Another Far Fetched Theory

[Allen]

Ok, this is just something I was thinking about last night, so I haven't really had time to think it all the way through,but I figured I would post what I have so far. Why did she choose that day to commit the murders? Andrew and Abby had been sick. An illness takes a lot more out of you when you are getting along in years. It's also harder to shake it off. From what can be surmised from the testimony, the Borden's had been very sick for a few days. Could this have gotten Lizzie thinking about their mortality? Could their being so ill have caused her to comtemplate the fact that Andrew was getting along in years, and may not live very many more? And what if he made a will during that time? What if he began to comtemplate what should happen to his estate when he passed? I know it's a really far fetched idea. I admit it is pretty out there. Add this to the fact that Uncle John, Andrew, and Abby may have been sitting up to have what were deemed by Lizzie to be suspicious conversations in the sitting room, and maybe this is what drove her to kill.

[Kat]

It doesn't sound far-fetched.
Maybe to someone who thinks La Liz is innocent.
But even then, it's possible that an illness might have Andrew thinking along the lines of a will.
Early that year he had been witness to Southard Miller's will.
That might have gotten the whole Borden family thinking...

Well, personally, if I think Lizzie did it, I tend to think she relished in the plan and fantasized about it and it would have been longer than that week.

If Andrew had died from complications from his illness without a will, the estate would have been split 3 ways?
How much less is 1/3 than 1/2? Was it worth Abby's life?
I think Abby was the main target and there was never an implication that she might make a will...

[Audrey]

I think it is a sound theory....

Is La Liz did do it-- wouldn't you think she would have needed time to work up the nerve? (As discussed in Harry's thread)

It would take ovaries of steel to hack at someone with a hatchet.. Imagining the noise alone is enough to make me sick.

[Allen]

It doesn't sound far-fetched.
Maybe to someone who thinks La Liz is innocent.
But even then, it's possible that an illness might have Andrew thinking along the lines of a will.
Early that year he had been witness to Southard Miller's will.
That might have gotten the whole Borden family thinking...

Well, personally, if I think Lizzie did it, I tend to think she relished in the plan and fantasized about it and it would have been longer than that week.

If Andrew had died from complications from his illness without a will, the estate would have been split 3 ways?
How much less is 1/3 than 1/2? Was it worth Abby's life?
I think Abby was the main target and there was never an implication that she might make a will...

I thought if Andrew died without a will, everyting would have went to Abby? Wasn't that the way? And I do not think Lizzie would've been concerned one way or another whether or not Abby made a will. Abby did not even have any property or assets to be concerned with. Other than the half house.

[bullet43]

Wasn't the day of the murders-Lizzie's real Mom's Birthday? That may have had something to do with it.

[john]

I think Abby would get all if Andrew died first.

[bullet43]

Step-parent's can really suck!

[Kat]

We had long ago talked about dower rights in the case of inheritance, if Andrew died intestate, under Commonwealth law, Massachusetts. I thought one of our older members might post info here on that- sorry it was not done.
Anyone add to this?

Evening Standard, Saturday, August 13, 1892 Page 2:

..."It is alleged now that Mrs. Borden, who was a second wife, on more than one occasion spoke of having a large part of the property when her husband died. She may have meant that her husband was going to leave her property in his will, or that she expected to have large property from her dower rights in case her husband died intestate. About the first suggestion one could say nothing definite. Mr. A. J. Jennings is perhaps the only man who can state whether Mr. Borden was making an inventory of his property, preliminary to writing his will and whether Mr. Borden intended to divide his estate unequally between his wife and his daughters. If Mrs. Borden anticipated having a large estate in fee left her by the death of her husband, she was mistaken. The law in the case is confusing, but a statement of its application to the Borden case is easily made. Had Mr. Borden alone died and died intestate, Mrs. Borden would have received in the discretion of the Court of Probate not exceeding $5000 in real estate in fee, one half of all the real estate for use during her lifetime, with reference back to the children at her death, and such a fraction of the personal estate as the Court of Probate in its discretion allowed, this also for use during lifetime only. In a word, Mrs. Borden could have hoped to secure only rights to property which would depart from her control at the end of her life. In case Mr. Borden wished he could have entirely disinherited his children."

