what made Emma leave Lizzie?

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:59 pm

What was Emmas real reasons for leaving Lizzie and Maplecroft? What happened between them? Why didn't they stay in touch over the years?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:08 pm

Here is the Whole Truth: Nobody really knows.

Any quotes from the tabloid press of that day can't be corroborated.

PS I think that Emma left a few years after that 1905 wild party.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:08 pm

I believe that Emma left Lizzie, because Lizzie was "partying" with actors and actresses, and Lizzie was particularly close to one actress: Nance O'Neil. Some people believe that Lizzie and Nance were lesbian lovers, which is possible, but there is no definitive proof of an affair between them. Actors and actresses were considered to be people of low character during Lizzie's time, and socializing with them was considered embarassing, at best, and scandalous, at worst.

But, of course, this is just my opinion.

You raise an excellent question as to why Emma and Lizzie never communicated again. I have no theory as to why, and I am curious to hear what other people in this forum believe.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:10 pm

Actors and actresses were considered to be people of low character during Lizzie's time, and socializing with them was considered embarassing, at best, and scandalous, at worst.

ONLY then? Brittany and Paris have told me they are still like that.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:13 pm

Ray, thanks for making me laugh. You stated what I was thinking when I was writing my last post.

But, at the same time, I don't want to generalize to ALL actors and actresses.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:36 pm

Did you know any other students in high school who were very interested in the theatre? What were they like?

Do they still use the casting couch in interviewing actresses or actors today?

Read about the latest scandal on that girl on "American Idol"?
Or those two girls who were involved with Don Trump's show business?
One was reprieved, one was cast out. I wonder how Trump chose this?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:50 pm

I'm not familiar with the specific instances that you mention, but I certainly believe what you are saying.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:03 am

RayS @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:36 pm wrote:Did you know any other students in high school who were very interested in the theatre? What were they like?

Do they still use the casting couch in interviewing actresses or actors today?

Read about the latest scandal on that girl on "American Idol"?
Or those two girls who were involved with Don Trump's show business?
One was reprieved, one was cast out. I wonder how Trump chose this?

You know there are actually people who approach acting as an art, a craft to be practiced and honed, as a scholarly pursuit and to be studied as such. What exactly do you mean about high school students in theater and "what were they like?" I think that's rather rude. I was in theater. Many of my friends were in theater. I'm sure you know the difference between a true actor/actress and a wannabe looking for 15 min of fame and willing to exploit their looks, quirks, and "talents" in order to try and pass themselves off as actors/actresses.

True that in Lizzie's time the theater and its players were judged differently by some segments of society, but at the same time there were respectable and cultured people who embraced persons of true acting talent, and quite rightfully so. Maybe in Fall River at that time "the theater" was still relatively tabboo, but this was not the case everywhere.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:20 am

sguthmann, you certainly raise a good point. Sorry if any offense was taken to my posts. It's probably just a case of the "few" bad apples ruining it for all the good ones - like yourself.

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:09 am

Yeah, I've heard about some wild party's going at Lizzie's. I wonder what they were doing there...getting drunk and dancing on the tables. Maybe Emma was tired of the party's going on, but I feel it's really no reason for ending a relation with a sibling.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:57 pm

Michael @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:20 am wrote:sguthmann, you certainly raise a good point. Sorry if any offense was taken to my posts. It's probably just a case of the "few" bad apples ruining it for all the good ones - like yourself.

No offense taken, and you're quite right - there are "bad apples" who have no desire to improve their craft, but are only after the fame they think acting will bring them. Lord knows the media is full of 'em these days.

Also, I do not doubt that there were many people in Fall River who would have seen carousing with an actress or theater troop as inappropriate behavior for a respectable woman. Nance O'Neal may have even deserved such a reputation. I don't know as I really know next to nothing about her. In any case, I'm sure association between Nance and Lizzie was perceived as inappropriate by many of her peers.

