Drugs & Murder

[Allen]

If Lizzie was an addict, she would spend 99.9% of her time thinking about where she can get drugs, and going to buy more drugs. Her life would become all about where her next "fix" was coming from. A cocaine high is not sustained for a very long period of time. It also takes more and more of the drug once your body builds up a tolerance. I just do not see any evidence of that in Lizzie's life.

[Golaszewski]

If Lizzie was an addict, she would spend 99.9% of her time thinking about where she can get drugs, and going to buy more drugs. Her life would become all about where her next "fix" was coming from. A cocaine high is not sustained for a very long period of time. It also takes more and more of the drug once your body builds up a tolerance. I just do not see any evidence of that in Lizzie's life.

Incorrect. You are thinking in an era of criminalization. With criminalization, drugs become expensive and this is an issue. However, in Lizzie's day cocaine and opium were rather inexpensive. Lizzie could have easily stocked up a several weeks supply of cocaine and opium. She'd only have to get more when her stash ran out.

Also, you are not considering the possibility that Lizzie would go on occasional binges. You can do this with both cocaine and opium, and not become addicted. Contrary to popular belief, most cocaine and heroin users in the US today just take it recreationally on occasion, and are not addicts.

[theebmonique]

Also, you are not considering the possibility that Lizzie would go on occasional binges. You can do this with both cocaine and opium, and not become addicted. Contrary to popular belief, most cocaine and heroin users in the US today just take it recreationally on occasion, and are not addicts.

May I please ask the source or souces for your claims ?


Tracy...

[Allen]

If Lizzie was an addict, she would spend 99.9% of her time thinking about where she can get drugs, and going to buy more drugs. Her life would become all about where her next "fix" was coming from. A cocaine high is not sustained for a very long period of time. It also takes more and more of the drug once your body builds up a tolerance. I just do not see any evidence of that in Lizzie's life.

Incorrect. You are thinking in an era of criminalization. With criminalization, drugs become expensive and this is an issue. However, in Lizzie's day cocaine and opium were rather inexpensive. Lizzie could have easily stocked up a several weeks supply of cocaine and opium. She'd only have to get more when her stash ran out.

Also, you are not considering the possibility that Lizzie would go on occasional binges. You can do this with both cocaine and opium, and not become addicted. Contrary to popular belief, most cocaine and heroin users in the US today just take it recreationally on occasion, and are not addicts.

Where are you thinking she kept this several weeks stash? Also, she got all of her money from her father, she had no means for providing her own income. I think this would lead to some questioning. Cocaine use involves a very high risk of becoming addicted. I also know someone who took cocaine. It was not a recreational drug. Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant, so addictive someone can become addicted after using it just once. Cocaine is a Schedule II drug, meaning that it has high potential for abuse, but can still be administered by a doctor for medical uses, such as a using it as a local anesthetic for some eye, ear, or throat surgeries.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/Cocaine.html

http://www.drug-rehabilitation.com/cocaine.htm

[Golaszewski]

Also, you are not considering the possibility that Lizzie would go on occasional binges. You can do this with both cocaine and opium, and not become addicted. Contrary to popular belief, most cocaine and heroin users in the US today just take it recreationally on occasion, and are not addicts.

May I please ask the source or souces for your claims ?


Tracy...

Search through US government data about the total number of opiate and cocaine users, and the total number of addicts. The difference between the 2 is occasional recreational users.

And, this shouldn't be surprising. People all the time score small amount of opiates for a little fun. Particularly diverted pharmaceuticals. In a given year, for every heroin addict, there are many folks who glom onto a few Oxycontins or Percosets and use them recreationally. And consider countries like Canada and much of Europe where codeine is an OTC drug and requires no prescription. People there commonly will use codeine every now and then to chill out.

In the case of cocaine, cost is the main factor that keep recreational users much more common than addicts. Few can afford a cocaine jones.

