There was in the barn a secret that must be covered

[Franz]

I said that I am for the moment more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence than for her guilty. I will do my best to demonstrate it. Let’s begin with the most crucial point against Lizzie: her alibi testimony, the barn story.

After the discovery of her father’s body and during the preliminary inquest, Lizzie gave more than one version about what she was doing at the time of the killing. She claimed that she had been in the barn looking for either some iron or pieces of lead. Her barn story wasn’t coherent, undoubtedly she lied. But can we judge her guilt for this?

Most people believed and believe Lizzie was guilty and she premeditated her killing. I wonder: if she were really the murderer and premeditated everything else, why she didn’t invent a perfect story about her alibi and then firmly stick to it? Why? I think that the incoherence of her barn story was an evidence not of her guilt but her innocence. Reading and rereading the “Questioning by District Attorney Hosea Knowlton”, I saw in front of me a poor woman struggling not only for her life, but also and more importantly, for her woman’s honor.

I think in that fatal morning she did go into the barn, probably with the idea of looking for something at first, but most probably she profited by that hot summer morning to enjoy some intimate moment. (Forgive me Lizzie but I am trying to prove your innocence.) Yes, Lizzie was a 32-year-old and unmarried woman. If the masturbation is considered today as a safe and salutary way for sexual pleasure, in the Victorian time it should be something unthinkable to talk about publicly, and absolutely impossible for a woman to confess of practicing it. Yes, this is my theory to explain the incoherence of Lizzie’s barn story. So far as I know, it has not been suggested and considered before.

Lizzie, who just experienced sexual excitement a few minutes before in the barn (maybe Lizzie’s usual corner for this kind of activity), found suddenly the horrible scenery of her father’s murder. And then she found herself must explain what she was doing at the moment of the killing. What a poor woman! Her honor was more important than her life, and her masturbation secret must be covered at any price. She must lie, and she lied, saying that she had been in the barn (this was true) for some iron (she thought of iron because she had been ironing handkerchiefs that morning), and then she changed her version, mentioning pieces of lead (maybe at the second moment she remembered the programmed fishing excursion and thought that this version should be more convincing). For me this was why Lizzie’s alibi testimony was incoherent.

Lizzie could be innocent or guilty, we probably never know with certainty. But one thing is certain: the jury’s "not guilty" sentence was absolutely right: the jurors were not beyond reasonable doubt, they were not at all!

[PossumPie]

This is a fascinating theory...it makes sense. There were 'impressions' of someone laying in the hay...I grew up around hay, when you lay in it and get up, it will leave a vague person-sized impression. Knowing her father was away, as well as her sister, she may have found the perfect opportunity. BUT she had a private bedroom, and the barn was over 100 degrees...Just playing devil's advocate!

[Allen]

The only thing I can think of in reply to this is I do not think a woman is going to sneak out in the barn to do this when her bedroom door had a lock on it.All she had to do was lock herself in her room. And according to Lizzie, she was menstruating at the time of the murders. Bloody rags were found in a bucket down in the cellar. The excuse she gave for the blood on the rags was that she was menstruating. If she wasn't, those bloody rags look pretty damning because there is no other reason for them to be there.

[Franz]

Hello Allen. I have to say I disagree with you.

1. We all know the Borden house plan: the bedrooms are connected directly, so the barn should be a place more secret and intimate than Lizzie’s bedroom. Probably the barn was her usual secret corner for such a thing. In that fatal morning, she may have been really there for looking for something, and then she was caught by her erotic desire. For me this conjecture is highly probable.

2. Lizzie’s statement about her physical conditions may have been true. But many women practice masturbation even during their periods. So why not Lizzie?

[Smudgeman]

I have to agree that a woman is not going to go outside to pleasure herself married or unmarried. I don't think Lizzie went to the barn at all that day.

[Franz]

I have to agree that a woman is not going to go outside to pleasure herself married or unmarried. I don't think Lizzie went to the barn at all that day.

