Lizzie Borden Society Forum

This item came out in The Evening Standard after the Preliminary Hearing was over. It refers to a bit of Bridget's testimony at that hearing.
The Standard has been very good at quoting witnesses, but this excahange does not show up in the Prelim transcript.
Explaining this is just to show that there may be errors in this account.
However, it is interesting to see the reference to the Borden robbery and that Bridget had been at "Harrington's" Wednesday night before the murders.
Also, my question is:
What things could they be alluding to which seem to have been the real point of the Borden robbery June 24th, 1891? Surely not horse tickets?
It says that it would have caused a family scandal if known what was really stolen.
Also- is it possible we have missing pages, or page from the Preliminary Hearing?

"Saturday, September 24, 1892 Page 2

SHERIFF WRIGHT DISGUSTED.

Strong Feeling Against Him as
Miss Borden's Custodian.

His Sympathetic Generosity Shown
In the Case of Dr. Vose.

Interest in the Fall River Case Unabated
About Taunton Jail.

From the Standard's Staff Correspondent.
Taunton, Sept. 23. ---"


...."Here is one thing that the newspaper men who were on the spot have never taken up, and why they haven't is a mystery. When Bridget Sullivan was on the stand she was subjected to a severe examination by Mr. Adams in regard to that last night at "Harrington's." The examination ran along something like this, after having fixed the time of her going home:
Question--- Did anybody go home with you that night?
Answer--- No, I went alone.
Q. Usually go home alone?
A. Not always.
Q. But you did go home alone that night?
A. I did.
Q. How did you go home, walk or ride?
A. I walked.
Q. Walked all the way?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't ride in the cars?
A. No.
Q. When you got home who was there?
A. The family.
Q. All of the family?
A. Yes.
Q. There had been a robbery at the house about a year before?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was the family then?
A. At home.
Q. All of them?
A. Yes.
Q. And something was taken out of the barn, too?
A. Yes.
Q. See anybody around at the time the robbery was committed?
A. No.

About this time lawyer Jennings pulled the coattail of Mr. Adams and there was a whispered conference. The district attorney winked at Marshal Hilliard and the marshal smiled. The robbery business was dropped by Mr. Adams, after that conference with Mr. Jennings, like a shot. Why? Well, that's for some bright newspaper man to find out. And it wasn't once alluded to by Mr. Jennings in his argument except in a general way, when he referred to the police knowing that the house had been burglarized when nobody in the house knew of the circumstances. Yes, the police did know that the house was burglarized, and they knew that some money and a watch had been missing after the burglary. And the police know something more, without a doubt. They know why the case wasn't followed, but it is questioned by those who ought to know if the police have found out yet just what the whole results of that robbery was, and how many articles disappeared besides the money and watch. It would not be surprising if it came out before this thing ended that the Bordens themselves stopped the police inquiry into that robbery, and it may be that Marshal Hilliard is backed up in his opinion of what course to take because in possession of certain facts which lead him to believe the worst of Lizzie Borden. It is hinted strongly that there were things taken from that house that an ordinary thief would have no use for, and that the money and watch was simply taken as a blind to throw Mr. Borden off the track. And when the real object of the thief was discovered proceedings were stopped and a family scandal checked right there. This is the theory of one or two who have been following the case pretty closely and who are well acquainted with all the parties interested."

That is mysterious. I can't imagine what Andrew or Abby would have in their room that would cause a break-in by Lizzie. A Will comes to mind but she would certainly realize that other copies may or would exist. Besides it could easily be recreated as long as Andrew was alive.

To throw more oil on the mystery, there is a letter in the Knowlton papers from Attorney General Pillsbury to Knowlton, dated September 3, 1892, just after the close of the Preliminary hearing. HK054, page 61:

"... I hear considerable said of the burglar theory, evidently based on a former alleged burglary of the Borden house, of which I had not heard before, namely:- that this same burglar, probably a professional, or perhaps some other, entered the house to rob the old man or rob the safe, and was compelled to kill to escape without detection, etc; and some people think Bridget was in the former burglary, and in this affair too as a confederate to the burglar. Of course this is very thin, but it is the only theory I have heard suggested which is capable of belief for a moment; and this doubtless is believed by some. ..."