My posting was simply to remind RayS that it's not nice to stereotype, to imply an attribute or reputation applies to a truly diverse group of people. In the context of the Lizzie's life, I fully acknowledge that her association with actors/actresses probably wasn't looked upon very kindly due to the prevailing attitudes of the day. I'd just appreciate if RayS would keep his comments in the proper context.

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:51 pm

Actors in lizzies days where not looked upon as very nice people, to associate with I guess.

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:25 am

We will never know for sure what took place at Maplecroft that finaly made Emma say to herself, and to Lizzie “enough is enough”. But I have always had the feeling that life with Lizzie was full of always doing things Lizzie’s way. In many ways I think Lizzie was basically like a spoiled little child. In her 1913 interview with the Post reporter Emma repeatedly mentions her deathbed promise to her mother to always look after little Lizzie. Well by 1905 little Lizzie was 45 and Emma was 55 and Emma perhaps felt she had completed her promise to her mother. Even though they were sisters they definitely had different personalities and different outlooks on how they wanted to live their lives. As far as them never communicating again there is that thing called “stubborn Yankee pride” and it is real and it still exists even till this day. Once a Yankee feels slighted, even by a loved one they can carry that grudge for the rest of their lives.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:19 am

They still held property in common and had to make land deals and decisions. I don't know that they never spoke. Once they both had telephones, they might have!

Anyway, if they did not see each other they had their lawyers or man-of-business as go-between.

This is just a literal answer.

Please do not be distracted by our resident curmudgeon.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:24 am

Emma did leave in 1905, not some years after, as hypothesized here.
(See Rebello, 310)

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:19 pm

I guess we'll never know why, but I can imagine it may be something related to what SteveS mentioned in his post.
Kat made also a good point and their "contact" after 1905 was perhaps strictly business-related.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:28 pm

I personaly think Emma knew Lizzie was guilty of the killings and it just got to the point, with all of Lizzie's travels and parties and such, where Emma simply had had enough.

-1bigsteve (o:

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:49 pm

Neither Lizzie or Emma was ever quoted to my knowledge of ever saying that they never spoke or had anything to do with each other again since 1905. In that 1913 interview with Emma, if I am remembering correctly, Emma stated that she would never step foot inside Maplecroft again as long as Lizzie was residing there. She never said that they cut off all communication. I’d like to think that B-day cards and Christmas cards were still exchanged between the two sisters.

I’m sure they had to have business dealings with each other after 1905. Might have just been done through lawyers, who knows?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:11 pm

I have to wonder about the issue of actors and actresses being looked down upon by Fall River Society in general by 1905. Basically I find myself wondering to what extent this was truly the case. What makes me wonder is the fact that theatre was a part of the B.M.C. Durfee High School curriculum as early as 1911 as far as I have been able to ascertain thus far. Would they offer theatre as part of their High School curriculum if actresses were considered to be little better than prostitutes?

NESpinster · Post by **NESpinster** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:56 pm

Hello everyone! May I jump in?

Nishmat, I too have often wondered just what happened in that house. Emma appeared to be willing to put up with her sister's behavior--even if she didn't approve of it--but clearly something happened that changed her mind quite suddenly. If only we knew what it was!

I've been reading the 1913 Sunday Post interview to which SteveS referred. Very interesting reading--Emma seems to be speaking pretty openly and honestly about her sister, their relationship, and the murders, but it's clear that a lot is being left unsaid--and to me it only deepens the mystery.

Emma admits that Lizzie was "odd", but as she says, being odd doesn't make someone a murderer. She also insists that Lizzie assured her repeatedly--after the murders and years later, when they lived together at Maplecroft--that she had nothing whatever to do with the murders, and Emma says emphatically that she believes her sister.

She even gives a couple of reasons why she thinks Lizzie must be innocent. First, Emma says, the police never found the murder weapon.

And she says that (assuming that is true) Lizzie would not have had time to hide the weapon, nor was there a hiding place the authorities could not find.

Hmmm....not sure I buy that.

