The Gordon Bordon Letter

[irina]

I'm sure most everyone here knows to what I refer. It's posted several times on this forum and can easily be accessed with the search term "Phillip Gordon Reed". I apologize again for my poor computer skills, that I can't wrap it all up in a tidy package. (It's amazing the amount of work I turn out on my little lap top but I'm learning as I go.) I did't bring up and tack onto one of the older forums because they are wrapped up with Brown's book and some other issues.

I know this letter is widely regarded as a hoax, yet it was retained in Knowlton's papers and not known until these papers were turned over in 1989. As I recall the letter is dated or the date of receipt is sometime around August 10, 1892. It is thought this letter influenced Brown's Billy Borden tale, which I have not read.

Indeed I was shocked when I bumbled onto this letter i a google search about the Knowlton papers. Please take my word for it that some ideas I have of how an intruder may have done it come from my own reasoning alone. When I recently found this letter I had an ah-ha moment.

I'm no expert on the psychology of letter writers and would never see things others see. I am however a writer and have some opinions about how people write; if they are educated, pretending to be uneducated, barely literate, etc. My opinion is that the writer is fairly educated. He spells almost every word correctly. "Perporated" for "perpetrated" is one notable misspelling. PLUS, humourously he misspells "Borden" as Bordon, hence someone on this forum calls it the Gordon Bordon letter.

Sentence structure is notable as sentence fragments become sentences with capitals and punctuation marks. There are odd underlinings and capitalizations. It impresses me the letter may have been dictated for some reason. Perhaps the person telling the story could not write or perhaps he was illiterate although he (we presume it was a he) uses some fairly large words.

For some reason Knowlton kept this letter in his files so it must have been a cut above other hoax or crank letters. There are a lot of details and if it is a hoax I ask myself why some of the details are included. Perhaps someone wanted to get Lizzie off the hook and so they worked from news reports that were coming out about the inquest, but even so some of the details are odd I think.

For one the writer says the weapon was a "Lathers Hatchet". Someone on the forum said a lather's hatchet is lightweight with a narrow blade about 2 inches wide. I googled lather's hatchet and see they come in various sizes. An interesting site is at katthorsen.com/2011/09/01/the-murder-weapon-a-lathers-hatchet-graphicnovel-vancouver-kickstarter-annatafabulous/ (I hope that works. Sorry I'm so bad with links.)

As you know I have suggested the reason an intruder took the weapon could be that the hatchet was a work tool identifiable to a particular person. Why would a hoaxer feel the need to name the style of hatchet? Why not say, "I took the hatchet. It was mine anyways. I threw it off a boat in the river"? The writer does say he disposed of it that way but of course they didn't have dive teams in those days.

I had wondered if the "groan" or "distressing noise" Lizzie heard could have been the murderer jumping out a window to get away when she came into the house. The letter says entrance and exit was by window. The whole scenario in the letter I don't think is workable because of the idea the house was entered through a front window, but the exit I think is a possibility. A poster on this forum asked if the police checked whether windows were open or closed on that day. No answer was forthcoming but Lizzie says she asked her father if he wanted a window in the sitting room closed and he said it was OK as it was. Bridget also closed windows before washing them so we know some windows were open at some time during that day.

The writer states, "time of revenge about 11:45, I think". This is of course wrong but could he have meant about 10:45. I have problems with time that way, preferring to say "45 minutes after ten" or "a quarter till 11:00", for example.

You know I think Abby really made someone mad. The writer claims there was an old argument where insults flew between the young man and Abby, about his mother whom Andrew had had confined to an asylum. The writer also claims Abby interfered in an agreement this illegitimate son had made with Andrew. About the worst that is ever said about Abby is that she "interfered" in things, so this has a grain of truth. The illegitimate "Son" in the letter would have been conceived a couple years after Andrew married Abby and I could see that as a point of contention.

It is problematic that the name is misspelled as "Bordon" but if the letter was dictated to another and the one telling the story was illiterate, this could pass.

The name on the letter is Phillip Gordon Reed. Where I first found the letter it was noted that no such person was ever found and I believe it was said the FRHS did some genealogy work and could not find the name.