Seems odd that Pillsbury, the highest legal authority in the stae would even mention something like that unless he thought there was something to it.

Thank you, Har. We're doing very well with this so far- I hadn't thought the burglary had been batted about until the grand jury heard Hilliard talk about it, blaming Lizzie. I didn't know it was knowledge the authorities were interested in this early in the game.

"It is hinted strongly that there were things taken from that house that an ordinary thief would have no use for, and that the money and watch was simply taken as a blind to throw Mr. Borden off the track. And when the real object of the thief was discovered proceedings were stopped and a family scandal checked right there."

It seems as if it was something which Andrew might not notice right away?
I can't think of anything personal that might not show up as missing right away- oh, maybe someone copied something? And left the original behind and staged the robbery to cover up that the thing was copied? If it wasn't put back in exactly the right position the rifling of drawers might seem to account for it's movement.

Good stuff, Kat and Harry! Yes, some of the reporting seems to be off as they have Bridget stating that the whole family was home when the robbery happened and that wasn't so when it happened, afterwards perhaps.

Thats a really good and really tough question, what could Andrew and/or Abby have in that desk that wasn't missed immediately, but, when found missing could have caused a family scandal? What came to mind first was that if you believe the William Borden story, that perhaps the culprit was after the agreement Andrew had with his illegitamate son, how much money he was to get and such. That would certainly cause a family scandal if that got out.

Bills sent to Andrew for items that Lizzie had kleptoed from the local shops? Perhaps another key to Andrew and Abby's bedroom? Abby's adoption papers? Hows that one for speculation?!

Abby's adoption papers? What's that?
Is that like Emma's love-child's adoption papers?:roll:

A copy of a key was something I thought of later as I went to bed. Good idea Susan. I think that is an interesting idea.
Hiram Harrington might be able to copy a key, as a blacksmith.

Like I said, total speculation, I was thinking along the lines of Abby not actually being from the Durfee Grays, but, from some poorer, less high on the totem pole family. Her adoption papers are stolen and now others may be made privy to her plight, hence the family scandal.

Or, perhaps another key to one of the outer doors of the Borden house? Though, I don't think that would cause scandal, probably more like alarm that someone could come in as they pleased. I'm trying to think of something that might be in that desk that would be a juicy little secret type of thing, like nudy tintype shots of Abby or something. Something that Andrew or Abby wouldn't want out and known to others, or seen by others. Something that wouldn't be noticed immediately by them and/or couldn't be told to the police that it was missing because of what it was.

If you thought you had been burgled and you did have a secret, wouldn't you check the *secret thing* almost first?

When I was "burgled"- or rather stolen from, it took me a little while to figure out what was missing- which was my jewelry, probably because I didn't wear it every day.

I was trying to think of something I might have that I would check for right away, once I knew someone had been thru my room- and couldn't come up with anything other than property.

I see what you're saying, Kat. I'm just wondering though if Andrew and Abby were primarily concerned with just the money type items missing at first, from the shock of having things taken. And later after the police have left discover the secret thing is missing also, which was possibly the target in the first place?

It had to be something that they didn't think or worry about on a daily basis, maybe even thought it was well hidden in the desk as to not be concerned with it themselves, out of sight, out of mind. Until they did a thorough checking and discovered it missing. Hmmmm, what could it be?

Yes that's the mind-set I'm thinking of.
You've explained it well.

