|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Lizzie Borden
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Lizzie Borden
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 06:28 pm |        | Hi Esther,
Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, most of the books on this case are extremely biased either in favor or against Lizzie's guilt.
The most definitive work on the subject was Edmund Pearson's book from the 1930s. Perhaps the most entertaining and interesting book on the case came out about ten years ago. Authored by Arnold Brown, "Lizzie Borden: The Legend, The Truth, The Final Chapter" offers a fascinating theory that Lizzie did not commit the crime but that her long unknown step brother did. While I do not agree with the ultimate conclusions of the author, the book is very well written and researched, gives an objective narrative about the events of the case, and includes the complete inquest testimony of Lizzie.
I hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 05:46 am | | Folks,
Off topic, sorry, but my old french teacher was Miss Borden, Miss Elizabeth Borden !
She didnt have an axe though, she had the finest pair of legs I have ever seen and great big.....oh, sorry, erm...you lot just get back to, er..what ever you were talking about...sorry !
Monty
 |
Author: Eliza Cline
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 09:45 pm | | I don't think the book by Arnold Brown has stood up to independent investigation. No other researcher that I know of has been able to locate
an illegitimate son of Andrew Borden, though it is certainly possible he had one.
I would be interested to know what "cryptic comments" of Lizzie are suggestive of an illegitimate son? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 11:22 am | | Hi Eliza,
There are several remarks in the inquest testimony that could be interepreted as Lizzie being evasive or dishonest about siblings. Let me give you an example:
Q: How many children did your father have?
A: Only two.
Now, that to my way of thinking is a rather odd remark. I can imagine answering that question but not using the word "only." It is consistent with someone emphasizing that only she and her sister are entitled to their father's inheritence.
Admittedly, this is not proof. And I do not say that I support Brown's theory. I only state that it is plausible.
In any case, aside from his theory, Mr. Brown's book is a terrific overview of the case.
Rich |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 08:47 pm | | That answer does sound rather like someone on the defensive. However, it is a pretty slender piece of evidence for Brown to hang his whole theory on.
I always thought the brother, John Morse, acted strangely after the crime. When he arrived at the crime scene and saw all the onlookers and police in the house and yard, he didn't go in right away, he stayed in the back yard eating apples from an apple tree. Also, he had such an iron-clad alibi ready, he was able to provide details such as the name of the train conductor, etc., and was able to account for his time down to the last minute. It was like he had advance knowledge that he would need an alibi. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 12:36 pm | | Hi Eliza,
Some commentators have echoed your remarks and have suspected John Morse. However, not only could he recall in detail his movements but he did visit other people who verified his story.
Rich |
Author: Rodney Gillis
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 12:47 pm | | Hi Rich,
Concerning Lizzie's comment about her father having only two children. While I agree, the comment does sound odd, I believe that in general, families were quite a bit larger than today's average. Could she simply have meant that her family was comparitively small, "only two". I have started the search for census figures in that time period but I do feel confident that several children per family was the norm. What do you think?
Regards,
Rod |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 02:19 pm | | Hi Rod,
I agree and I considered your explanation at the time I first read the odd reply. It is quite possible that is what she meant. Unfortunately, like in so many historical cases of controversy, the fact is subject to interpretation.
Rich |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 07 October 2002 - 04:21 am | | Dearest Monty:
I used to work with a woman named Lizzie Borden-Jackson. I never said anything to her about her name, but I all I could think of was "What are parents thinking of when they name their children?".
More funny names: I went to school with Candy Apple and Candy Cain. Oh, and my favorite of all time... Paige Turner. Had to think about that one a bit before I got it.
Okay, I'll shut up now.
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Ky
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 12:52 am | | Didn't the maid become ill part way through the day and retreat to her room? This is when the murders could have taken place without her interrupting. I've also thought that there was some sort of a conspiracy between Lizzie, Emma and John Morse.
Ky |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 02:07 am | | Dear Ky,
YUP, the maid sicked up her breakfast, but she continued to work. She went upstairs to have a lie-down before lunch.
The thing is, I keep remembering what one author wrote: he was pitching Emma as the killer, and cited her reply to one question at the inquest as the reason he began looking at her as a suspect. Her reply to the question "where were you at the time your parents died?" Her reply "I had been in Fair Haven".This is very curious to me....all she had to say was "I was in Fair Haven", but she answered that she "had been". Very odd, indeed. It is certainly possible that Emma drove home, Lizzie let her in, Emma did Abby, and left ol' Dad for Lizzie to polish off....then she went back to Fair Haven to wait for the telegram.