[Kat]

I thought if Andrew died without a will, everyting would have went to Abby? Wasn't that the way? And I do not think Lizzie would've been concerned one way or another whether or not Abby made a will. Abby did not even have any property or assets to be concerned with. Other than the half house.--Allen

I may not understand you properly, but it seems you say that Abby might inherit everything, and then you say why would Lizzie care if Abby had a will? (This is when it was thought that Abby would inherit everything with Andrew dying intestate.)
The order of the deaths has always seemingly had an importance just because of the inheritance.

[Kat]

I do know that under Mass law then, a man could disinherit his children (leaving them a dollar or whatever) but he could not disinherit his wife. Those are the dower rights and she is meant to be provided for by the deceased, rather than become a burden to the State, so limits were devised which were thought to be fair.

[Harry]

This is from Rebello, p277:

"Note: If Andrew Borden was killed first, Abby Borden's heirs would have been entitled to one-third of the estate. Emma and Lizzie would have received two-thirds of their father's estate. The Public Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston: Wynn and Potier Printing Co., State Printers, 1886, Chapter 24, Sec. 3, Chapter 125, Sec. 1."

[Kat]

Thanks Har! I was just about to print that out. Just found it.

[Kat]

So, if inheriting All the money decided that Abby would die first, then her life was worth about $67,000.

(Say Andrew was worth $4000,000- then split 3 ways = $133,000 each. Split 2 ways = $200,000. The difference is $67,000 to each daughter.)

[Allen]

I may not understand you properly, but it seems you say that Abby might inherit everything, and then you say why would Lizzie care if Abby had a will? (This is when it was thought that Abby would inherit everything with Andrew dying intestate.)
The order of the deaths has always seemingly had an importance just because of the inheritance.

No, I was simply answering your statement that there was never any talk of Abby making a will.

[Allen]

So, if inheriting All the money decided that Abby would die first, then her life was worth about $67,000.

(Say Andrew was worth $4000,000- then split 3 ways = $133,000 each. Split 2 ways = $200,000. The difference is $67,000 to each daughter.)

I have heard cases of husbands taking out life insurance policies on their wives for less than that, and then doing away with them for the policy money. Seems sad doesn't it? That a human life could be snuffed out for any amount of money.

[Allen]

So, if inheriting All the money decided that Abby would die first, then her life was worth about $67,000.

(Say Andrew was worth $4000,000- then split 3 ways = $133,000 each. Split 2 ways = $200,000. The difference is $67,000 to each daughter.)

I have heard cases of husbands taking out life insurance policies on thier wives for less than that, and then doing away with them for the policy money. Seems sad doesn't it? That a human life could be snuffed out for any amount of money.

[Allen]

Seems my post somehow multiplied between the time I hit submit and the time it posted .

[snokkums]

I don't think it is far fetched. She might have been thinking "Oh, Lord they are old, getting sick and I am going to be stuck here taking care of them. Living in what I think is poverty". She might have been thinking that she didn't want to stay living in those conditions any longer than she had too. It's a possiblity that she could have commited the crimes because she didn't want to take care of them in that house. She always wanted to have a house on the Hill

[Nancie]

i agree Snokkum on that line of thinking... but I think those thoughts drove her to find someone else
to actually DO the dastardly deeds...

[Harry]

I have heard cases of husbands taking out life insurance policies on thier wives for less than that, and then doing away with them for the policy money. Seems sad doesn't it? That a human life could be snuffed out for any amount of money.

$67,000 in todays money may not seem that huge (I'll take it though!) but that amount in 1892 adjusted to todays dollars would be worth approx. $1.3 million.

Of course no amount of money is justification for committing murder.

[Allen]

$67,000 in todays money may not seem that huge (I'll take it though!) but that amount in 1892 adjusted to todays dollars would be worth approx. $1.3 million.

Of course no amount of money is justification for committing murder.