I really can't understand why a woman is not going to go outside to pleasure herself. In Lizzie's case, being in the barn wasn't "outside", but "inside", a place more secret and safer, and maybe more exciting than her bedroom for Lizzie.

[Smudgeman]

So what you are saying is, on a hot day in August, the day her parents were murdered, she decided to go to the barn for some afternoon delight? Really far fetched and highly imagined in my opinion. Plus the barn was not a secretive place to hide, Briget was outside as well as the whole town. Do you really think a woman is going to go outside to masturbate in a full dress and undergarments in a hot barn? I think not.

[twinsrwe]

Hello Franz, welcome to the forum.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you about the barn being a place more secret and safer, and maybe more exciting than her bedroom for Lizzie. The reason for my disagreement is that at the trial, Bridget testified that she got six to seven pails of water from the barn to wash the two front windows.

Now why in the world would Lizzie go to the barn to masturbate with Bridget going in and out it for that many pails of water?

I have to agree with Allen - Lizzie’s bedroom door had a lock on it – she could just lock herself in her room and no one would have bothered her!

I also agree with Smudgeman – I don’t believe that Lizzie went to the barn at all that day. Didn’t Officer Medley claim to have inspected the loft and found no footprints in the loft floor dust?

[Franz]

I will post an article longer as reply.

For the moment I want only to say this: if Lizzie were really masturbating at the moment of her father’s murder, questioned by the authorities, could she simply answer: “I was masturbating somewhere at that moment”? I think she couldn’t! She must lie and she lied. This was probably what happened during the inquest.

P.S.: The place where she masturbated was important only secondly.

[Yooper]

It is infinitely more difficult to explain the absurdity of an intruder than it is to simply accept that Lizzie was lying about being in the barn.

[Mara]

Hello, Franz. Your theory is intriguing, but the evidence on record suggests there was little, if any, activity in the upstairs area of the barn, where Lizzie would have gone for privacy given the activity already cited concerning Bridget's water-gathering. Her skirts alone would have kicked up a considerable amount of the dust police found undisturbed up there.

If you want to get even more titillating, there is the possibly, I suppose, of Lizzie and Bridget having some sort of ground-floor assignation in the barn. You would not be the first to suggest they had some kind of relationship beyond that of mistress and servant. I have always thought, though, that their relationship would more likely have been one of partners in crime than partners in any more intimate sense. If they both repaired to the barn while someone committed the murders in the house, Bridget's water-bearing excuse would make a plausible cover story. Lizzie would probably have felt entitled enough to the community's deference to offer any innocent-sounding tale of why she was there and have it be believed; thus the peculiar sinkers-and-pears story.

Thank you for a thought-provoking post!

[Franz]

It is infinitely more difficult to explain the absurdity of an intruder than it is to simply accept that Lizzie was lying about being in the barn.

If I recall correctly, in the Jonbenét Ramsay case, it was for a time believed that there were not intruders, but there actually were.

[Franz]

So what you are saying is, on a hot day in August, the day her parents were murdered, she decided to go to the barn for some afternoon delight?

I beg your pardon, Smudgeman. If you talk about the affaire in this way, it seems that Lizzie, knowing that her parents have been already murdered, decided still to give herself some erotic pleasure. But this is not true. If Lizzie were not the killer and if she went actually into the barn, she went there only after greeting her father et leaving him alive in the sitting room, and at that very moment no one knew that Mrs. Borden had been killed in the guest room.

[Franz]

Hello, everyone.

I still think it’s highly probable that Lizzie was masturbating at the moment of her father’s murder. Her lie could have been bigger than I imagined: it could be not the barn, but another intimate place, for example, in the water closet of the cellar. In any case, it should have been a place from where Lizzie couldn’t hear the murder noises, if there were actually any.