I was kind of willing to let the thing rest there but I was reading in LBQ (or 'The Hatchet' I'm never sure if those are the same), a story about an old lady who remembered visiting Uncle John when she was little and he was old. This was long after the murders. She said how nice he was, that he was a friend of her family and NOT a relative. She said people knew not to ask him about the murders, etc. Her name was Doris REED Grimwade. Her maiden name was REED. This doesn't mean much and heaven knows it seems like there were only a dozen family names intermarrying in the area of FR. BUT we have a connexion to Morse claiming an old family friendship without family connexion.

Someone commented somewhere that they thought the lady who gave the information for the article was making Uncle John sound overly nice or something. I didn't get the point of that. What I thought I got was that her family was fond of him, they travelled to see him and he held her on his lap.

So I see little possibilities in the letter. It pre-dates Brown by about a hundred years. Indeed Brown may have gotten his story from this letter. I am keeping my eyes wide open for any hint that Andrew ever had anyone committed to an asylum and anything to do with Reeds and Morses and Bordens as neighbors, business associates, etc. I'm not sure the letter is a total crank. It may not be completely true but I have a feeling there could be truth in it.

[twinsrwe]

Interesting post, Irina. You bring out some good points. Here is the letter you are referring to:

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Vs. Lizzie A. Borden, The Knowlton Papers 1892- 1893, FRHS, 1994

Pg. 22-23, #HK012, letter, handwritten, in ink:

"HOTEL KENMORE
Albany N. Y. Aug 12 1892

District Atty. Knowlton
Fall River, Mass.

Dear Sir:--

Feeling quite safe from all possible arrest. I write you This information regarding the Fall River Mystery. THE KILLING of old man BORDON and his wife was not perportrated by any immediate member of his family as is generally supposed. But They were put out of THE WAY By an ILLIGTIMATE SON whom BORDON refused to recognize after the Mother of his off-spring died a number of years ago in a certain Mass. Insane Asylum of a Broken heart. That son is now twenty five years of age. He was not known to any member of the family save the old man and woman. When that sons Mother was sent to the asylum through Bordon, the Son was put in a New York Orphan Asylum. When he was subsequently bound out to a farmer.

When he reached his age he left the farmer and went to Bordon and demanded recognition and some sort of an understanding. We mutually agreed to a certain contract part orally & part written. What the contract was does not matter here more than to say - He was to be educated at his, Bordons expense. Allowed a certain sum of money a year and when completed course preparatory to College was to be paid a final sum of $5000 to commence life with and then they were QUITS. Through the influence of his Wife who disliked the said son because he once insulted her when she made a stinging remark regarding that sons mother in his presence was persuaded to renounce his obligations & promises after he had partly filled them. The son repeatedly thereafter tried to induce Bordon to carry out his agreement as he was abundently able to do so. He wouldn't listen. So to make a long story short the son Brooded over his and his mothers past troubles and resolved upon Vengeance, with the result known to all. One point More Lizzie Bordon my half sister may have heard of me and it is to shield her fathers infamy and good name that she is taking the course she has so nobly with stood. The girl is entirely innocent and it is only that justice may be done her that I write this otherwise I would not have written this for I fairly hate the Bordon NAME.

The instrument the deed was done with was a Lathers Hatchet and was droped over board from a Fall River steamer at the Dock.Entrance to the House was gained by a front window afterwards fastened egress by side window. The time of REVENGE about 11:45 I THINK.

And the illigitimate who took the revenge is the Writer of this confession. No use to track me for it will be an utter impossibility to do so. At the hour this letter is mailed I shall take a train for hundreds of miles away.

Yours Truly
Phillip Gordon Reed"

BTW, is was Kat who referred to this letter as the "Gordon Bordon Letter".

[Curryong]

I'm afraid I am a bit of a sceptic about this sort of thing, Irina and only partly because I am a Lizzieite. Often in high profile cases, as I'm sure you know, many people write very dramatic letters stating they are the culprit. In Victorian times these often contained stories of illegitimacy, vengeance and family feuds etc. If he couldn't even get the hour of Andrew's death right after all the publicity it doesn't say much for the writer's veracity.