Anyway, Emma's second reason for believing in Lizzie's innocence is her sister's love for and kindness to animals. As Emma said, "Now any person with a heart like that could never have committed the awful act for which Lizzie was tried and of which she was acquitted."

Tellingly (at least to me!) is Emma's next remark, "I did my duty..." in standing by her sister during the trial and after.

As SteveS remarks, Emma refers repeatedly to her mother's deathbed request that Emma would "always watch over 'baby Lizzie'". And she adds in that interview, "I intend to defend Lizzie against the harsh public so that mother will say I have been faithful to my trust."

But where it starts to get interesting...the reason that Emma left Maplecroft...Emma Borden suddenly clams up.

She says:

"The happenings at the French street house (Maplecroft) that caused me to leave I must refuse to talk about. I did not go until conditions became absolutely unbearable. Then, before taking action, I consulted the Rev. A. E. Buck....After carefully listening to my story, he said it was imperative that I should make my home elsewhere."

Huh? Imperative? What on earth was going on in that house??

And (sorry for being so long-winded!) one more thing. In this 1913 article, it is stated that "Since Emma Borden's departure they (Emma and Lizzie) have never met or communicated with each other"! (The italics are mine, but this implies that the two sisters didn't even exchange letters!)

One interesting side-note. When the intrepid reporter tried to contact Lizzie (banging on her door, ringing the doorbell) he got no answer. Then he phoned and asked to speak to her.

Lizzie shouted, "Nothing, absolutely nothing to say!" and slammed down the phone.

I don't know what drove Emma away (I wish I did!) but clearly Lizzie was someone you did not want to cross!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:33 pm

Hello NESpinster, welcome to the forum.

We'll probably never know the reason(s) Emma left Lizzie and Maplecroft.

If Emma's statement that she consulted with Rev. Buck before moving is true then her reasons were simmering for at least two years. Emma left in 1905 and Rev. Buck passed away in March of 1903. Either she endured that reason for another 2 years or something else added to her unhappiness.

All sorts of reasons or rumors have been suggested. Her association with theater people, Nance O'Neil in particular, is often cited. Another reason could have been Lizzie's spending. Personally I think they just had two different personalities which eventually rubbed the wrong way. Emma didn't need Maplecroft, Lizzie did.

Again, welcome.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:59 pm

Pull up a chair, NESpinster - and welcome to our little corner of the zoo.

The dynamic between Emma and Lizzie is certainly fascinating for sure. It seems rather ironic in one sense at least: The sisters Borden in essence it appears did the very same thing to oneanother as Uncle Hiram Harrington had done to Andrew many years earlier - they cut oneanother's acquaintance, to paraphrase Hiram. Although from the sound of things the sisters did so more effectively than Hiram was ever able to accomplish.

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:20 am

Welcome to the forum NESpinster

"The happenings at the French street house (Maplecroft) that caused me to leave I must refuse to talk about. I did not go until conditions became absolutely unbearable. Then, before taking action, I consulted the Rev. A. E. Buck....After carefully listening to my story, he said it was imperative that I should make my home elsewhere."

Yes. There must have been strange things going on, otherwise why consult Reverend Buck? Emma probably had some kind of chat about the morality in the house with him.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:08 pm

Hi!
I think there was money involved as well. Lizzie wanted to privately buy up property around French Street and I doubt Emma wanted in on that. When she left she had Lizzie sign an agreement to pay her to have the whole house to herself. So even tho Emma waited to leave, as Harry pointed out, so too did Emma make sure to protect her investment, with a contract!
These kinds of things make me wonder if all these relationships were built on money and superficial things.
I think Andrew raised a crop of dysfunctional daughters!

Hey Doug-Oh. In my readings, to "cut" someone is to not acknowledge them on the street- to avert the gaze rather than nod- to turn around and walk away.
To cut someone was a public thing. I don't think Emma did that to Lizzie or Lizzie to Emma- that we ever heard about anyway. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:57 pm

I dunno...maybe I misinterpreted Hiram's remark. I took it to mean that he avoided Andrew at all cost, or as nearly to that as he could get given the familial connection.