But the barn story is still explicable:

1. Safety question. Many people don’t masturbate silently, so the barn is absolutely more safer than Lizzie’s bedroom (this doesn’t exclude that she did such a thing sometimes in her bedroom). In the barn she could do everything she wanted to do, including groaning.

2. Chronology question. It’s true that Bridget went to the barn that morning for water several times, but at the moment Lizzie went into the barn (if it was true), Bridget had finished washing the windows (cf. her testimony).

3. Temperature question. The police pretended that in the barn it was very hot. But someone testified that in the barn it could be colder than the outside. In any case the temperature should not be a real problem for our topic.

4. Footprints question. Lizzie said she went upstairs in the barn to search something. This could have been false. She could actually have gone into the barn with the idea of looking for something, but, at the view of her usual secret corner, she could have been caught suddenly by erotic desires and masturbated on the ground floor, or sitting on the stairs. (Because of the contrary testimony of the temperature, and that the police probably didn’t question and search the pear cores --- a huge mistake, I repeat here ---, I consider the footprints evidence with some doubt, could I?)

Conclusion: At the moment of her father’s murder, Lizzie was masturbating in the barn, or in another place like the water closet in the cellar. When questioned by the authorities, she lied, and her alibi testimony was not coherent. But this incoherence doesn’t mean she was guilty.

This is my first step to take in order to arrive my final goal: to prove Lizzie’s (total) innocence. My topic (masturbation theory) is a delicate one, but I am sure that no one doubts my seriousness.

[PossumPie]

I will post an article longer as reply.

For the moment I want only to say this: if Lizzie were really masturbating at the moment of her father’s murder, questioned by the authorities, could she simply answer: “I was masturbating somewhere at that moment”? I think she couldn’t! She must lie and she lied. This was probably what happened during the inquest.

P.S.: The place where she masturbated was important only secondly.

Even dismissing the admittedly embarrassing masturbation angle, If she had been upstairs in her room cleaning up an accident with her menses, she probably would have lied about that...women today rarely discuss the intimacies of their periods, and in Victorian New England...never.

[Yooper]

It is infinitely more difficult to explain the absurdity of an intruder than it is to simply accept that Lizzie was lying about being in the barn.

If I recall correctly, in the Jonbenét Ramsay case, it was for a time believed that there were not intruders, but there actually were.

This is the Borden case.

[Aamartin]

While it is certainly an interesting theory, arguments could be made that Lizzie went to the barn to smoke a cigarette or even a cigar. (didn't we hear somewhere she eventually did smoke cigars? Or was that only in Satterthwait's fiction book?) She could have masturbated in her bedroom, behind a locked door. A cigarette/cigar would have smelled up the place.

[DJ]

She could have gone to the barn to communicate with the spirits of her dead pigeons, too.

[twinsrwe]

She could have gone to the barn to communicate with the spirits of her dead pigeons, too.

OMG, DJ, that is funny!!!

[Aamartin]

She could have gone to the barn to communicate with the spirits of her dead pigeons, too.

We need a like button!

[twinsrwe]

I agree, Anthony!

[NancyDrew]

There is no evidence she was even IN the barn. Adding a reason why she was there gets us even father away from the known facts.

I'm a woman. This suggestion was written by a man (and I'm not surprised). I don't mean to be snarky, but no woman would do this. A MAN might. But a woman? Uh-uh. She'd perform such intimate activities in her bed, before sleep or upon wakening.

Is it me, or is this entire topic a bit...prurient?

[NancyDrew]

(I hope my remarks didn't offend anyone..especially the men. This is a rather touchy (no pun intended) subject.) Dear Lord, I need to just stop typing...

[Franz]

There is no evidence she was even IN the barn. Adding a reason why she was there gets us even father away from the known facts.

I'm a woman. This suggestion was written by a man (and I'm not surprised). I don't mean to be snarky, but no woman would do this. A MAN might. But a woman? Uh-uh. She'd perform such intimate activities in her bed, before sleep or upon wakening.

Is it me, or is this entire topic a bit...prurient?