One thing that strikes me in this story is that Jennings (Defence) is the one anxious not to pursue the matter. The journalist assumes it has something to do with additional unstated theft, but could it be simply that Jennings knows that Lizzie was prime suspect because of all the streetcar tickets she passed out after the burglary? He also might be afraid that Lizzie's association with that crime might seem to be a preparatory blind for the real crime--which is exactly what many have thought of the case since. (Although if that were her intention, I don't think she'd have advertised her connection to the theft.)

--Lyddie

I think Lizzie was quoted as saying *As if anyone would use them.* (The streetcar tickets). I thought that story of her handing them out was as bogus as the one where she tried to sell Abby's watch?

I believe that Rebello mentions the tickets having been used and traced back to Lizzie. The quote sounds apocryphal. Will check.

--Lyddie

Emma's love child?! Actually, that reminds me of the story of Lizzie going every year to see that little boy at his school to give him birthday gifts. I always wondered what that connection was. Altho, sounds like he'd be too young to be Emma's love child...Lizzies?!

lydiapinkham @ Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:26 pm wrote:I believe that Rebello mentions the tickets having been used and traced back to Lizzie. The quote sounds apocryphal. Will check.

--Lyddie

Rebello, pg. 36:

..."There had been a series of robberies in Fall River just preceding this, and a young man was finally tripped up with a lot of sized keys in his possession, but there seems to have been something distinctive about this theft that did not indicate an expert.

Mr. Borden was a director in the street railway company, and the tickets stolen were those issued only to directors. Consequently, being of such limited issue, it was comparatively easy to trace the thief the minute the tickets were presented. The amount of money taken was not large.
A watch was kept on the street cars for several weeks, but just what the detective's work disclosed will not be known before the trial, for suddenly, Mr. Borden told the officers to drop the case. It is said, however, that the tickets were traced to some person.

It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed."

--Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893: 7.

Rebello, 36 &37:

"Chief Hilliard [allegedly] told the members of the grand jury why it was the mysterious burglar who stole Mrs. Borden's watch ...The chief said he was satisfied that Lizzie committed the theft, and went on to say how he convinced Mr. Borden that such was the case. All the articles stolen at that time were the property of Mrs. Borden and included, beside the watch and money, a quantity of free horse tickets. A number of persons were found presenting free tickets who were not entitled to them. The police asked them where they secured these little pasteboards. They said Lizzie Borden gave them to them. Lizzie had never any of these tickets until after the theft from Mrs. Borden, so Mr. Borden requested that there be no further investigation. A number of such points were brought before the grand jury which never before made public, and they added much strength to the case. ..."

--New Bedford Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892: 4.


--This is from the spurious *Leak* at the grand jury, reported in the Standard.. The stories coming out of there were unbelievable, or at least, cannot ever be proved.
There was the story about the ton of boiling water Bridget saw on the stove before she went up to her rest and she noticed it was gone when she came down later after the murder of Andrew. etc.

When I first read about the burglary many years ago (I was probably a teenager) the first thing that struck me was that the 1891 robbery was, as lyddie says, a blind or preparatory exercise for Lizzie to let the family know they were less safe than they believed and a subsequent crime or crimes could be in the Borden families future.

Even today I wouldn't rule this out -but it may have been more complicated than that.

After giving the matter some thought I would not rule out that a document was taken or removed from its place of rest and replaced in such a way so as to let the Sr. Bordens know that their legal affairs were not an entirely private affair between just Andrew and Abby. A draft of a will or a deed of transfer of ownership in property would be the type of thing I would be looking for if I was Lizzie.

Thanks for posting that, Kat. Whether true or not, there seems to be a great deal of interesting items in Rebello, which I don't have and do love reading them. It gives you a feel for what was going on at the time and what was thought about Lizzie. I'm surprised that Lizzie didn't go after any of these papers for the things that were printed.


I guess if Lizzie did take a document of some sort from the elder Bordens and it was known that she had knowledge of what was supposed to have been private affairs, that could have caused a family scandal. Especially since it would point the guilty finger to Lizzie as the thief, robbing from her own family.