Did the same thing not occur between Emma and Lizzie after about 1905? So far as we know, did they not effectively cut all contact?

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:25 pm

It's clear that Emma was terribly offended by something in 1905 and that she strongly dissaproved of Lizzie's lifestyle at French street, whatever that lifestyle was. I suspect it had to do with Lizzie's intimate relationships, associations and parites, but how knows for sure.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:29 am

You're right, Doug-Oh, about Hiram cutting Andrew's acquaintance and it was supposedly over money (again)- an unpaid water bill after the Ferry Street property was decided between Lurana and Andrew. I don't think Andrew was unfair- but I think Hiram thought so. So what you recall of that is true.

The *cut* of the Borden sisters of one another, that you inferred, is what I mean- they did not deny each other entrance to their homes, they did not publicly let it be known if they were at odds, nor speak ill of each other to others- they really were what I consider *estranged.*

I'm wondering if Lizzie was subltly poisoning the French Street household (for jollies) and Emma was tired of watching everything she ate!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:38 am

If Emma was *terribly offended* by happenings at the French Street house she waited 2 years- as Harry pointed out- to get that offended.

Emma was a practical lady and probably had an iron will of her own. What could take 2 years to weigh on her before she left? I was thinking something that happened over time- that it took that long to get that bad so that Emma felt she should leave. (Yet Rev. Buck supposedly told her to get away 2 years before...)

It's a mystery. Maybe we will solve this today?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:11 am

Allen @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:11 pm wrote:I have to wonder about the issue of actors and actresses being looked down upon by Fall River Society in general by 1905. Basically I find myself wondering to what extent this was truly the case. What makes me wonder is the fact that theatre was a part of the B.M.C. Durfee High School curriculum as early as 1911 as far as I have been able to ascertain thus far. Would they offer theatre as part of their High School curriculum if actresses were considered to be little better than prostitutes?

Until TV in the 1950s, volunteer theatricals were quite in vogue. You can look it up, such as in Laura Ingalls Wilders stories of her childhood.
People were more self-sufficient, putting on vaudeville and minstrel shows, etc. Non-professionals were OK, unlike those wretched actors and actresses in the theatre.
Ever read those books about Hollywood in the teens and twenties? Before the Hays (?) code?
People provided their own entertainment just as they hunted and grew crops. Some still do the latter.

"Hollywood Babylon" is in your public library.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:51 am

Kat @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:38 am wrote:If Emma was *terribly offended* by happenings at the French Street house she waited 2 years- as Harry pointed out- to get that offended.

Emma was a practical lady and probably had an iron will of her own. What could take 2 years to weigh on her before she left? I was thinking something that happened over time- that it took that long to get that bad so that Emma felt she should leave. (Yet Rev. Buck supposedly told her to get away 2 years before...)
It's a mystery. Maybe we will solve this today?

I have a friend who takes forever to make decisions. It took her three years to decide to leave her husband, and two years to decide on which house she was going to buy. And that is in this day and age. Imagine how hard it must have been for someone back in 1892, who was not used to making major decisions, who had a retiring nature, and who was inexperienced in knowing about moving, uprooting, etc. It must have been a major trauma for someone like Emma to get the nerve up to do something that monumental on her own. Women in those days usually didn't do things like that all by themselves.

NESpinster · Post by **NESpinster** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:31 pm

Kat @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:29 am wrote: I'm wondering if Lizzie was subltly poisoning the French Street household (for jollies) and Emma was tired of watching everything she ate!

LOL! I bet she was--sounds like our Lizzie, all right!

BTW, thanks so much for all the kind welcomes!

I tried to reply earlier but of course my idiotic and extremely aged computer just refused to cooperate. It does that sometimes--just to infuriate me, I think.

I am loving all these discussions because I have been fascinated by Lizzie and this whole murder case for years--it's so great finally having people to discuss it with--and some very knowledgeable people at that!!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:50 pm

Hi Patricia, welcome to the Forum!