Hello NancyDrew. Very happy to discuss with you, but I have to say I totally disagree with what you said.

1. Lizzie said at the moment of her father’s murder she went into the barn, but her alibi testimony wasn’t coherent. What I wanted to do is this: supposing that Lizzie was innocent, let’s see if this incoherence is explicable. I think I succeeded. Whoever convinced of her guilt should demonstrate evidence that her having been in the barn was impossible. Could it be so?

2. Everyone, man or woman, if he / she wants, and if the conditions permit it, he / she could perform such intimate activities in any place and at any moment. You said “no woman would do this”. How many women there have been and there are in the world? Do you really think you can make such a statement for all of them? I don’t think the barn was a place impossible for Lizzie for such a thing.

3. A topic concerning sex or sexual activities shouldn’t be considered automatically a prurient one. The mine isn’t so and I have been discussing very seriously with other members in this forum. Certainly, you are free to think as you like.

[Franz]

I'm a woman. This suggestion was written by a man (and I'm not surprised).

Hello NancyDrew. I judge and discuss a topic only on the topic itself. I wouldn’t consider the gender of its author. Indeed I don’t know the gender of the majority of the members.

You probably knew I am a man after visiting my website (the name Franz means nothing). Thank you for your visit and you are always welcome!

But If you ignored my gender, or if I were a woman and wrote every word that I wrote, what would your opinion be?

And if I were a man and gay? If I were a man and bis? If I were a man and trans?

[mbhenty]

Yes:

Very reticent about addressing such a topic. But...........

Lizzie's sexuality is a topic which fascinates many.

The reason being that we know just about nothing about it. Even her relationship with Nance. Nothing, nothing, no proof.

Thus since we know nothing about her sexuality it is easy, almost compelling, to visualize and conjure up scenarios, suppositions and fairy tales about how lizzie would address an itch.

(Yes, an itch! Much better word)

Just because I pal around with a gay friend who I consider very dear or have much in common with doesn't mean that I am sleeping with him/her.

Just because Lizzie stayed at Tyngsborough and Nance at Maplecroft doesn't mean they were sleeping in the same bed.

Though some topics on this forum are bordered on the unlikely, or just outright outre' and outlandish, all are welcomed. After all, look at the interest this thread has generated.

Thus, sex sells.

But, I must concur with NancyDrew. No way a woman would ever consider such a thing. A man......perhaps.

When noting is known about another person's sexuality, the only slide rule we have is our own, by which we measure others. Thus if you are a very sexual person all you see are rabbits. Everyone is doing it. Everyone needs it. Everyone likes it. If you are gay then perhaps so is Lizzie Borden. Heck, so is Andrew Borden.



Not everyone sees others through carnal eyes.

To some it's just an inch.

And some are never itchy.

So, depending on how much of an itchy person you may be, guides the way you see Lizzie Borden.

So, if you can please excuse me. I would like to go out to the boathouse in the back yard and play around with my schooner.

[Franz]

“Lizzie Borden Society Forum” is “a free society devoted to the serious discussion of the Borden murders of 1892, Fall River, & Victorian America”. It concerns Lizzie’s innocence or guilt. The sex should not be a taboo. To avoid deliberately sexual issues is a serious attitude? I would say: no.

[NancyDrew]

LOL...GREAT Answer!

[Franz]

Yes:

Very reticent about addressing such a topic. But...........

Lizzie's sexuality is a topic which fascinates many.

The reason being that we know just about nothing about it. Even her relationship with Nance. Nothing, nothing, no proof.

Thus since we know nothing about her sexuality it is easy, almost compelling, to visualize and conjure up scenarios, suppositions and fairy tales about how lizzie would address an itch.

(Yes, an itch! Much better word)

Just because I pal around with a gay friend who I consider very dear or have much in common with doesn't mean that I am sleeping with him/her.

Just because Lizzie stayed at Tyngsborough and Nance at Maplecroft doesn't mean they were sleeping in the same bed.