I am interested that this person called Lizzie 'a noble girl' yet he was quite content to see her possibly hang for something he supposedly did. Nor can I see Lizzie not confiding this family secret to Emma, if her sister didn't know it, or Emma keeping quiet about it to Mr Jennings when her sister was in such peril. What would be worse, seeing her sister hang or get twenty years to life, or telling the family lawyer about a possible vengeful son from her father's past?

There is no proof whatsoever that Andrew put anyone in an asylum, male or female. After all, William Borden was allowed to roam about Fall River. Where did Doris Reed meet John Morse? He didn't spend his old age in Fall River. He spent most of his time in Iowa as he got older, spending brief visits in the East. Were her family Iowa residents?

Sorry I'm so negative. I just can't buy the tale.

[debbiediablo]

I think Gordon Bordon is mixed up about the time because he doesn't recall what time the newspapers said so he's hedging. I also think Lizzie would prefer her father being an adulterer (she had no issues a few years later with John Tatro) than herself being branded as a hatchet wielding murderer of her parents. Much less going to the gallows for a murder she didn't commit. Somehow believing the killer climbed in a front window without being noticed is more far-fetched than believing he sneaked in the side door. I don't buy any of this. But I do find the supposed date of conception for William Borden to be shortly after Andrew married Abby. Now THAT I can see as causing a lifelong problem!!! I also think anyone aspiring to college would 1) write their own letter; 2) spell their own last name correctly....

[debbiediablo]

Curryong, what's with the Down Syndrome baby left with surrogate mother in Thailand while pedophile father claims the girl child. I'm thinking someone needs to take both kids to a safe, sane home where the medical needs of the little boy can be provided. This sounds just about as nutty as the Gordon Bordon letter...meaning truth is stranger than fiction. So maybe I shouldn't discount Billy Borden so quickly..????

[twinsrwe]

The date that Phillip Gordon Reed wrote his letter is August 12, 1892. I did a Google search and found out that the Lather’s Hatchet was invented by CHARLES S. CASON. The application for his Lather's Hatchet was filed on May 27, 1920, and was patented on August 15, 1922. Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US1426151

How can it be that Mr. Reed used a Lather’s Hatchet to kill Abby and Andrew, when it was not even invented yet?

If the above information regarding the invention, application and patent of the Lather's Hatchet is incorrect. Please correct me. The source I provided is the only source I found regarding when this hatchet was invented.

[twinsrwe]

... I also think Lizzie would prefer her father being an adulterer (she had no issues a few years later with John Tatro) than herself being branded as a hatchet wielding murderer of her parents. ...

Debbie, are you saying that Lizzie had an affair with John Tatro? Do you have a source for this information? I'm curious, because I believe Emma left Maplecroft mainly because of John.

[Curryong]

There was an interview with this charming couple on Australia's version of '60 Minutes'. Daddy child abuser did most of the talking, and crying. He's a champion blubberer, almost as good as Oscar!

He denied he and his wife abandoned the baby boy. In fact he has sent the birth mother several thousand dollars, AND bought the baby nappies (diapers) and formula. What's more it wasn't their fault and they only left the little chap because the birth mother threatened to take the baby's sister from them if they did!

You've never heard such a load of codswallop in your life!

The birth mother has had over $200,000 donated to her to care for the baby in Thailand so she's sitting pretty, but heaven knows what's going to happen! The Dept of Human Services is investigating the Australian couple. The Australian government doesn't like surrogacy anyway and are now threatening to make international arrangements like this one illegal.

[Curryong]

twins, it is obvious. Gordon Bordon invented his own version of the Lather's Hatchet at the same time as he was practising his other creative skills on Knowlton in 1892. Having used it on his father and Abby he then hid it away until 1920, when, under a false name, (Charles Cason,) he unveiled his genius to the world!

[debbiediablo]

twins, it is obvious. Gordon Bordon invented his own version of the Lather's Hatchet at the same time as he was practising his other creative skills on Knowlton in 1892. Having used it on his father and Abby he then hid it away until 1920, when, under a false name, (Charles Cason,) he unveiled his genius to the world!

