows up - more unusual. Of course performing an autopsy in the dining room would be enough to send some people straight to a shrink for about ten years.

Sometimes I feel like I'm not seeing the forest because I'm so obsessed with the trees...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:41 pm

If she wasn't Roman Catholic at the time Irina, Bridget was later in her life. In her will she leaves some money for masses/prayers to be said for her soul. Sorry I can't be more specific. It's afternoon here and I'm out and dashing about!

If we are talking about her boarding house visit, Lizzie went and stayed with friends in New Bedford for two nights after accompanying Emma part of the way to Fairhaven. She only spent one day in Marion before going home. She was feeling down, restless and miserable. In her testimony Alice Russell states what Lizzie told her that Wednesday evening.

(Quote) 'And she says "When I was at the table the other day when I was at Marion the girls were laughing and talking and having a good time, and this feeling came over me, and one of them spoke and said "Lizzie, why don't you talk?" (End Quote)

The friends at New Bedford, consisted of a widow, mrs Poole, who ran a defacto boarding house (a bit like the Churchill set-up) and her invalid daughter, Carrie.

Carrie was tubercular and died the year after Lizzie's trial. She was the one who had heard Lizzie say on a previous visit
that she didn't know if she and Emma would get any money (from Andrew's estate.)

Her older sister was Augusta Tripp who was an old school friend of Lizzie's and later a defence witness at her trial. Apart from paying a visit to Mr and Mrs Tripp with the mother and daughter Lizzie did not go out much when staying there. Police later checked local New Bedford shops after finding out she had been shopping by herself (on one occasion.) She bought herself some dress material.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:56 am

Back home! I yanked this from an interesting old thread 'What did Bridget see??' that I posted then forgot about. Nothing unusual there!

'According to a Riobard O'Dwyer, an Irish genealogist, who provided information for an article in the 'Lizzie Borden Quarterly,' 'Bridget was baptised according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church in County Cork, Ireland, in March 1864'.

Bridget did state in her testimony that she had been 'informed' (presumably by her parents) of her birthdate. However, she did change her stated age several times during her life!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:37 am

Debbie, believe it or not, I see how your scenario could be plausible. Unlike Franz's wildly speculative theory that needs way too many coincidences to be plausible, and has no logical motive, yours is concise and needs no coincidences. It gives logical motive for both murders. It does make a huge leap of faith b/c we have no evidence to back any of it up, but it is logical. I will say it is possible, but no proof exists to back it up. One thing I believe completely is that this family was very dysfunctional for some unknown reason. Everyone who was interviewed said so, across the board people felt pity for Abby's treatment. Everyone said this was a weird family. Where there is smoke, there is fire...what caused the weirdness?? Nice take on an old subject!

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:11 pm

Something we say in political circles is: Where there's smoke there's mirrors...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:46 pm

There may very well have been 'weirdness' that stretched back over several generations, a genetic link. Andrew's family background was well-documented, Sarah's less so, though there are some stories that she was regarded as short-tempered and peculiar. Andrew seems to have been almost anti-social, but not in his business dealings, which shows that he could overcome his aversion to the society of others when he chose. Much of it could have been social ineptness.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:16 pm

Could have been he didn't scratch the right backs or something too. Could be he had the Borden blood but came up the hard way as a businessman as opposed to more glamourous occupations.

Something that does bother me is you don't have to read much before there is mention of cousin marriages, etc. They were all interrelated. It doesn't take much of a bad gene to mess up for years. Some suggest this happened to the European monarchies way back in the 1300s or so with a gene for porphyria or whatever it was they kept passing. One place I lived was quite proud of that kind of intermarrying over a space of 150 years or so. That county also had one of the highest rates of retardation in the nation as well as the state. There was also said to be a lot of incest and a common comment was that certain family trees didn't branch. (Actually incest creates a family tree that goes around in a circle, but the other expression is more colorful!)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:58 pm

Well, yes, the Hapsburgs, for instance, had a lovely habit of not only cousins marrying but of uncles wedding nieces. This went on for several generations until they had a monarch on the throne of Austria (or was it Spain?) whose chin and jaw were so malformed he could hardly speak or eat, he was mentally retarded, and had epileptic fits dozens of times a day. He was married off!!! but happily, couldn't produce offspring!