Though some topics on this forum are bordered on the unlikely, or just outright outre' and outlandish, all are welcomed. After all, look at the interest this thread has generated.

Thus, sex sells.

But, I must concur with NancyDrew. No way a woman would ever consider such a thing. A man......perhaps.

When noting is known about another person's sexuality, the only slide rule we have is our own, by which we measure others. Thus if you are a very sexual person all you see are rabbits. Everyone is doing it. Everyone needs it. Everyone likes it. If you are gay then perhaps so is Lizzie Borden. Heck, so is Andrew Borden.



Not everyone sees others through carnal eyes.

To some it's just an inch.

And some are never itchy.

So, depending on how much of an itchy person you may be, guides the way you see Lizzie Borden.

So, if you can please excuse me. I would like to go out to the boathouse in the back yard and play around with my schooner.

No comments!

[mbhenty]

Yes:

Sex should not be taboo.

We should talk about it.

And to talk about it is to state that there is no proof, evidence, substantiated, or corroboration in the way of affirmation, or testimony, or validation by a witnesses or anyone else for that matter, that Lizzie indulged in a sexual act in a musty, dirty, dusty barn after killing her parents or anywhere else.

On this free forum the talk of sex is a valid and entertaining one. We are all welcomed to discuss it. Though your suggestions may be criticized up the kazoo. Some may not agree with you and others may find it laughable if not insulting. If you don't think so all you need do is read the thread about Andrew Borden being gay.

It is fun to discuss such matters. But how far do we take it? Should we include cucumbers and sheep?

Masturbation?

I don't think so.

Is there any proof that Lizzie was a sexual deviant?

None.

Did sex play a part in the case?

No.

And I don't mean any disparaging criticism of those who suggest it or willing to talk about it at length. We are all entitled to our opinion.

But, taking what we know about the case, and the whereabouts of Lizzie Borden on the day of the murders, and for the remainder or Lizzie's life and how she lived it, what we know about it, leaves me with only one conclusion about this particular sexual assessment.

Ludicrous

[Franz]

This reply is for mbhenty.

1. I never suggested that Lizzie might have gone into the barn for some intimate activities “after killing her parents” (the quotation is yours). On the contrary, I’m more convinced of Lizzie’s innocence, and suggested that, at the moment of her father’s murder, she might have been in the barn (or another place) to perform some intimate activities, and for this reason her alibi testimony was incoherent (because she must lie to cover her secret and she lied).

2. I don’t think masturbation is a sexual deviant; and I don’t think my topic is insulting or ludicrous (even though I wrote the following phrase in my post: “Forgive me Lizzie but I am trying to prove your innocence”). I will continue to discuss my conjecture seriously with whoever wants to discuss it seriously with me in this forum. I can disagree with opinions, suggestions, arguments of other members, and meanwhile I will respect them and their authors, and I hope to be treated in the same way.

3. If I understand correctly, we are here, in the forum, to discuss the Borden case. We are not judging Lizzie or anyone else at the trial. We can make suggestions, conjectures, discuss their possibility or probability. In many cases, it's true, we have no proof or evidence to support this theories. If we must produce convincing and sufficient evidences proposing a suggestion, this forum would not have been existing at all.

4. In a precedent reply I said: “My topic (masturbation theory) is a delicate one, but I am sure that no one doubts my seriousness.” Maybe I was wrong.

[Smudgeman]

VERY well said mbhenty! I could not agree more with you!

[Allen]

I am not above talking about the sexual aspects of Lizzie's life. Or the lack of them as it appears to me. I'm an adult and not a prude. But with a lock on her door that would keep any intrusions away, and the lack of privacy provided in a dusty barn with an often used privy right there, I find it very hard to believe this theory. I don't believe I have ever found the smell of an outhouse erotic. And unless she KNEW Andrew was dead she should have believed her father could walk in any time he pleased. He used that privy to do his business after all. There were men working on the other side of the fence in the back yard that day. People were walking by on the street. There are houses on all sides of the barn. This was not country living. Mrs. Churchill had her windows open. Not exactly a place she would go to not worry about being quiet with her passion. And as a woman I find the whole idea of it absurd.