Cason did not invent the lather's hatcher; he applied to patent a new and improved lather's hatcher (which is pretty much the same thing as a shingling hatchet). Cason's version had interchangeable blades, among other goodies. Here is part of what the patent says (typos included):

"This invention relates to a lathers hatchet and its object is to produce a hatchet which will be light in construction and capable of having its cutting edge and nail driving headrenewed whenever necessary. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the'expert lather must use a very sharp hatchet in order to do 1118 work. rapidly and whenever the blade gets dull, it must either be sharpened or renewed. In the present instance means is provided whereby the blade may be quickly removed and another blade inserted whenever necessar nother object of the invention is to provide means whereby the body of the hatchet may be made of cheaper material than the blade and nail driving face, both of said parts being detachable from the body of the hatchet. Another object of the invention is to produce a hatchet which will be so constructed as to require the minimum of machine labor in its production."

[debbiediablo]

... I also think Lizzie would prefer her father being an adulterer (she had no issues a few years later with John Tatro) than herself being branded as a hatchet wielding murderer of her parents. ...

Debbie, are you saying that Lizzie had an affair with John Tatro? Do you have a source for this information? I'm curious, because I believe Emma left Maplecroft mainly because of John.

No. I'm saying that Lizzie wouldn't chance going to gallows to protect her father from being called an adulterer and having an insane woman committed when only a few years later she hired a convicted adulterer to drive her around town....

[debbiediablo]

One difference between a lather's hatchet and a plain hatchet used by Presidents for chopping down cherry trees is the lather's hatchet has a little upside down V on the bottom side of the blade for pulling out shingle nails.

[twinsrwe]

twins, it is obvious. Gordon Bordon invented his own version of the Lather's Hatchet at the same time as he was practising his other creative skills on Knowlton in 1892. Having used it on his father and Abby he then hid it away until 1920, when, under a false name, (Charles Cason,) he unveiled his genius to the world!

Good one, Curryong!!!

[twinsrwe]

twins, it is obvious. Gordon Bordon invented his own version of the Lather's Hatchet at the same time as he was practising his other creative skills on Knowlton in 1892. Having used it on his father and Abby he then hid it away until 1920, when, under a false name, (Charles Cason,) he unveiled his genius to the world!

Cason did not invent the lather's hatcher; he applied to patent a new and improved lather's hatcher (which is pretty much the same thing as a shingling hatchet). Cason's version had interchangeable blades, among other goodies. Here is part of what the patent says (typos included):

"This invention relates to a lathers hatchet and its object is to produce a hatchet which will be light in construction and capable of having its cutting edge and nail driving headrenewed whenever necessary. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the'expert lather must use a very sharp hatchet in order to do 1118 work. rapidly and whenever the blade gets dull, it must either be sharpened or renewed. In the present instance means is provided whereby the blade may be quickly removed and another blade inserted whenever necessar nother object of the invention is to provide means whereby the body of the hatchet may be made of cheaper material than the blade and nail driving face, both of said parts being detachable from the body of the hatchet. Another object of the invention is to produce a hatchet which will be so constructed as to require the minimum of machine labor in its production."

Thank you for this additional information, Debbie. So, who did invent the Lather's Hatchet and in what year was it invented?

[twinsrwe]

... I also think Lizzie would prefer her father being an adulterer (she had no issues a few years later with John Tatro) than herself being branded as a hatchet wielding murderer of her parents. ...

Debbie, are you saying that Lizzie had an affair with John Tatro? Do you have a source for this information? I'm curious, because I believe Emma left Maplecroft mainly because of John.

No. I'm saying that Lizzie wouldn't chance going to gallows to protect her father from being called an adulterer and having an insane woman committed when only a few years later she hired a convicted adulterer to drive her around town....

Oh, OK, thanks for clarifying that for me.

[debbiediablo]

twins, it is obvious. Gordon Bordon invented his own version of the Lather's Hatchet at the same time as he was practising his other creative skills on Knowlton in 1892. Having used it on his father and Abby he then hid it away until 1920, when, under a false name, (Charles Cason,) he unveiled his genius to the world!