Just a thought, but I DO think Lizzie did it. However,that one question and answer linger on....
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 09:05 am | | Hi Judith & Ky,
It is not surprising that the maid was ill - the family had consumed spoiled broth for breakfast and then she had been ordered to wash the windows - inside and out - on a 90 degree day.
Author Brown has posited that the killer was actually Lizzie's brother. The rumor in Fall River was that Andrew Borden had fathered an illigitimate son who was demanding his share of the inheritence. When denied, in a rage, he murdered both his father and his wife.
I do not find the theory compelling. However, if you read Lizzie's inquest testimony she has a rather odd reply to a very simple question of how many children were in the family. Lizzie's reply was, "Only two."
Rich |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 10:33 am | | Dear Rich,
I agree, I don't think Lizzie had a bastard brother; if she did, as a bastard, he would have had NO standing as an heir.
Taken in the context of Victorian times, when multiple children were the norm, rather than the exception, I really don't find Lizzie's reply odd. "Only two" children in a family was rather strange, and since women were not considered to be much more than a burden anyway, Andrew would have been really pissed that he had no sons. JUST THINK, he had to support them forever, OR pay to marry them off...that attitude in the miserable old skinflint bastard must have rubbed off on the girls. In all likelihood, they viewed themselves as a bit less than males.....that was the general feeling, anyway.
But don't you just LOVE Lizzie? She had NERVE, if nothing else!!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Ky
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:38 am | | I have never doubted Lizzie did it. But isn't it curious that Morse would be out back eating apples while all that commotion was going on in the house, police, neighbors etc., and not wonder what what had happened, unless of course he already knew...
Ky
Possibly he helped get rid of some evidence? |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 06:18 am | | Dear Everyone,
I have read Arnold Browns book and unlike a previous poster found it ridiculous. It makes the most amazing assertions without one iota of proof or evidence of any kind to back them up.
For example. He discusses a mysterious man seen by the house on the day of the murder. "Now we know this man was Charlie Basset" ( I haven't got the book here so forgive any minor errors). Hello I thought when was this established. I checked back through the index and found the only previous reference to this person was some relative of the author saying that they thought this person was Charlie Basset.
This hardly qualifies to state this as a fact.
He also bangs on about a secret clique of powerful men,even giving the meetings, what they discussed and what decisions they took - without once given any indication where this information came from, other than thin air!.
The whole theory is nothing more than abject guesswork backed by nothing at all. The main plank of the theory, that Lizzies half brother committed the murders because he was left out of the will, and that Lizzie covered it up rather than share her inheritance with him is nonsense.
1. There is nothing to suggest (other than gossip) that Borden had an illegitimate son.
2. There is nothing to suggest that a will existed.
3. If there was a son and he did murder the Bordens, he would automatically exclude himself from any inheritance as a criminal cannot profit from his crime (in other words if a person murders someone to benefit under a will, on conviction they are automatically excluded from that will)
In fact it would have been in Lizzies best interest ( if she was a money grubber) to denounce this "brother" She and her sister would have copped the lot, half brother would have been swinging from a gallows and life would have gone on, yet according to Brown she lived the rest of her life in fear of the murderer!
Bob Hinton |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 10:19 am | | Dear Bob and Ky,
Morse's behaviour was very odd, indeed, but I don't think he had the opportunity to help Lizzie....and when did SHE have the opportunity to tell him that she had just dissected Abby and Andrew and needed him (Morse) to hide the axe...and considering that Morse and Andrew were friends, WHY would he have helped Lizzie? Morse IS the odd duck here, but maybe he was odd before that day.
Bob, I agree entirely that the Brown theory is rubbish. But, because of the odd behaviour of almost everyone involved, the case just doesn't seem to want to rest. Lizzie's pear story, Emma's strange answer at the inquest, Morse eating pears while the entire town milled around the house...it is a bizarre story, at best.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 12:58 pm | | Hi Bob,
I do not agree with Mr. Brown's theory, and many of the criticisms you cite are legitimate, but I think you are being a bit unfair to his thesis.
It is his position that Lizzie knew of her brother's attack on her father and step-mother. Indeed, she was something of a co-conspirator. That is why she choose not to reveal her brother's role in the murder. Additionally, she expected to be acquitted of the crime.