I recall that someone posted in the past, don't know if it was from news accounts or from Rebello, something about the neighborhood kids throwing stones at Maplecroft and such. Could that have been a factor in Emma leaving, the constant harrassment and possibly taunts of the Lizzie quatrain chanted at the house? Perhaps Emma tired of living in the shadow of her infamous sister? I know we discussed it in the past, but, did we ever come up with a final answer as to whether Lizzie and Emma stayed in touch or not?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:02 pm

I'm glad you picked up on that poison reference, NESpinster!
I hoped I wasn't maligning poor Lizbeth when she can't stand up for herself and her reputation.

If she was innocent, it must have been horrible for her!
~ ~ ~
But, wouldn't Rev. Buck advise both sisters to leave if things were becoming intolerable? (Like chanting and things thrown at the house, etc.)

The person who wrote the Emma Interview, as far as I could tell, didn't exist ( a pseudonym?). Tho I tended to prove to myself Emma did give the interview- but that is the source for the quote about Emma being given advice to leave by Rev. Buck. And also the source for the story that the girls did not see each other and that supposedly Emma said she would not set foot in the place while Lizzie was alive.

But still I think there were telephones and unless the whole of Fall River was only offered *Party Lines* I think the Borden girls could afford private lines and could speak to each other without anyone knowing. Not for secrecy, but just no ones' business but their own, I mean.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:16 am

I wonder if Rev. Buck was still Lizzie's spiritual adviser at that point in time? If so, he may have told Lizzie that the best thing to do would be to leave town, move elsewhere, anywhere but Fall River. I recall an interview that was attributed to Lizzie where she had said something about people saying or thinking that she should move elsewhere and she didn't know what possessed them, she was going to her home in Fall River to stay (or something to that effect). If true, that may explain why she stayed, despite any problems.

My thought is that Rev. Buck could tell Emma to move away from Lizzie, the reason for any harrassment at Maplecroft. Obviously, Lizzie can't move away from herself, she most probably being the target of it all. Lizzie could move to a bigger city like Boston where she could have maintained a semblance of anonymity. What I was thinking was that any malicious intent directed at Lizzie, that Emma had to suffer through too, may have been the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm sure there was more to Emma's leaving, but, it may have been a deciding factor.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:16 pm

I know things were very very different back then, concerning marriage etc. I guess if a woman wasn't married she just stayed home? They never went out & made a life for themselves? I find this quite interesting because my husband had 2 aunts and 1 uncle that never married. They lived in the same house they were born in for over 80 years. They had brothers & sisters who married & left home. They all had full time jobs and pitched in for expenses. When I came into the family and met them, they all seemed so miserable, mostly angry and argumentative. As they aged this seemed to get worse. So I can see Emma finally leaving, she probably had finally had it. I know she promised to take care of Lizzie, but I'm sure there were times she wished she never made that promise. I'm sure she also got sick of always giving into Lizzie and just wanted peace & quiet. She probably did alot of things just to keep the peace, because I think if Lizzie didn't get just what she wanted, she would be extremely difficult.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:38 am

The way I understand it, it was the fact she was running with a "wild" crowd. Or wild for the time-- actors. From what I understand, actors were only about a step up from prostitutes on the scale of life in that time. And I think there were some partying going on, and Emma had a belly full of it all. She was the quiet, more reserverd, of the two.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:57 pm

Emma and Lizzie seemed to be two dissimilar people where personality is concerned. Much of the commonality between them might have disappeared when Andrew and Abby died. They were no longer inhibited by their father, and they no longer had the focus of hating Abby. They moved into a different residence and eventually saw one another for what they really were, without the commonality of fellow victims, subject to the influence of Andrew and Abby.

Emma might have been content to live as they had on Second Street, although I expect she appreciated the accommodations at French Street as much as Lizzie did. Lizzie seemed to change her lifestyle in a more overt manner. If Emma took exception to that, maybe she was stubborn enough to dig in her heels and take the attitude that it was as much her house as it was Lizzie's, and if Lizzie was changing, it should be up to her to move out. It may have taken her two years to realize this wouldn't happen, just a simple battle of wills.