[Golaszewski]

Where are you thinking she kept this several weeks stash? Also, she got all of her money from her father, she had no means for providing her own income. I think this would lead to some questioning. Cocaine use involves a very high risk of becoming addicted. I also know someone who took cocaine. It was not a recreational drug. Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant, so addictive someone can become addicted after using it just once. Cocaine is a Schedule II drug, meaning that it has high potential for abuse, but can still be administered by a doctor for medical uses, such as a using it as a local anesthetic for some eye, ear, or throat surgeries.

I personally have used cocaine a number of times. I found it quite recreational. And, I never became addicted. If Lizzie was able to handle cocaine like I have, the cost would not have been an issue. Particularly as cocaine was quite cheap in her day, and she was from an affluent family.

[theebmonique]

Search through US government data about the total number of opiate and cocaine users, and the total number of addicts. The difference between the 2 is occasional recreational users.

And, this shouldn't be surprising. People all the time score small amount of opiates for a little fun. Particularly diverted pharmaceuticals. In a given year, for every heroin addict, there are many folks who glom onto a few Oxycontins or Percosets and use them recreationally. And consider countries like Canada and much of Europe where codeine is an OTC drug and requires no prescription. People there commonly will use codeine every now and then to chill out.

In the case of cocaine, cost is the main factor that keep recreational users much more common than addicts. Few can afford a cocaine jones.

Robert...am I to assume then, that the only specific source you are willing to cite at this time, is your own personal experience ? I was hoping you had some specific sources I could go to to review the 'statistics' you are posting.


Tracy...

[snokkums]

I think she was hooked on something. I mean she did have a memory loss as to where she was at Everythime the police were to ask her where she was at, she gave them different stories. She was in the kitchen, she was outside eating pears, she was upstairs. She doesn't remember where she was at at the time.

[Pippi]

I've known users and addicts, and I've known both to drop the stuff for periods of time. I've known people who have occasionally used cocaine, opium, heroine, etc. without becoming addicted (it's possible although I don't recommend it) for them addiction would take time and they didn't spend that much time with the drug. I've known people who I have personally thought spent a LOT of time with cocaine and crack cocaine who had no trouble at all stopping now and then. Would said use be considered "a lot" by medical standards I don't know, but Lizzie sure could have been partaking of that amount and possibly used on and off or perhaps it wasn't long before the murders that this all started to come about.

I'm not saying these aren't addictive drugs, what I am saying is that plenty of people in that age used them and still functioned and may have minded their habits or appetites as many do today-some make it some don't. By todays standards these people are probably considered addicts however they were able to put the drug down sometimes with the help of alcohol but put it down they did.

[Kat]

I think in this area personal experience would be more helpful to us in figuring this all out.
Statistics can be manipulated.
I appreciate the candour.

[Golaszewski]

Search through US government data about the total number of opiate and cocaine users, and the total number of addicts. The difference between the 2 is occasional recreational users.

And, this shouldn't be surprising. People all the time score small amount of opiates for a little fun. Particularly diverted pharmaceuticals. In a given year, for every heroin addict, there are many folks who glom onto a few Oxycontins or Percosets and use them recreationally. And consider countries like Canada and much of Europe where codeine is an OTC drug and requires no prescription. People there commonly will use codeine every now and then to chill out.

In the case of cocaine, cost is the main factor that keep recreational users much more common than addicts. Few can afford a cocaine jones.

Robert...am I to assume then, that the only specific source you are willing to cite at this time, is your own personal experience ? I was hoping you had some specific sources I could go to to review the 'statistics' you are posting.


Tracy...

I didn't say that was my own personal experience. I said to search through US government statistics. Google is your friend.

[Golaszewski]

I think in this area personal experience would be more helpful to us in figuring this all out.
Statistics can be manipulated.
I appreciate the candour.