Cason did not invent the lather's hatcher; he applied to patent a new and improved lather's hatcher (which is pretty much the same thing as a shingling hatchet). Cason's version had interchangeable blades, among other goodies. Here is part of what the patent says (typos included):

"This invention relates to a lathers hatchet and its object is to produce a hatchet which will be light in construction and capable of having its cutting edge and nail driving headrenewed whenever necessary. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the'expert lather must use a very sharp hatchet in order to do 1118 work. rapidly and whenever the blade gets dull, it must either be sharpened or renewed. In the present instance means is provided whereby the blade may be quickly removed and another blade inserted whenever necessar nother object of the invention is to provide means whereby the body of the hatchet may be made of cheaper material than the blade and nail driving face, both of said parts being detachable from the body of the hatchet. Another object of the invention is to produce a hatchet which will be so constructed as to require the minimum of machine labor in its production."

Thank you for this additional information, Debbie. So, who did invent the Lather's Hatchet and in what year was it invented?

I have no idea...only that Cason is speaking of improving something already in existence. The term itself "lather hatchet" originated 1695-1705 which is before the first US patent in 1790. This is somewhat confusing as lath didn't become super popular for construction until the 1860s but perhaps was used for something else??? A friend of mine collects primitives and has a 200 year-old (more or less) shingling hatchet that's his pride and joy. It looks a lot like a lathing hatchet except the lathing hatchet has a longer, narrower blade. I'm trying to find a picture of a really old lathing hatchet to compare with the picture of the really new one which was easy to find. I read some of this a month or so ago when looking at axes regarding the Villisca axe murders.

[debbiediablo]

The first one is antique, generally meaning 100 or more years old. I didn't bother to check the manufacturer since it's 3:17 AM. But this is what Gordon Bordon was talking about.

Antique Lathing Hatchet.png

Screen Shot 2014-08-11 at 3.12.22 AM.png

[irina]

Thanks for all the research and thought, everybody! Especially thanks for posting the letter, Twins, and noting it was Kat that called it the Gordon Bordon letter. I read through a lot of posts and didn't think about using that bit but it was a perfect title for the thread. Kat said the best things.

The only thing I would add to the lather's hatchet is that it was likely just a term for a tool used that way before the patent that improved it. The bits of hair and bone on the upstairs bed were thought to have stuck onto the blade I think due to a "V" in the blade. Many hatchets have that so that isn't necessarily special. That there were chunks like that also tends to imply a male assailant to me as women tend not to enjoy blood and gore and body parts. There were several of these chunks.

There is a lot of reason to believe this letter is a hoax but there are reasons to keep our eyes open too. The letter as is isn't worth much except for things to keep in mind for research.

I have the idea Lizzie did cover for the killer and she knew who he was, but why? Would an illegitimate birth be worth it? Would illegitimate kids go after the estate? How much of a risk were they if they existed? Lizzie and her attorneys may have had a good reason to believe she would get off someway. Juries didn't want to give women the death penalty. It was a terrible risk but they may have taken it. Since I believe Lizzie was covering for someone the next question is who would be important enough to cover?

One thing to consider is if all the information in the letter was available in the papers at the time. I find it especially interesting that the writer blames Abby for interfering and being insulting and that that is an element of the crime. It feels like the writer knew something about the dynamics in Lizzie's family. I don't think that exact thought came out in the inquest though the idea would have been there concerning the house given to Mrs. W. and a few other comments.

I don't think the letter writer had much if any education and that the letter was dictated to someone who could spell Gordon which rhymes with Bordon. Like I said the time doesn't bother me because I have difficulty with time like that and can make a mistake of an hour. I doubt anyone got into the house by a "front window" unless it was done at night. I think it is possible there was an illegitimate man whose mother or himself fantasized about having a rich father. If so it would be interesting to know who it was whether there is any connexion or not.

I'll look up the article about Morse. He was supposedly visiting in the east when the woman as a girl sat on his lap.