There's never anything mentioned in documents etc about Andrew being short-tempered, but you have to wonder, when you read that an argument erupted between him and a church elder about taxes he was supposed to pay.

Now it's true that Andrew and his money had a very loving relationship and he hated being parted from it, but he actually left the Church and never attended again because of this dispute. I certainly think he would have been a hard man to dissuade from an intended path, whether his disposition was inherited or not!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:08 pm

I have two questions about odd behavior:

• Is there any evidence or innuendo of Bridget being a user of tobacco? Or Morse?

• Did Andrew have a civil and/or criminal record of any nefarious doings or claims of miscreant behavior?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:27 am

First point debbie, don't think so but you never know, especially with Morse. I can imagine him using a spittoon.

Second point, I don't know about civil disputes, but surely anything of a criminal nature would have been uncovered by now.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:14 am

I never caught up to the original source for Andrew having tobacco in his pocket but see it mentioned here and there. Someone mentioned it had medicinal properties and it did and does. It also has purported uses for veterinary medicine. Many believe it will kill worms for example. It is also an insecticide though I am not sure that was known then. I wonder if it could have been used in garments in those days as an anti-moth thing~instead of prussic acid of course. I need to find the record of it being in Andrew's pocket.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:40 am

It's discussed in several threads that the tobacco found in Andrew's pocket may well have been for medicinal purposes. It was believed in those days (incredibly) that chewing a little relieved a queasy stomach.

However, debbie is probably plotting a scenario for Morse and/or Bridget involving tobacco as these two persons are mentioned!! I await with interest!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:19 pm

Any logic I may possess is circuitous...but look here...nicotine was used as an insecticide. Maybe Andrew brought home something to get rid of the infestation in Lizzie's cape:

Nicotine

This plant insecticide can kill insects 2 ways. It is mainly classed as a contact insecticide. It can also kill if the vapor is taken in through the trachea then it can paralyze the central nervous system, It is very effective on soft bodied insects . The list of insects that can be controlled with nicotine include the following, Aphids, Thrips, Red Spider Mites, White Flies, and Coddling moth larvae, It has also been used with success on some types of Saw Flies, and small Beetles (Lepidopterous Larva)

How Is Nicotine used?

The two active forms are Nicotine and Nicotine sulphate. The Nicotine form is usually 95 to 99% pure. The Nicotine sulphate form has 40% active Nicotine content. Either form is applied a liquid spray, using 1 to 3 pounds per 100 gals. water, Soap or other spreading agents are usually mixed in as well. The Nicotine form has also been used as a dust diluted with equal parts of Gypsum, Kaolin or Diatomaceous Earth. Enclosed areas like greenhouses, or grain storage bins have been effectively fumigated by mixing Nicotine with sawdust, and burning small cones, like incense.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:15 pm

It's an interesting theory debbie, but wouldn't purchases like that have been placed in brown paper bags in those days rather than handed over in a loose form, especially if it was a reasonable amount? It's been a while since I read about it, but as far as I remember, it wasn't (a) an enormous amount, and (b) it was loose in Andrew's pocket.

It was almost as if he had popped into a tobacconist, (don't know what they're called in America) and said "Give me a couple of pinches of tobacco to ease my stomach" and had afterwards poured it straight into his pocket and threw the twist of paper the tobacco was probably sold in, away.

Whereas, if he had meant it for Lizzie's cape he would probably have kept it in a bag. Of course, he could have been killing two birds with one stone, so to speak, and meant the tobacco for both purposes!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:03 pm

I found a couple of posts, which you may find interesting:

On Feb 10, 2009, FairhavenGuy posted:

It wasn't actually the nicotine that was prescribed, but smoking or chewing tobacco, believe it or not.

In a book I've been reading on 18th and early 19th century medicine, it talks about tobacco as a medicine. The book was written within the last 25 years, I think, by a doctor, who says something to the effect that some doctors have until recently sometimes prescribed tobacco as an aid to digestion and regularity.

I know from personal experience that after I quit smoking about 5 years ago, I began experiencing chronic intestinal problems. When I told my doctor that the symptoms seemed to have appeared after I'd stopped smoking, he said there can be a connection, with smoking either controlling or masking conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome.