The book is based primarily on the unsworn testimony of one source - that source could be in error or have lied no doubt.
As to your three points:
1. The theory that Borden had an illegitimate son is indeed based on gossip. However, he does provide a few interesting facts that could be consistent with that charge. You are correct in that this is by no means proven.
2. There is nothing to suggest a will existed is your second argument. Well, Morse suggested there was. Indeed, he said the discussion of the will occurred during his visit.
3. As to your third point that a son would not murder his father over an inheritence he could not expect to receive, that is the very point of the book. The allegation is that this illegitimate son knew he could not expect to receive the inheritence. That is why he supposedly butchered his father in a fit of rage after daddy told him so. Remember, the allegation is that this young man was mildly retarded.
My belief, personally, is that Lizzie was the killer. Brown's book is based entirely on old gossip and rumors. Yet, in regard to the crime itself and the inquest testimony, the book is meticulously researched.
Could events have happened as Brown and his source suggest? I believe so. But there is absolutely no proof to support it.
Rich |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 06:48 am | | Dear Rich,
But you are missing the point.
Take your paragraph 3 about the inheritance. I quite agree that being left out of the will was the attributed motive, but Brown says that the reason Lizzie covered up the identity of the killer is so that she would not have to admit she had a half brother and therefore forfeit some of her inheritance. As I have pointed out this reason for covering up doesn't exist.
I would also disagree with you about it being 'meticulously researched'. Brown has done nothing of the kind.
Research involves finding information and then substantiating that information with facts until you have proof. Brown has collected some gossip, demanded that we accept all this as fact, and then built his entire theory on that! Thats nonsense.
He can't find William Bordens birth certificate - therefore according to Brown that proves William is Andrews illegitimate son! What? I have not found hundreds of birth certificates all that proves is - wait for it- I can't find them. Peter Birchwood who does this for a living will no doubt confirm there are thousands of reasons why you can't find a certain piece of paper.
Andrew Borden once mentioned a will, according to Brown this proves not only there was a will but he also reveals the contents of this will and tells you what happened to it!
There must have been a conspiracy so Brown invents the conspirators - the Mellen House gang. He gives them names, he tells you when they met and what they discussed and how they cheated the system - incredible since he plucked the whole thing out of thin air.
Brown invents conversations that took place between little girls and police officers and then tells us that this is proven fact. Nonsense.
Has Brown got one iota, one scrap one atom of proof that anything he says actually existed or took place? No. That is not meticulous research that's fiction!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 11:29 am | | Actually, Bob is spot on. The existence of a will was never proven, but the conversation ABOUT a will was admitted to by Morse. He said that he and Andrew had discussed a will...NOT a NEW will. That would have been logical, as Andrew was approaching (or was well past) the time he should have considered having a will. I believe the will was discussed because Abby could have inherited a great deal; Morse was the girls' uncle on their mother's side ....not Abby's relation. It is possible that Morse's motives were to insure the girls were provided for after their father died.
AND, just to blow some more smoke.....New England, especially the Fall River area, is LOUSY with Bordens! There were Bordens everywhere; it was a common name in Massachusetts. Even if there were a Borden wandering around, claiming to be related...it is quite possible he was, but ALL the Bordens were related loosely anyway.
The one thing that Brown says that makes me truly crazy is that Lizzie would have covered for her half-brother, AND that she expected to be acquitted. Possibly she DID expect to be acquitted, considering her social standing and financial position....but why on earth would she have allowed herself to be jailed for a year, and gone through all that implies......YES, I KNOW she was not mistreated and flogged and starved...but she STILL was in jail! She had always wanted her father, and by extension the family, to live in a finer manner. So WHY would she have wanted an illegitimate haf-brother to share in the proceeds of the estate? ESPECIALLY a half-brother that had been the cause of her incarceration? Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
Actually,NOTHING about this case really holds water....Lizzie's lies, her behaviour, Emma's answer, spoiled mutton broth (YUCK!!), eating pears in the barn, Morse in the back yard, the missing note, burning the dress....you name it, this is a very strange group of folks. But, if I were assigning any motive to Lizzie, it would be greed and that would exclude any bastard sibling. Full stop.
Nope, Brown didn't research this thing; he simply repeated gossip.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 24 November 2002 - 08:57 pm | | Hi Bob,
We must agree to disagree.