[irina]

If I have done everything right the article about Mrs. Grimwade and John Morse is in LBQ, Vol V, No. 1, January l998. Hopefully this works: archive.org/stream/lizziebordenquar51998fall/lizziebordenquar51998fall_djvu.txt | 'John Vinnicum Morse ~ I Sat On His Lap' by Maynard F. Bertolet

Doris REED Grimwade was born in 1899 and she says she was three years old at the time of the visit, so about 1902 I assume. She said Morse was an old friend of the family and her mother wanted to see him so they went to New Bedford. Morse was visiting Grimwade's great aunt and uncle Amelia and Mort Bouvais. She liked his long white beard and the gold watch and fob in his pocket.

It's a short article. Grimwade says her mother believed in Lizzie's innocence but eventually "came around".

I just find the name REED of interest in light of the letter. There are of course other spellings of Reed. Possibly the letter writer meant Reid but Reed is easier to spell, just as Gordon rhymes with Bordon.

[irina]

Brief mention was made in the other forums that maybe the Gordon Bordon Letter was the reason a couple odd questions were asked during the various proceedings. I assume the following testimony would fit in this category, that perhaps both sides were aware of this letter and took it a little more seriously than at first it should seem to deserve.

At the inquest Lizzie is asked:

Q: How many children has your father?
A: Only two.
Q: Only two?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Any others ever?
A: One that died.

At the trial Bridget is asked extensively about washing the parlour windows and the parlour in general. I apologize that the source I used was lizzieandrewborden.com and page numbers are not noted there. It appears some of the questioning started with direct examination and was again worked on under cross examination. I have read this before and thought the defense was working on the idea someone could have hidden in the parlour. That makes sense but some of the questions are odd I think.

After setting the scene through questions about Bridget's window washing; three windows in the parlour, 2 in front, one on the side, etc.:

Q: Had you been into the parlour to do anything that morning?
A: No, Sir.
Q: Were the blinds of the parlour open or closed?
A: Closed
Q: To wash them of course you had to close the blinds?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Were the shutters in the parlour opened or closed?
A: There was curtains for the inside of the parlour.
Q: And these curtains were how?
A: I don't remember how they were.
Q: You don't remember whether the curtains were up or down?
A: No, Sir, I do not.
Q: I may ask if you washed the inside of the parlour windows?
A: No, Sir.
Q: You did not go inside the parlour as I understand it?
A: No, Sir, I did not.

I believe this was all asked by the prosecution. I believe the following is all cross examination by Robinson. There was a lead in about where clocks were in the Borden home. Then this:

Q: Did you see a clock in the parlour?
A: Yes, Sir, I think there was a clock in the parlour; but I am not sure.

Continuing a bit later:

Q: On the outside of the parlour you say the blinds were closed when you went around there?
A: I know they was closed on the front part anyway.

Further questioning has Bridget answering that she couldn't remember how the shutters or curtains were.

Q: Whether anyone was in that room you can't tell?
A: No, Sir, I couldn't.
Q: You didn't open the parlour door, did you?
A: The parlour door?
Q: Yes.
A: No, Sir, I didn't have nothing to do with it.
Q: You don't know anything about it?
A: No, Sir, I don't...[sic]
Q: Whether there was anyone in there or not?
A: No, Sir, I didn't.
Q: The door from the sitting-room into the parlour was closed, wasn't it?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: All the time the door from the hall into the parlour was closed?
A: Yes, sir.

This part began with the heading: Direct Examination~Later Cross Examination~beginning page 192 of the trial transcript, 6/7/1893

I have never understood why the parlour wasn't a big thing in the scheme of things because nobody regularly went in there. Of course it would be natural for the defense to latch onto this no matter what and maybe that's all this means. Arthur Phillips implies the defense had an idea about who really did the crime but they feared bringing up something they could not prove which might have aided in Lizzie being convicted.

I can see things here that could be the result of the letter but not necessarily. I find the question about a CLOCK in the parlour, asked by Robinson on cross, to be fascinating. What the heck difference does that bit of information mean in the scheme of things? Does it mean the murderer with the lather's hatchet who crawled through the front parlour window got the time of the last murder wrong because the clock in the parlour didn't tell the correct time? One's mind could run wild with this. Rest assured, as usual I won't be pushing any of these ideas but I'm going to keep my eyes wide open in future research.