67,000 then = 1.3 million today. That is definitely no small chunk of change . If Lizzie was killing for the money, that would've sealed Abby's fate in my opinion.

[snokkums]

I think she just might have gotten someone else to do the deed, too. I think she just didn't want to take care of some old folks living in that house. She wanted to live on the hill.

[Kat]

When I think of the life the Borden's had on Ferry Street before they got their very own first house with their very own rooms at Second Street, I tend to wonder at what point that house became declasse, at what point did Lizzie decide she was better than the neighborhood- who filled her with these ideas and made her hate her home?

[snokkums]

She probably worked up the nerve after all those years of living in less than what she thought was decent living conditions. As for not being strong enough to put a hatchet thru someones head, I have seen some mighty strong women in my time!!

[Susan]

When I think of the life the Borden's had on Ferry Street before they got their very own first house with their very own rooms at Second Street, I tend to wonder at what point that house became declasse, at what point did Lizzie decide she was better than the neighborhood- who filled her with these ideas and made her hate her home?

Could it have been some of the women that Lizzie associated with? I don't mean her immediate girlfriends, weren't they all like schoolteachers, I don't think they were living high on the hog. But perhaps women like Mrs. Holmes, maybe it was what they said or maybe it was more of what Lizzie viewed?

Imagine living in a house with only cold running water and a cellar toilet when there were people who had full bathrooms in their houses. Imagine living in a house where it was lit in the evenings by kerosene lamps when gas lighting and electricity was around and in use. Imagine living in a house with your parent's outdated furniture, carpets and wallpaper. That makes me think of friend's parents homes I've been in where they still have their 1950s-60s living room sets covered with plastic! I was always asked to excuse the furnishings. I don't think everyone Lizzie knew lived wonderfully with all the modern conveniences, but, some must have. And Lizzie could read and see these wonderful things in magazines, it must have galled her to be stuck there in Andrew's frumpy house.

[lydiapinkham]

Re. strong women

One of my favorite clippings in the Sullivan Sourcebook concerns a rumor going round that Lizzie had been working out with medicine clubs at the gym (a YWCA?) to build up the necessary upper body strength. I love the picture of her in a loosened corset, swinging those clubs to the beat of "Hack 2 3 4. . ."

--Lyddie

[Kat]

The more I read of the era and the place, the more I find I'm being informed that the bathroom was not that prevalent a feature in anyone's home and that some people, rich even, were suspicious of gas lighting , let alone electricity.
Especially considering the patriarch's age- he may be rich and just uninteresed or suspicious of these"improvements."
Did the magazines in the late 1880's,say, have nice pictures of glorious interiors which might begin to turn Lizzie's head?

I wonder what Europe offered in the way of bathrooms, c.1890 when Lizzie took her trip?

[Susan]

Yes, Andrew may have had his concerns about newfangled things and went along with his "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude with his home. But Lizzie, on the other hand, she who wanted to do and see and have, I can see her wanting these newish things she saw and read about in magazines. I'm thinking of even simple things like a gas stove:

British inventor, James Sharp patented a gas stove in 1826, the first successful gas stove to appear on the market.

With the invention of the gas stove, the oven temperature could be regulated to a much finer degree and be maintained for just as long as was needed. There was no longer a need to refuel the stove. As Emily Holt, author of the Complete Housekeeper c.1903, remarked, "Matches are the only kindling and no more need be burned than just suffices for the cooking." This also made for a much cooler kitchen in warm weather.

The advent of the gas stove dramatically changed food preparation and cooking. Recipes became more complex and varied. The Ladies' Home Journal even included cooking lessons in its monthly magazine and cooking schools sprang up in major cities. A number of these schools published cookbooks, the most famous of which was the Boston Cooking-School Cook Book, known today as Fannie Farmer's Cookbook. An 1899 issue of the American Kitchen Magazine, and cookbooks of the time, offered guidance for making fancy beef and seafood dishes, frosted ham, timbales, and elegant desserts.