Actually, statistics are much better than personal experience. My personal experience is just one data point. The biggest problem with the statistics is not manipulation, but the quality of the statistics themselves. It's difficult to get solid statistics about illegal, underground activities.

[Allen]

It is hard to get statistics about alot of crime related subjects. It's never known how many incidents never get reported, or are inaccurately reported. Even the government agencies who gather the statistics will admit to this fact.

[Kat]

Yes I know and I was thinking just that- so I appreciated any first-person anecdotes.
Personal experience colors all of our thoughts on this case, so they help in the understanding of human nature.

[snokkums]

I think she might have been a drug addict, but who knows? That could be something to look into if she had a problem with drugs

This is something I have been thinking about lately, and I think it was mentioned before somewhere in the archives. What if Lizzie was a drug addict? Maybe her addiction started out innocently, and then grew out of control. The good doctor could have supplied her with what she needed. Drugs like heroin and cocaine are very addictive. Drugs can alter your personality, make you more aggressive or passive, despondent or paranoid, and could have played a role in these murders. Let's say she was on morphine or cocaine. This could account for her lack of emotion after the murders, and for her confusing testimony. She couldn't keep her lies straight, because her memory was clouded. I am also wondering if she was using drugs on a regular basis, maybe she had the idea of trying them out on Abby and Andrew. Although a drug user rarely wants to share their stash, heroin or morphine could have been what made the Borden's sick. I think the 1st time you do it; it makes you sick and you vomit. She could have been high as a kite when she swung the axe, then had a sort of plateau afterwards, making her seem calm, cool, and collected. Maybe Dr. Bowen knew he was supplying her with something, and that was why he panicked when another agent of death was mentioned? Do you think Lizzie was pumped up on drugs when she committed the murders?

[snokkums]

I don't think so. Addicts and alcohlics have a way of hiding thier habits very well. Besides in that era, that was not something you talked about, eihter with your family or out in the open.
quote="Allen @ Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:58 pm"]

While I can appreciate the drugs and Lizzie theory, wouldn't someone (Emma?) have noticed that she was on drugs, especially if she had a habit? I'm also thinking of town gossip...wouldn't it be too delicious for the townsfolk to ignore if Lizzie Borden was an addict? Wouldn't one expect there to be some sort of statement or reference made by someone in connection with this whole incident if dear Liz was known or rumored to be a junkie? I don't know of any...course that doesn't mean they don't exist. Help?

I agree with you on this. If there had been any inkling that Lizzie was a drug addict, it probably would've been brought up. Look at the theories that were brought up then. She was molested by Andrew, she was in love with uncle John, etc etc. Why no rumor of drugs if she was in fact addicted? The one true theory was never a theory?[/quote]

[Kat]

There has always been something *missing* from the story.
That's why people invent molestation, child abuse, epilepsy, a crazy bastard half-brother, or drug addition to fill this gap.
Back then they looked for insanity in the family, particularly the Morse side. All these inventions mentioned above can be included in the *insanity* which they were looking for in 1892.
So through the ages, experts do realize that there is *something missing* from the story.
If not insanity then they point to conspiracy.
I think any of these approaches are valid.
If we read it in a book maybe our newer theory of drug abuse would have more credence?
Maybe Masterton has the credentials to write that book

[Golaszewski]

There has always been something *missing* from the story.
That's why people invent molestation, child abuse, epilepsy, a crazy bastard half-brother, or drug addition to fill this gap.
Back then they looked for insanity in the family, particularly the Morse side. All these inventions mentioned above can be included in the *insanity* which they were looking for in 1892.
So through the ages, experts do realize that there is *something missing* from the story.
If not insanity then they point to conspiracy.
I think any of these approaches are valid.
If we read it in a book maybe our newer theory of drug abuse would have more credence?
Maybe Masterton has the credentials to write that book

On the assumption that Lizzie did the murders, drugs seem about as plausible as an explanation as insanity. I am unaware that Lizzie was thought of by people as a "crazy woman" by townsfolk before the murders. And after the trial she wasn't behaving in a way that was obviously crazed.