[twinsrwe]

Thanks for all the research and thought, everybody! Especially thanks for posting the letter, Twins, and noting it was Kat that called it the Gordon Bordon letter. I read through a lot of posts and didn't think about using that bit but it was a perfect title for the thread. Kat said the best things. …

You are very welcome. I agree, Kat was one of the most knowledgeable members on the forum, and she kept things lively with her mountains of information; I wish she was still actively posting. Do you know that Kat submitted more posts than any other member? 13,086 posts is very impressive.

… I have the idea Lizzie did cover for the killer and she knew who he was, but why? Would an illegitimate birth be worth it? Would illegitimate kids go after the estate? How much of a risk were they if they existed? Lizzie and her attorneys may have had a good reason to believe she would get off someway. Juries didn't want to give women the death penalty. It was a terrible risk but they may have taken it. Since I believe Lizzie was covering for someone the next question is who would be important enough to cover? …

Well, I believe Lizzie was the sole killer of both Abby and Andrew. However, if she was not the killer, then she definitely knew who the killer was. I just find it incredible that she would be willing go through being arrested, sitting in jail for nearly a year, going through a trial and facing a death sentence, just to provide a cover for someone else? I just don’t buy it. Why would Lizzie allow herself to be put through all of that for an alleged illegitimate sibling, whom her father refused to acknowledge? Lizzie had nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on an alleged illegitimate sibling; she could have saved her honorable reputation, as well as saved herself from a lifetime of being osterized. Furthermore, if she had named the real killer, then most likely she would have been seen by the Fall River citizens as someone who suffered a horrible tragedy and would have gained their respect. If she actually did cover for the real killer, whomever that may have been, then she paid a mighty high price for it.

I may be wrong, but I highly doubt an illegitimate child would be legally entitled to any part of someone’s estate, unless there is documented proof that indeed the deceased was their father/mother. In Andrew's case there is no such documentation.

… I'll look up the article about Morse. He was supposedly visiting in the east when the woman as a girl sat on his lap.

That would be an intriguing article to read.

[irina]

Sometimes a person can get into something and it's hard to get out. If Lizzie started out lying to cover for someone, thinking nobody would suspect her, it could have turned into a fast rolling snowball going downhill. At what point could she, would she say, "Wait a minute...I lied; I wasn't in the barn; I saw ***** run away when I came up from the cellar"? Then she would be tarred as an accomplice whether she was legally culpable or not. Perhaps her attorneys believed overwhelmingly they would win. Perhaps she though an acquittal would make life normal again.

[twinsrwe]

Well, you may be right, Irina. One of the reasons I believe she was the actual killer, is because of her obvious lies. If she was innocent, why would she feel the need to lie in the first place?

[Curryong]

I certainly dont believe that Lizzie thought she would be arrested. I have thought a lot about Lizzie since you have stirred things up in various ways, irina! I still am a Lizzieite but the weopon used being unusual for a woman does, as Possum says, leave room for doubt. Not however, if an attempt to get poison failed and you wished to set the scene for a male intruder. That did not succeed with the police, but it did ultimately with a jury of, for the most part, elderly farmers.

The rock, for me, on which any vessel containing another murderer smashes and sinks is, if Lizzie had an accomplice and he/she was fond of Lizzie, why would they be perfectly content to allow her to go through what she went through for a year, and ultimately for her lifetime? Yes, I know she probably wouldnt hang, but the prospect of twenty odd years in a jail or asylum would be horrific enough, let alone the public trial, humiliation, etc.
Accomplices suggested over the years, Emma, Uncle John, Dr Bowen, just wouldnt allow that, I believe.

Illegitimate children would not receive part of a person's estate unless they had been previously acknowledged by the parent (in which case private arrangements would probably be made in those days when reputations meant so much) and specifically named in the will. An illegitimate child might kill out of spite, yes, but what about Abby? There was no rumour, in spite of Brown's theory, around Fall River about any illegitimates fathered by Andrew. Dont you think locals would have gone to the authorities in droves if there had been, or that the police, locals themselves, wouldnt have known of it?