Emma may have promised to look after Lizzie, but I think that obligation would have ended when Lizzie reached adulthood. Emma may have been genuinely surprised by who Lizzie really was!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:11 pm

Yooper @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:57 pm wrote:Emma and Lizzie seemed to be two dissimilar people where personality is concerned. Much of the commonality between them might have disappeared when of Andrew and Abby died. They were no longer inhibited by their father, and they no longer had the focus of hating Abby. They moved into a different residence and eventually saw one another for what they really were, without the commonality of fellow victims, subject to the influence of Andrew and Abby.
Emma may have been genuinely surprised by who Lizzie really was!

I think that's right. After all the oppression ended and Lizzie no longer had to rein in her true nature to suit Andrew, she may have had a delayed adolescent rebellious overreaction to her newfound freedom. I know I went over the top for a while after I left my conservative parent's home, and they weren't anywhere near what Andrew was probably like. Emma, with her retiring nature, and being older, may have looked at her suddenly "wild child" sister with embarrassment and disgust. Emma may have wanted desperately to try to live down the notoriety, and all of a sudden, here was Lizzie, cavorting about with dandies and floozies, causing the town to notice her even more.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:07 pm

Another possibility is Emma may have thought she was the logical head of the household being the elder sister. She was probably as much a mother to Lizzie as a sister while they were growing up, and there may have been no reason to think differently from Emma's standpoint. Lizzie may have rebelled against Emma's proposed lifestyle, just a continuation of Andrew's with a change of address.
(NO, Andrew did NOT wear a dress as part of his lifestyle!!)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:23 pm

Yooper @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:07 pm wrote:Another possibility is Emma may have thought she was the logical head of the household being the elder sister. She was probably as much a mother to Lizzie as a sister while they were growing up, and there may have been no reason to think differently from Emma's standpoint. Lizzie may have rebelled against Emma's proposed lifestyle, just a continuation of Andrew's with a change of address.
(NO, Andrew did NOT wear a dress as part of his lifestyle!!)

That's a distinct possibility Yooper. Emma had admitted in a newspaper interview that her mother had requested that she always take care of "baby Lizzie". After Andrew and Abby were out of the picture Emma may have tried to "mother" Lizzie. I have a feeling this would've been the last thing Lizzie wanted. She didn't want anyone having a say over what she did or how she lived. Exactly how much of a say over how things were run do you imagine Emma had in her own home? From the firing by Emma and rehiring by Lizzie of one of the male servants we have heard about it doesn't seem like she had very much control over her home.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:10 pm

Oscar @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:25 pm wrote:It's clear that Emma was terribly offended by something in 1905 and that she strongly dissaproved of Lizzie's lifestyle at French street, whatever that lifestyle was. I suspect it had to do with Lizzie's intimate relationships, associations and parites, but how knows for sure.

There being no court suit with testimony under oath it will remain just speculation.
But I wonder if that was the time when that actress borrowed thousands from Liziie and never paid it back.

I read somewhere it wasn't the association with that actress, but being played for a sucker that made Lizzie look foolish.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:41 pm

Emma seeking counsel from Rev. Buck leads me to believe she had some moral issues over the goings-on in the house.

After Andrew and Abby were gone, Lizzie could pretty much do as she pleased. Somewhat like the sheltered child who goes away to college and finally tastes freedom. The theater crowd she favored were still looked down on as "undesireables", and Lizzie may have begun to stretch her wings and experiment with things that had previously been "forbidden".

I'm sure her theater crowd may have been a bit "loose" and shocked the prim and proper Emma. Drinking, immoral behavior, and who knows what else. Lizzie may have found the whole new lifestyle rather exciting and Emma was probably at a loss...she could no longer control Lizzie and she did not approve of what was going on in the house. I doubt it was what she had in mind when they bought the French street house..she probably envisioned a confortable and quiet life in a spacious new home.