Since there was far more widespread use of homegrown folk remedies in the 19th century, I'm just supposing that Andrew might have known that chewing tobacco could calm an upset digestive system.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4056&p=67106

On May 03, 2010, Allen posted:

One thing I've always found interesting is the fact that swallowing tobacco was considered by some to be a cure for arsenic poisoning at one time. I found this interesting in light of the fact that among the items found on Andrew at the time of his death was a small amount of tobacco. Another cure involved "...repeatedly drinking very fat mutton broth..."

The Southern Gardner and Receipt Book written in 1845 by P. Thornton- page 288:

ANTIDOTE FOR POISON BY ARSENIC

Salad or olive oil taken warm, and repeated occassionally, will infallibly prevent any bad consequences, if the arsenic has not been taken very long before. It is the true antidote for arsenic, and should immediately be made use of, as soon as it is discovered that any person has swallowed it by mistake or otherwise. A gentle vomit given just after taking it, and then repeatedly drinking very fat mutton broth, will effectually cure it; by this method, Sir Hans Sloane saved the life of a young man, who, at his house at Chelsea, had drank a quantity of milk, into which arsenic had been put to poison rats.

page 299:

A REMEDY FOR ARSENIC.

Tobacco is said to be an infalllible preventative against the fatal effects of arsenic, when taken into the stomach. In several instances where tobacco juice was swallowed after taking arsenic, no sickness resulted from the use of the tobacco and not the least harm from the arsenic. This is an important discovery.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4576&p=73898

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:26 pm

I was actually joking about treating Lizzie's cape with tobacco.

Theodore Roosevelt had severe asthma as a child and his doctor prescribed cigar smoking during an attack. This can actually work. Several conditions can be aided because of nicotine's effect on the nervous system.

In Andrew's case I wonder if someone didn't offer him some tobacco which he took to be friendly and never used. Back in the 50s and 60s everyone smoked though my parents did not. Everyone offered everyone else cigarettes. My folks always said, "no thanks", but I'm sure some would have accepted tobacco products and not finished them or lit them. On the other hand maybe Andrew found a partially used packet of tobacco and picked it up along with locks and anything else he scrounged.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:43 pm

I remember the ads for cigarettes in newspapers/magazines when I was a child, which often showed sophisticated people in evening dress enjoying a smoke!

Didn't they have mothballs to protect clothing by the 1890's? Of course it may not necessarily have been moth pupae Lizzie was worried about. Fleas, perhaps!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:06 pm

I'm inclined to think that no matter why it was there, the nicotine was the messy remains from a larger quantity. Although I cringe thinking about it!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:07 am

Remember, on the 'All about Andrew' thread that a yellow mark was found on the dining room door that could have been soup!! Or tobacco. Maybe someone was spitting and missed the spittoon!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:33 pm

This is quite an interesting thread, I think.

Henrietta Morse, who was John Vinnicum's cousin, was sought out by the Fall River Daily Herald August 11th, following Lizzie's arrest. She commented

'Lizzie has always been a peculiar woman and...her entire life had been characterised by the calm and cool demeanor which is considered evidence of guilt by the police.'

Henrietta Morse appears to have been quite close to the Borden family. It was she who was a witness to the truthfulness of Emma's accounting of Andrew's estate, during the probate process presumably. (Rebello Page 280)

Her sister Elizabeth was housekeeper to Andrew just prior to his marriage to Abby.

Massachusetts State Census 1865. (Households)

Andrew J Borden Age 42 estimated birth year 1823--Widowed--born in Massachusetts--occupation furniture dealer.

Elizabeth Morse Age 29 estimated birth year 1836--Single--born in Massachusetts--occupation Housekeeper.

Emma Borden Age 14 estimated birth year 1851--born in Massachusetts

Lizzie A Borden Age 4 --born in Massachusetts.

Sarah Welch Age 21 years--estimated birth year 1844--Single---born in Ireland--occupation Servant.

The Bordens certainly liked their Irish maids, the cheap labour force of the time.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:52 am

Curryong wrote: Sarah Welch Age 21 years--estimated birth year 1844--Single---born in Ireland--occupation Servant.

The Bordens certainly liked their Irish maids, the cheap labour force of the time.