I'm not saying that every house had a gas stove, but, by the 1880s, it was old news and here was Lizzie with Andrew's wood and coal stove. Nothing wrong with it really, but, it wasn't modern nor convenient. I keep thinking along the lines that the Bordens had a VCR, when Lizzie saw, or read about, or used at a friend's house; a DVD player and wanted one.


From this site:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/journey/h ... cript.html

After 1918 advertisements for coal and wood stoves disappeared from the Ladies' Home journal, stove manufacturers purveyed only their gas, oil, or electric models. Articles giving advice to homemakers on how to deal with the trials and tribulations of starting, stoking, and maintaining a coal or a wood fire also disappeared. Thus it seems a safe assumption that most middleclass homes had switched to the new method of cooking by the time the depression began. The change in routine that was predicated on the change from coal or wood to gas or oil was profound; aside from the elimination of such chores as loading the fuel and removing the ashes, the new stoves were much easier to light, maintain, and regulate (even when they did not have thermostats, as the earliest models did not). " Kitchens were, in addition, much easier to clean when they did not have coal dust regularly tracked through them; one writer in the Ladies' Homejournal estimated that kitchen cleaning was reduced by one half when coal stoves were eliminated.

From this site:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/r_uth.html

[Audrey]

I wonder what Europe offered in the way of bathrooms, c.1890 when Lizzie took her trip?

Probably a flush toilet tucked away in a small room somewhere away from where everyone congregated.


http://www.theplumber.com/international ... story.html

Of course you do know the French "led the way" in the development of the modern toilet...

[Allen]

The idea of that gas stove is interesting. But I have to ask, if this was the case, did she have all of these available "new fangled" conveniences at Maplecroft?

[Susan]

Hard to say, Allen, not much is known about the interior of Maplecroft, just bits and pieces. For what its worth, heres David Kent's Forty Whacks take on Maplecroft, page 206:

The kitchen and breakfast room were a far cry from the cubbies Bridget had cooked and served in. The kitchen was equipped with all the newfangled conveniences of the day, and the dinette was bright and airy.

Page 207:

For the first time, there was a telephone in the Borden house (Ring 378), listed in the name "Lizbeth A. Borden," as she referred to herself for the rest of her life.

And from Frank Spiering's Lizzie, page 182:

There were four bathrooms--four real bathrooms--not like the primitive plumbing which had been contrived to accommodate the Borden family in the cellar at 92 Second Street. And each bathroom had a bathtub, on which Lizzie immediately painted delicate floral designs.

Page 183:

Lizzie furnished each room, bordering the first-floor windows with heavy rose silk drapes. On either side of the buffet, she installed mother-of-pearl light fixtures. (Though it doesn't say what kind; gas, electric, etc-Susan)

[Allen]

I was reading John Morse's testimony trying to find some information on an unrelated subject when I came upon this. When I read this I wondered if he had mentioned things of this nature to Lizzie and Emma?

John V Morse inquest testimony page 105-106:

Q. Did you know anything about the condition of Mr. Borden's property?
A.Nothing particular.

Q.Had he ever talked with you about his property?
A. Some, occassionally.

Q. Ever give you an idea of how much he was worth?
A. No sir.

Q. Did he ever talk with you about a will?
A. Yes sir, he has.

Q.When was the last time?
A. Somewhere within a year.

Q. When you were there at the house?
A.No sir, I think we were outside at the time.

Q.What was the talk?
A. He said he thought he should make some charitable bequests outside to charitable purposes,he did not say any more either one way or the other.

Q.Did he say he had made a will?
A.He did not say.

Q.He did not say whether he had or not?
A.Whether he had or had not.

Q.Did he talk as though he was intending to make a will?
A. I judged from that that he was intending to, I drew my conclusions that he had not, but was thinking of it.

Q. Did he mentions the bequests outside he thought he should make?
A.He did not.

Q.How came he to be speaking about it?
A. Common conversation, I suppose, same as about his land.Before he bought the Birch land, I was down there with him. He says lets go up Main street. We went up. He says " here is a piece of property, dont say anything about it, I have got a chance to buy it. What is your opinion about it?" I asked what it could be bought for. I dont know as he told me direct, but about.I says " I think it is a good property in the heart of the city. The city will be coming towards it all the time.I believe it will be a good investment." Several months later, one Sunday, he says, "John, I did as you told me to." I says "What is that?" I forgot all about it. "I bought that Birch land."