[mbhenty]

Yes Franz:

Your reply is more than welcome. I mean that.

When I mentioned about Lizzie being sexual deviant what I meant was that if the behaviors of a "sexual deviance" came up in the trial or such an accusation was part of the case or given as testimony, or suggested by Lizzie's contemporaries, then the behavior you suggested in the barn would be appropriately considered.

There is no proof or talk of any sort connecting the topic of sex to Lizzie Borden, thus bringing it up makes no sense to me.

You are correct. Masturbation is not a deviant behavior. But you must admit that doing it in the barn is at the very least kinky. At least to some of us. At least to me. And I'm not a woman.

You may be right. Self sexual pleasure is not ludicrous or insulting. But I can bet that there are a couple of readers here on this forum who would be insulted by the suggestion that Lizzie went to the barn to masturbate.

Yes, we can all disagree with someone's opinion. Such behavior is welcomed by me. If you think something I said was ludicrous, I take no offense to it. I think to highly of myself to be insulted by what a stranger may say. And if I am wrong, I strive my best to be honest and make amends.

Yes, we are here, "in the forum", to discuss the Borden case. And once we spill all the dominos on the table, I just don't see a Masturbation domino, unless it's the double blank one.

Please understand. My opinion is not an attack on you but on your theory or perhaps the suggestion of such behavior with no evidence or validation over history.

I too am sure of Lizzie's innocence. But not completely. I believe there were lots of people that were close to the Borden's that knew the truth. For one John Morse. Look up suspicious character in the dictionary and you'll probably see a photo of John Morse. The equation of masturbation would fit Johnny very well.

Lizzie Borden did not kill her parents, but I believe that she knew who did it, if she did not orchestrate it.

[mbhenty]

Are you saying that us Asexual types are prudes, Allen?

[Smudgeman]

I am a gay man, I understand human sexuality, but the argument that Lizzie went to masturbate in the barn is ludicrous to me, where is this coming from? I guess Bridget was fondling the neighbor's maids breasts as well, what the heck?

[Franz]

Hello, Allen. If Lizzie were not the killer and if she went really into the barn, at the moment she left the house, she should have been fairly sure that her father was having a nap in the sitting room and Bridget was in her room for a rest.

[mbhenty]

Yes Smudgeman:

You must admit. This thread has generated some conversation.

Now........

Shall we discuss Allen's assertion that when Lizzie was alone with her passions that she was a squealer?

[Franz]

I said that the place could have been another one, for example, the water closet in the cellar.

My reflection was this: if we suppose Lizzie were innocent, then there should have been a reason for the incoherence of her alibi testimony. One possibility is that at the moment of her father’s murder she was doing something that she couldn't confess at any price, she must lie to cover it. Considering custom and moral of the Victorian time, as well as Lizzie’s age and her marital status, I thought that masturbation theory should be worth considering. Certainly, all is open to discussion.

[Allen]

Not making any assertions that she was a 'squealer'. Just answering the suggestion Franz offered that she may have indulged in this act out there because it was 'safer' there, and she didn't have to be quiet about it in the barn. But how thick were those walls, and how many people were in earshot on that day at any given time? It would not have been safer than being in the house with a locked door for privacy. I'm not suggesting anyone is a prude. Just stating I'm not.

[Aamartin]

I am not prude either, but as I have aged, I do find that 'sex' talk is fine as long as it's not gratuitous. I have The Legend on DVD and it shows Ms. Montgomery's nipples. IMO there is no reason for it, nor is it relevant to the story line.

As far as this topic, sure, we can discuss this theory, but I would think it would have more merit if we had some sort of reason to think it was even probable. We could collectively come up with dozens of reasons Lizzie might have visited the barn and not wanted to share her real reason for the trip.