I sometimes wonder if Andrew didn't "like" the Irish maids a bit too much. I have almost come to a conclusion that Lizzie had an accomplice and that the accomplice had to be Bridget.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:32 pm

In that case 'Andrew's odd behaviour' should be a different thread! wonder whether BOBO is still in touch with the families who had some fantastic information? Might be able to explore some more in that direction, maybe?

For some reason I always imagined that Andrew lived with a number of relatives (including John Morse) in the old home in Ferry St all the time he was widowed. The above census was taken just before his marriage to Abby though, so maybe he was getting his own home ready so she could move in after the wedding.

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:40 pm

Curryong wrote:In that case 'Andrew's odd behaviour' should be a different thread! wonder whether BOBO is still in touch with the families who had some fantastic information? Might be able to explore some more in that direction, maybe?

For some reason I always imagined that Andrew lived with a number of relatives (including John Morse) in the old home in Ferry St all the time he was widowed. The above census was taken just before his marriage to Abby though, so maybe he was getting his own home ready so she could move in after the wedding.

A extended member of Mary Grein's family has joined the forum.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:47 pm

BOBO wrote:
Curryong wrote:In that case 'Andrew's odd behaviour' should be a different thread! wonder whether BOBO is still in touch with the families who had some fantastic information? Might be able to explore some more in that direction, maybe?

For some reason I always imagined that Andrew lived with a number of relatives (including John Morse) in the old home in Ferry St all the time he was widowed. The above census was taken just before his marriage to Abby though, so maybe he was getting his own home ready so she could move in after the wedding.
A extended member of Mary Grein's family has joined the forum.

Now that is great news! Welcome whoever you are!!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:34 pm

BOBO wrote:... A extended member of Mary Grein's family has joined the forum.

BOBO, would this be "Janny66"?

irina · Post by **irina** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:31 pm

Yes indeed, welcome whoever you are! Everybody is real nice here and I hope you like us!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:26 am

"What(?)"

When Mrs. Churchill, for the third time after Mr. Sawyer and Bridget, informed Morse about the death of Andrew and Abby, Morse said to her "what (?)", before rushing into the dinning room and hollering Lizzie's name.

I find his "what (?)" very very odd, I would say suspicious.

And one odder thing is that none of you, it seems to me, think his "what (?)" odd.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:46 am

A number of members think Lizzie's changing cloth that murde morning is odd. This doesn't seem to me so odd ( the question of innocence and guilt has no room in this thread, right?): that morning Lizzie had been wearing a more "domestic", more modest dress, and then, she changed a dress more "official", didn't she? Lizzie could have wanted to be more presentable before the authorities. Could we explain the fact in this way?

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:24 am

Franz: I find the reports of Morse' behavior at that time to be very confusing. The best explanation I can come up with is he heard about the murders on the way back to Second St. He didn't blunder onto the scene expecting to have lunch. He came in warily. Maybe he did eat a couple pears while he tried to figure out what to do. He was a bright man and I think he was trying to understand what was happening and how he should behave. There are a lot of reasons why I think he shows a consciousness of innocence such as his obsession about the cellar lock and his concern about the front door lock. He seems to be genuinely concerned about these matters and if he knew the elements of the crime, or was trying to steer the investigation away from himself, I think he would have done something different. For instance he could have damaged a lock and said, "See? Anyone could get in here using a screw driver instead of a key."

The problem for all of us with Lizzie's clothing change is that she and everyone else was dishonest about it. In the VERY basics it comes down to the seeming fact that she wore a LIGHT BLUE dress in the morning, which she changed into the pink wrapper. A DARK BLUE outfit was turned over to the police/prosecution. There is no excuse for that. Out of all the witnesses SOMEONE should have been able to tell the difference between light blue and dark blue. Making it worse, Alice says Lizzie burned a light blue dress. Believing Lizzie innocent I think there are some acceptable explanations for this but the point is someone gave a DARK BLUE dress to the police and there is NO testimony that she wore a DARK BLUE dress that morning.