Q. I wish you would recall the conversation about the will as explicitly as you have this.
A. That is all he said about the will, he thought of making some bequests out , you know, for charitable purposes. His farm over there, he was talking about The Old Ladies Home, " I dont know but I would give them this, if they would take it."

Q. Was that the same talk?
A. I dont think it was the same time.

Q.Did he talk to you any other time about a will?
A. I think that is all.

Q.That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had destroyed it.

Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A.15 years ago.

Q.Did he tell you anything about the contents of the will?
A. He did not?


Emma testified during the trial that Uncle John had told her that Andrew had a will years earlier. That she also was never told it was destroyed.

[Audrey]

I can not help but remember that stunning tea service Emma had at Maplecroft... I would wager that house was top notch and had all the comforts available at the time.

[Harry]

Not to change the subject, but I couldn't help noticing these two lines in Allen's post above:

"Q. That is the first and last time?
A. Years ago, out West at my place one time, he said he had a will; several years ago he told me he had destroyed it.
Q. How long ago did he tell you he had destroyed it?
A. 15 years ago."

Morse's west would be Iowa, Hastings I assume. We have had a previous hint that the Borden's visited/stayed awhile in Chicago when Lizzie was fairly young. That was supported by a statement that Lizzie attended Sunday school in Chicago.

If he destroyed the will 15 years previously that would have made it at least 1877 or earlier. Lizzie would have been 17 in 1877, probably too old for Sunday school.

It raises the question whether the Borden's had made more than one trip or had stayed for awhile out "west".

While doing research on an article I wrote for the LBQ on the Jefferson Borden mutiny in 1875, I found these lines relating to Andrew which were in the Evening Standard, of Aug. 13, 1892:

"Mr. Borden was a man who at all times stayed at home and attended to business, and his relations were such that never, at least at the period of the mutiny on the Borden, was he absent from Fall River."

The way that that is phrased leads me to believe that he subsequently did travel.

[Kat]

I was remembering that Lizzie said Andrew had whittled that stick which Alice found under his bed about 15 years ago, when she was a little girl.

Anyway, maybe this 15 year phrase is a bit loose?

I think Andrew went out of business with Almy about 1881 when Almy retired? Prior to that, Andrew And Almy probably had wills as business partners. So Andrew could destroy that will as no longer valid after 1881. Maybe that is to what Morse refers?

[Kat]

More to explain the dower rights, from The Fall River Daily Globe, Aug. 6, 1892:

"WHO WAS KILLED FIRST?

Police Working on the Theory That it
Was the Wife.

There may be civil as well as criminal legal complication in the Borden tragedy. They would come in reaching a decision as to whether Mr. and Mrs. Borden met death first.
There is a diversity of opinion in this phase of the case and there is little to show which side has taken the correct stand.

The police at present are working on the theory that Mrs. Borden was killed first, and with that idea is involved the only motive which can now be assigned for the crime -- that of gain. Quite a tidy sum is the issue in the case. On the basis that Mr. Borden was worth in the vicinity of $400,000, it represents the one-third of an estate termed the widow's dower. If the wife was killed first this would not be taken into consideration. But if the murderer struck down the old gentleman in the beginning, the one-third share goes to the heirs of Mrs. Borden, even if she was a widow but five seconds.

Under the latter case the Misses Borden, who are not the heirs of Mrs. Borden, will be entitled in the division of the property to only two-thirds of the estate, and the one-third will go to the nearest kin of Mrs. Borden.
If, however, it is decided the other way, that the wife died first, the entire estate will be distributed between the two daughters."


--With no will, it seems that if Abby was killed first, Andrew's daughters get 100% .
If Andrew was killed first, the daughters still get 66%, and Abby's heirs get 33%.
That's probably why it's not been asked if Abby had a will.