I am also a gay man and still, in 2013 far too many people assume that when 2 gay people are alone, the have sex. SO not the case.

Lizzie's trial and the fact that she may have been widely ostracized by one time friends and social network peers may have very well made her more of a liberal thinker, causing her to have no problems with being friends with people who were rumored to be, or out and proud gay people.

And as sad as probably was-- and still, unfortunately is-- sometimes those who feel on the 'fringe' of society for any reason do band together, at least initially. They may not form a strong bond, but most people yearn for companionship and, innocent or not, Lizzie's life changed a great deal after the murder/trial. Friends fell away, people snubbed her, etc. From all accounts--prior to this she had an active social life with her church groups, volunteer work and friends. She enjoyed travel and shopping-- and suddenly she was a pariah in FR shops, etc.

Letters she wrote and her will show she did express a great deal of sentiment and true caring for those who stood by her or were good to her.

Do I think Lizzie went to the barn to relieve herself? Personally, no. Even if it wasn't a scorcher of a day like reported-- still, even on a relatively cool day, a closed up barn would be very warm and uncomfortable-- and ask any woman who ever wore a prom/wedding/formal length dress and ask them if it would have been practical to even do something as simple as 'wipe' after using the bathroom or attend to the changing of menstrual devices (whatever they may be). Let alone hike the thing up high and long enough to take care of any personal satisfaction.

And I just don't see the impetus of it. Unless she was a pure sexual deviant who was 'turned on' by killing Abby (assuming her guilt) would it be a once in a lifetime thing? If violence turned her on, one would think she would yearn for more violence and more sexual release from that violence.

Likewise, ironing hankies and talking to Brigitte about dress goods don't seem like particularly hot topics to me.

As far as the squealing... Even today, couples-- 'gee, the kids are still up or mom and dad are here for weekend' so it has to be quiet or lets wait. If she was a noise maker-- she wouldn't have done it in the barn IMO.

The only thing that crossed my mind-- IF that spot of blood on her undergarments was menstrual blood-- this might be how it could have logically got there. But that is really just too disgusting to think about..

[mbhenty]

Yes

Allen:

I know you were not claiming Lizzie was a squealer. I was just pulling your leg. Trying to lighten things up a little. Get your attention. So when you mentioned that phrase about being "quite with her passion"? Well... I couldn't resist making a little joke.

The same was true about being prude. I was just joking with you. And, as soon as I look up the term "asexual" I'll tell you what it is.

You appear to take it serious.

I too am an adult. I joke a little.

But don't get me wrong.

Unlike you....I am a prude.

[mbhenty]

Yes Franz:

My Theory is this:

The reason why Lizzie had to come out with an excuse about being at the barn is a simple one. Whether she was there or not.

She had to be somewhere while her father was being killed. Since she hired the killer.

She did not want to hear him being killed or want any part of it, so she went out to the barn. Of course, once there she waited until it was over.

Once asked where she was by the authorities she told the truth. She was in the barn. What she was doing there was a scenario she never thought out. So when the time came and she was asked, she said something off the top of her head. Thus, it sounded preposterous and unplanned.

[mbhenty]

Yes;

Now, if you are from the school that Lizzie did kill her father, then we must assume that the maid was a liar and helped her.

Someone had to help her, because the time line just doesn't work out. Lizzie just did not have time to clean herself up. Unless the maid helped or lied about the time and being upstairs.

Someone got rid of the hatchet.

[Yooper]

I don't know how much cleanup was necessary, so I don't know if there was time enough or not. There was remarkably little blood spatter as the result of Abby's murder, given the number of hatchet blows. Even the recently discovered bedspread bears this out. There was more as the result of Andrew's murder, and with fewer hatchet blows producing it. The distribution pattern sounds to me like it was all or mostly cast-off from the hatchet in both cases. So, I don't know how much the murderer would have received. How much time would be necessary to remove a (probably) minimal amount of blood spatter from the murderer is conjecture based upon an unknown.