Beyond that the dark blue outfit has been described as a "winter silk party dress". It was a warm August day following a heat wave the week before. If I had to turn over my clothes from an August day would it make sense if I turned over a Pendleton wool suit that I would wear in the winter? I thought in the inventory of the dresses in the house, there was another dress in the closet that was similar to the one in question and I have wondered why that wasn't turned over. This whole thing reeks of major cover up but the funny thing is it happened right at first when nobody was thinking clearly. Nobody tried to straighten it out early on, say at the first inquest. I will never understand how the dress Lizzie wore that morning could be described as light blue but nobody seriously objected to a dark blue dress being provided.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:33 pm

Yes Irina, I agree about the dress. If memory serves, the dressed that was burned had brown paint stains which look an awful lot like dried blood. Someone in a thread asked the sensible question, where was this dress all this time? In the same hiding place as the hatchet? If it had been seen by police, surely it would have been confiscated due to the paint and tested. But instead it mysteriously reappears and then poof! And a good thing for Lizzie for however guilty it made her look, a blood stained dress would have been far worse.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:04 pm

Agreed. The burning of a bloodstained dress can always be debated; one with even a few spots of blood is substantially more difficult to explain. This brings to mind an interesting aspect of how Lizzie attributes her behavior. When Alice tells her burning the dress is the worst thing she could have done (whereas it might have been the best...

) Lizzie asks, "How could you let me do this?" When Lizzie inexplicably changes dresses midway through the afternoon, she again passes off the responsibility to, "they told me to change...."

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:09 pm

The dress thing is insane. If the dress Lizzie wore that morning was a paint stained dress and the stains were visible, why didn't someone mention it? Nobody could describe her dress after the fact but you'd think someone could see and say there were stains on it if there was. I can't find anything about this anywhere. I have suggested before, but others rejected the idea, that she may have stained her dress via her menstrual cycle, that during the mayhem she may not have taken care of personal matters as she ordinarily would have. This I suggest is why a female friend might have suggested she should change her dress. I could see such a stain being an impetus to burning an already damaged dress~especially if police had made some crude comment like, "One drop of blood on that girl's dress and she will hang". Guilty or innocent Lizzie may also have felt she would have enough money not to have to wear stained dresses anymore. Somewhere I think Alice said the fabric had not washed well and there was damage from the washing process. The fabric was cheap and the garment didn't hold up to use. However in this area I tend to agree with Victoria Lincoln, that rags would not have been destroyed in that household where everything was thriftily used. Besides, toilet paper wasn't invented and I assume rags were very nice things to have. I can't imagine wasting fabric. (Actually I don't waste fabric in my own household.)

Somewhere I read~don't remember where because I read enough old papers and other materials to explode my mind~the closet where the dress apparently was at the time of the burning, was described. When I read this I thought of our discussion about hiding the hatchet and Possum's leadership in insisting the hatchet COULD be hidden so police couldn't find it. We all agree with that. So apparently can stained dresses be hidden effectively. Anyway this closet was not for food or pantry items. It was by the stove and a bucket of coal was there as well as the ironing flats up on a shelf. I think it said there were two shelves above a larger area where the coal was and perhaps cleaning supplies. I don't remember what else was there but it was a utility closet. I wonder if the dress blended in with other rags or cleaning supplies. I wonder if the hatchet could have been jammed down into a coal scuttle at least for a short period of time. There is a lot of food for thought there.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:36 pm

Irina, no-one ever remembered suggesting to Lizzie that she change her clothes on that Thursday morning. It was her choice.

I think we forget how dim 19th century rooms were with the shades shut against the heat. Remember Bowen could hardly see in the guest room until he opened a shutter. Everybody was fussing around Lizzie and not noticing her clothing, which was paint-stained.

It's not that difficult to see that witnesses a year later could not remember her gown though none recognised the blue silk. Mrs Churchill tried to describe it. Bridget knew, and tried to explain what Lizzie usually wore in the mornings but became muddled under cross-examination.

Lizzie burned the paint-stained dress in the stove (which she probably hid under winter dresses in the dress closet upstairs) because she knew she was in imminent danger of arrest, and the police would be conducting more searches.

It was Lizzie and nobody else who handed over spotless clean stockings, a winter dress, and clean shoes to the authorities, knowing that there would be no blood found on them for the plain and simple reason that she hadn't worn them on that day. That wasn't a cover-up by Alice, the Bowens, mrs Churchill or anybody else who was in the house that day, but Lizzie alone. That action, even more than the burning of the dress, screams deceit and guilt to me.