I tried to make clear, and perhaps I did not, that Brown's book is meticulously researched regarding the facts of the case - that is the crime scene, inquest testimony, and many of the events preceeding and following the murder.
As I previously stated, Brown has presented a plausible theory - however he has offered no proof. Your critique of Brown's book is on the mark regarding how he interprets the facts of the case in a way favorable to his theory.
When I applaud his work, it is that he doesn't get any of the facts wrong. What he does do, and this is understandably frustrating to many, is present a theory based on rumors and conjecture which can in no way be tested.
There is no proof that Brown invented these conversations - he maintained that they were revealed to him. Of course, his witness cannot be cross examined and renders such remarks as speculative.
According to Brown, Lizzie did not reveal the killer because she participated in the killing. Her step mother had been murdered and rather than alerting her father, she allowed her brother to hide in the house and then kill her father. Lizzie wanted the money and therefore wanted her parents dead. If she revealed what she knew, she feared she might lose the entire inheritence to Emma.
I agree entirely with your sentiment that the theory is rank speculation. I don't believe it at all. But I find the book well written, well researched, and thoroughly intriguing.
Perhaps you are looking for more than I was - I see the book as a pulp rendering of the murders with an interesting twist ending. A mixture of truth and speculation. I don't regard it as a scholarly work.
I take it for what it is.
Rich |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 04:10 am | | Dear Rich,
I suppose what particularly irritated me about it was the way that he mentions a bit of gossip at the beginning of the book and then later on uses this as established fact, and he does this constantly.
For example I was reading about Basset being present at the murder scene, which Brown states "we know this man was Basset" Hang on I thought when was this established, and then going back through the book find that far from being established it had merely been mentioned as a bit of gossip.
Now when an author does this it is impossible to tell how believable his theory is as you are constantly trying to sort out fact from invention.
There is plenty of proof that Brown invented conversations as he gives them verbatim. This can only be done from a transcript ( as he has done with the court evidence)
Obviously in any book there will come a time when an author has to fill in the missing bits with speculation. I certainly did in my book, however I was very careful to either change the typeface to italic and point out it was speculation or to say "this is speculation on my part but I believe there are enough indications to validate it"
Brown doesn't do this. He takes pure invention and directly labels it as fact!
"we know this man was Basset" "we know the will said" "we know the Mellen House Gang" etc etc. This makes any reading of the book pointless from a research point of view.
all the best
Bob |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 04:45 am | | Bob:
There are any number of reasons not to be able to find a registration certificate.
Maybe you're looking for it in the wrong place or time. When you have centralised records such as in the UK, Ireland and Ulster then it makes it a bit easier but you can still assume that someone is born at a certain time and be wildly out. Spelling can be a problem. When the Feldman researchers were looking for the birth of a girl named Blackiston, it was missed four times because she was actually born as Blakiston and a year or so outside the parameters.
In the US there is no central registration: you have to know the State and preferably the town. Even then it's a pretty hit and miss affair. Some States only started keeping records from the early 1900's. Canada and Australia have similar problems. In Mexico you need the town but when you find a certificate it has much more information on it than British or US records.
In some cases people never recorded births of their children in the UK even though it was mandatory. We have a case where we know the date and place of birth of a lady but the civil record is not there and neither is her brother's birth. The case was unsolvable until the 1901 census was released.
In Ireland, people had a creative view of registration. Although they would register a child in the church within a few days of birth they might wait, sometimes for several years until they had enough children to make it worthwhile bothering to go to the Registrar. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 05:12 am | | The 1880 census for Fall River, Bristol County Mass shows:
Andrew J. Borden Retired Merchant 57 bornMA
Abby D. Borden Keeps House wife 52
Emma L. Borden At home daughter 29
Lizzie A. Borden At Home daughter 19
Mary Grein Servant 35 born Ireland.
There are plenty of Bordens in Fall River. One family is interesting:
M. Annie Borden Keeps house 37 Widow
J. Andrew Borden works in Laundry 18 son
M. Lizzie Borden Domestic servant 16 Daughter
M. Clinton Borden Stay home 12 son
M. Susan Borden School 10 daughter.
Shows how common the name was or possibly how unimaginative the honest burghers of Mass. were. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 08:09 am | | Dear Peter,
I agree absolutely with everything you say. Whilst obviously not in the same league as you in this type of research, I have poked around a bit in various archives, and there have been many cases where someone who should be there isn't. (Where's Abberline on the 1881 for instance)
Brown however takes the view that because he can't find William Bordens birth cetificate this proves absolutely that he is Andrew Bordens illegitimate son!