I have always liked Harry's conjecture about the hatchet or the hatchet head having been put in the casket with either Andrew or Abby. The first thing I thought of was that it might well have been discovered when the autopsies were performed at the cemetery, but it might have been put somewhere between the lining and the outer casket and was overlooked. It only had to be kept one step ahead of the police searches until it could be permanently disposed of.

There were no blood trails from either murder scene. Might this indicate a gender bias? I admit I would never have thought to avoid a mess from a dripping hatchet in the heat of the moment.

[Allen]

Speaking of on the topic of blood spatter, most of the research I've done on this subject seems to attest to the fact that in an attack like that most of the blood spatter would have been aimed away from the attacker. Most recently I reread Ann Rule's 'Dead by Sunset', in which Brad Cunningham was found guilty of murdering his wife by bludgeoning her to death. She was struck at least 21 times in the head with a blunt object the authorities claimed was something akin to a heavy police flashlight. An expert in blood spatter analysis testified that the killer probably would have received very little blood spatter as a result of the attack. Yet the van she was murdered in was soaked in it.

[Franz]

Hello Allen. Thank you for your reply. Of the barn I saw only a photo showing its outside aspect. Some people (you included) can find my theory absurd, it’s normal, me too I could find some theories absurd, maybe one day I will consider absurd my own theory. But I always think that the Borden case is so extraordinary that even the most remote possibility could have been the unique truth. My this idea is valid (to me) as well for other apparently impossible theories.

[Franz]

Hello, mbhenty.

You said that you “can bet that there are a couple of readers here on this forum who would be insulted by the suggestion” . It can be true. So let’s imagine that in 1892 this topic should have been a taboo and neither the prosecution nor the defence would have touched it, indeed no one touched it. It’s totally logic that “there is no proof or talk of any sort connecting the topic of sex to Lizzie Borden” (the quotation is yours). Me too I have no proof. But should the lack of proof forbid us to propose a suggestion? Is there any proof to support Bridget’s involvement? Is there any proof to support the conspiracy conjecture? Did Arnold Brown produce sufficient and convincing evidences to support his William Borden theory? You think that Lizzie probably hired a killer. Do you have any evidence to support your idea? Most suggestions have no evidence to support them, but to me bring them up makes some sense. I repeat, we are not judging Lizzie or anyone else at the trial, we are (only) discussing the Borden case. Certainly we can’t prove a theory without evidence, but a theory not proved in some cases could be very probable. I really can’t understand, even though there is no proof or document concerning Lizzie’s sexual life, why my suggestion --- that Lizzie, a 32-year-old unmarried woman, could have been performing intimate activities somewhere at that fatale moment (supposing that she was innocent) --- could be so astonishing, even insulting for some people. I just don’t understand this!

[Franz]

Yes Franz:

My Theory is this:

The reason why Lizzie had to come out with an excuse about being at the barn is a simple one. Whether she was there or not.

She had to be somewhere while her father was being killed. Since she hired the killer.

She did not want to hear him being killed or want any part of it, so she went out to the barn. Of course, once there she waited until it was over.

Once asked where she was by the authorities she told the truth. She was in the barn. What she was doing there was a scenario she never thought out. So when the time came and she was asked, she said something off the top of her head. Thus, it sounded preposterous and unplanned.

Hello, mbhenty.

1. If Lizzie hired a killer, why didn’t she invent an excuse to go out all morning in order to give herself a perfect alibi?

2. If Lizzie hired a killer, she obviously premeditated the murders. In this case, even though she could stay at home to guide, to help the killer, why hadn’t she invented a perfect alibi testimony? This should have been the most crucial point to protect herself from suspicions, she should have thought of it.

[Franz]

Allen, I wonder if the wounds produced by something like police flashlight should be fairly different from those produced by an axe or a hatchet, as well the blood spatter.