Rev. Buck probably told her she needed to leave immediately since Emma was being exposed to such immoral lifestyles. She may have taken so long because she still had hope of turning Lizzie around and back on track. I think she finally realized it was a lost cause, Lizzie was running wild, and there was nothing more she could do. I think at that point she decided to wash her hands of the whole affair and move.

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:24 am

Well said SallyG. I think you capsulated the goings on at French St. to a T.. Granted it's all speculation but I think you presented a well thought out and fits the circumstance explanation.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:47 am

I believe that's all very true. But beyond that, maybe when Emma started objecting to the lifstyle it reminded Lizzie of all the restraints and oppression she felt while living with her father, so the tension could have started escalating again. Emma, by this time, may have had doubts about Lizzie's innocence and got a little worried about her own safety. Maybe she got out while the getting was good.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:37 am

If Emma had entertained the vaguest notion that Lizzie was guilty of the murders, and if Emma realized that she (Emma) might represent the same sort of oppressive character that Andrew or Abby had, perhaps it makes sense to make tracks. If Lizzie's mental stability was deteriorating for some reason, Emma might have been in a difficult situation. How does she look out for her own safety without making Lizzie look guilty of the murders?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:21 am

And maybe the only time Lizzie looked like she was unraveling was when she was under pressure.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:10 am

Pressure might be caused by feeling confined, like the confinement of living with Andrew and Abby. Possibly the confinement of living in a world that thought she was guilty of murder. It might have been beyond Emma's control.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:41 am

I was thinking more along the lines of Lizzie feeling finally free to be herself and then finding out that living with Emma's displeasure was a repeat of the past, causing her to rebel and again feel built up anger.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:38 pm

I have to wonder what changes Lizzie expected from Emma. I also have to wonder what Lizzie did to keep her true identity hidden, if that was indeed what happened. It could be that they never realized who the other one was. It could be as simple as Lizzie finally putting herself on the same adult level as Emma. Perhaps she thought of herself as a child all those years on Second Street. Maybe Lizzie never left the role of child and Emma tired of it. The possibilities are endless!

If Emma harbored the least suspicion of Lizzie's guilt, it would have put Lizzie in control of the household if Lizzie was aware of it. I doubt that Emma would have hemmed and hawed for two years about leaving, though. If Lizzie had been using fear to intimidate Emma, Emma probably wouldn't have cared how her leaving would appear to anyone.

To what degree was Emma ostracized? It may have been more about Emma than Lizzie. Maybe Emma was tired of living in a fishbowl. If Lizzie was living a flamboyant life, Emma might have been seen as allowing it.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:28 pm

The statement that Emma met with the Rev. Buck in 1903 was revealed in an article that appeared in the Boston Sunday Post of April 13, 1913. This is some 8 years after Emma left Maplecroft and 21 years after the murders.

It has always puzzled me why Emma would give such an interview. To my knowledge nothing special had resurrected the Borden case.

According to the Williams' Casebook, the reporter, had attempted to interview Lizzie at Maplecroft. He first tried the doorbell and did not get an answer. Then, leaving, he telephoned and asked the maid to call Lizzie to the phone. Williams describes the conversation as follows (page 250):

"... But shortly after leaving the Borden estate, the Post man utilized the telephone. The maid who answered summoned Lizzie Borden to the telephone.
"Nothing to say," exclaimed Miss Borden in a strong calm voice, after a request for an interview had been made.
On being urged further she fairly shouted: "Nothing, absolutely nothing to say." Then came a decisive "bang" as she slammed the receiver back on the hook. Thus ended the conversation."

There are some things in the interview with Emma that just don't make sense, at least to me. As an example, Emma explains the arrangement she and Lizzie made as to the paying of rent from Lizzie to Emma for Maplecroft. Now why in the world would Emma reveal a fact like that to a stranger. She also reveals that she paid 1/2 of the trial expenses. Why?

So after more than 20 years of public silence she suddenly submits to an interview from a newspaper (not even a Fall River paper) and reveals such intimate details. That interview never smelled right to me.