Nice to hear from you again Peter. My very best to you and your charming wife. Will we be seeing you at Liverpool?
Bob |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 04:37 pm | | Hi Bob:
Thanks for the kind words. We may be in Liverpool but will certainly be in London on Wednesday provided the show doesn't get cancelled.
Fred and Emma Aberline(note spelling) are both at the Police Station, 160 Commercial Street, Shoreditch in 1881 |
Author: Michael J. Meade
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:02 pm | | Regarding Lizzie's "cryptic" response at the inquest that her family consisted of "only two" children, there may be a simpler explanation that doesn't involve an "illegitimate" son. As a previous poster noted, two children consituted an extremely small family in those days, which may explain the deprecatory adjective "only".
But in fact Andrew Borden did have three children, all legitimate daughters, by his first wife Sarah Morse Borden: Emma (b. 1850), Alice (b. 1855) and Lizzie (b. 1860). Alice, the middle daughter died at a very young age. I'm not sure but I think she actually died before Lizzie was born, or at least when Lizzie was in her infancy. Lizzie would have no memories of Alice; Emma would have been the only sibling she ever knew.
In a society with high infant mortality rates, there were few families which did not suffer at least one such loss and such families were always conscious of their reduced number. Even in her nineties, when my great-grandmother was asked about her childhood, she always stressed that "Mama had seven children but only four of us lived." This may be why Lizzie, mindful that there had once been three children, said "only two".
Brown's book is a very shabby production, long on speculation presented as fact and devoid of any real research. His theory about Lizzie standing trial to cover up for her illegitmate brother makes absolutely no sense.
But behind the basic illogic of this premise, the thing that made me most suspicious of his theory is that it's based on second-hand "oral" history passed down from two different people. One was a young girl who claimed to have seen "William Borden" (the illegitmate son who has never been proven to have existed) walking out of the Borden house after having committed the murders. The other was a young boy who many years later knew "William" and somehow discovered that he was the real killer. By an amazing coincidence, the young boy grew up to become the son-in-law of the young girl! I know it was a small town, but that the only two people who know that William is the killer wind up in the same family is too much to credit. A much more likely explanation is that these were two lonely, garrulous, overly-imaginative people who fed off each other's tall tales ("Oh, you say you knew the killer? Well, I actually saw the killer leave the scene of the crime, how do you like that!"). We've all seen in the JtR case how memories get embellished and exaggerated over the years, especially when the teller finds a receptive listener.
One very silly point from Brown's book shows his tendency to see what he wants to see. He makes a huge deal about how, for years after the trial, Emma and Lizzie lived in fear William would come back and kill them too. He paints a picture of two women cowering behind the "barred windows" of their new home. Well, "Maplecroft", the Fall River mansion the sisters bought right after the trial, did not have barred windows (as anybody who's ever seen a photo of it can tell). It did have iron grillwork covering the cellar windows, which is surely not an odd feature in a large Victorian house. But apparently it's enough to prove to Brown that Lizzie felt she was being stalked by a murderer.
My own personal theory? Alice, the middle daughter, didn't really die in childhood. She was kidnapped by gypsies who left another dead child in her place. The real Alice was taken to London where she grew up to be a Whitechapel prostitute. A frustrated Lesbian cross-dresser, she disguised herself as a man and savagely murdered at least five other whores who refused her amorous advances. Then with Scotland Yard closing in on her, she fled back to America. She untimately returned to Fall River and when her family refused to recognize or acknowledge her, she went mad and murdered her father and stepmother in revenge. She then disappeared for another forty years, surfacing again in the early 1930s when she was briefy employed as a nanny by a famous American aviator and his wife. She has not been seen or heard from since, although some JFK scholars believe that they have recognized her as the elderly woman seen lurking on the grassy knoll in the Zapruder film.
Oh, well. It makes as much sense as Brown's theory and there's every bit as much proof.
Michael |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:40 pm | | Hi Michael,
You forgot that Alice also was supposedly a close
advisor to John Wilkes Booth in planning the
Lincoln Assassination - she suggested he should
jump from the box at Ford's Theatre. Before he
left, she wished him luck, saying "Break a leg!".
Best wishes,
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