So, we are left with a madman, who no-one saw getting into Borden property, a madman who waited, as Possum always stresses, in a strange house he doesnt know, to kill two people he presumably has no quarrel with, ninety minutes apart. He leaves two other females, whom he could overpower in a moment, alive, and disappears as mysteriously as he enters. Leaving two sisters, one of whom at least, yearns for a life on the Hill, opportunity to travel, to live as she wishes, heiresses to a vast fortune. What is more, the yearner was nearby at each murder and had means, motive and opportunity.

[twinsrwe]

Great post, Curryong! Like you, I can't see how an accomplish, or intruder, could possibly allow Lizzie to go through everything she went through just so they could continue to live free as a bird, while Lizzie paid for their crime the rest of her life. Lizzie's life was ruined until the day she died; no one is worth paying that kind of price for - no one.

[irina]

What do they say about the psychopath next door? Some people just lack humanity and I'm not referring to Lizzie. Actually I'm not pointing the finger at any name, so we can use Masterton's Nemesis. There are a number of modern crimes where the criminal allowed someone else to do the time, sometimes for years, sometimes on death row. Sometimes the actual criminals had connexions to the person convicted. I don't see it as an impossibility that someone Lizzie knew did it, she covered to save that person, got caught up in lies since she was a lousy liar, assumed everything would be OK someday, someway, and it all went to hell on a permanent basis.

All I'm saying is that I don't reject the idea that someone could hang out with a dead body for a long period of time or hide in the parlour between killings. For the second seeming impossibility, Lizzie being a Sunday school teacher, somewhat sheltered, etc. could have fallen for someone's tale of undying friendship, love, whatever. Crimes are happenings out of the orderly, moral world. Even a simple property crime like burglary leaves the victim wondering, how did it happen? If I waited another half hour to go to the store. If I hadn't stopped for a burger on the way home. If I had have left my dog in the house. Why didn't the neighbors see anything? Is it someone I know? (Gee, they went through my pantie drawer like they knew where it was.) On and on the victim can wonder because houses shouldn't be burglarised while the homeowner has just gone to the store for an hour and a half, there are near neighbors and it's a good neighborhood. But it happens. It's almost like criminals work in a parallel universe where their deeds are temporarily cloaked until it's time for the victim to begin suffering. Murder is no different from other crime and it is no different then or now.

[Curryong]

If the killer of Abby and Andrew was a strange intruder who did hide and murder them 90 minutes apart, then he performed an extraordinarily fortuitous stroke of good fortune for the Borden sisters. He transformed their lives from having to exist in drab and primitive surroundings to living in their pleasant home of Maplecroft, from having to scrimp and save for clothing and theatre tickets and trips, to any luxuries they cared for at their fingertips.

Most important of all, he removed Abby. From then on they didnt have to live with a woman they hated, who they were convinced was financially influencing their father in her favour and that of her family. From having to deal with an unsociable and rigid old man who doled out their three dollars a week allowances. All gone!

And it was their house the stranger chose!

[irina]

Heirs inherit from wealthy decedents no matter who does the murder. It still happens that way. Innocent people are still automatically accused because they were the ones to profit. That Lizzie and Emma inherited is an element of the crime. It can point to guilt, perhaps strongly. The Manson Family killed wealthy people, even hung around afterward. Heirs inherited. Fortunately none of those heirs survived the attacks. The surviving grounds keeper at Sharon Tate's was certainly hauled in instantly because he was alive. Only modern forensics caused him to be released. Survivors always look guilty.

[debbiediablo]

Crimes are happenings out of the orderly, moral world.

Irina, you and I view the universe differently Where you see orderly and moral I see a chaotic undercurrent just below the surface waiting to suck down the weak or unsuspecting - sometimes the strong and vigilant, too. Life is much about attempting to bring order and meaning to chaos. This is why Lizzie had to be not guilty but never innocent. For her to be guilty upended the orderly and moral Victorian world in turn-of-the-century Fall River.