If insanity, hacking a couple people to death with a hatchet is pretty damn crazy. Mental illness doesn't tend to suddenly afflict people, and then suddenly spontaneously go away. However, drugs can cause someone to briefly go completely bonkers. Think here not in terms of addiction, but that Lizzie just binged on some drug. Cocaine was easily available at the time, and people have done violently crazy things on a cocaine binge.

The best argument against drugs being involved is that Lizzie's mind was quite clear when she did this. Lizzie would have had an obvious motive to commit the murders: money. As for her using such a violent means to do it, this can be explained by her choosing to use an axe because it seemed like such an unlikely way for a respectable lady to kill. In fact many believe the reason the jury found her not guilty is because the men on the jury just couldn't accept that a lady from an affluent family could do such a thing.

[Kat]

It also fills the gap of time between murders.
How does someone get hyped up twice in 2 hours enough to kill in such a way.
A first strike through common rage at Abby is one thing, but that wait between kills is too hard to explain otherwise.
Drugs could have fueled the second murder, even if they didn't fuel the first.

Several killers I can think of drank booze before killing. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, the Moors Murderers: it lowered their inhibitions. Others nowadays do take drugs and murder purposely.

[Golaszewski]

It also fills the gap of time between murders.
How does someone get hyped up twice in 2 hours enough to kill in such a way.
A first strike through common rage at Abby is one thing, but that wait between kills is too hard to explain otherwise.
Drugs could have fueled the second murder, even if they didn't fuel the first.

Several killers I can think of drank booze before killing. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, the Moors Murderers: it lowered their inhibitions. Others nowadays do take drugs and murder purposely.

From what I understand, there may not have been that much of a gap between the murders based on modern forensic knowledge. And even if it was 2 hours, there are drugs that last long enough a 2 hour rage is quite possible. It is also possible Lizzie could have redosed between the murders. She's high on cocaine, and kills Abby. She then redoses, and is high when she kills Andrew.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic400.htm

"With insufflation, the onset of action occurs 1-3 minutes after use and peaks 20-30 minutes later. The effect lasts 45-90 minutes, and the half-life is 60-90 minutes. Inhalation of cocaine results in immediate effects that peak 1-5 minutes after inhalation and last for 20 minutes after inhalation. The half-life is 40-60 minutes. Oral use of cocaine results in an onset of effects 10 minutes after use. The effects peak 60 minutes after use and last for 60-90 minutes."

Taken orally (if Lizzie took cocaine, I'd expect it would be oral rather than snorting or IV), the half life is about 60 minutes. Thus even if there were 2 hours between the murders (and I am skeptical about this), if Lizzie took a whopping single dose of cocaine (which is the sort of dose likely to cause psychosis), she could have been high as a kite when she killed Abby, and still high as a kite when she killed Andrew 2 hours later.

[Kat]

Abby was not seen after 9 a.m. by Bridget or Lizzie. Morse last saw her around 8:30 headed upstairs to the guest room, he supposed.
A question of Lizzie was where did she think Mrs. Borden was all that time?
Where do you think she was?

[Golaszewski]

Abby was not seen after 9 a.m. by Bridget or Lizzie. Morse last saw her around 8:30 headed upstairs to the guest room, he supposed.
A question of Lizzie was where did she think Mrs. Borden was all that time?
Where do you think she was?

At all times after 8:30, almost surely Abby was in that house. The open question is what time was Abby killed in that house?

[Kat]

Since she was killed in the guest room, it had to happen when she went up there to clean /make the bed/ put the pillow shams on. Otherwise she would not normally go there.
If she wasn't killed right after Bridget says she last saw Abby, then Bridget was an accomplice before, during, or after the fact.
Whatever, Abby still had to be lured to that room at sometime that morning under some condition, if she was already finished working in there.
These questions would have to be answered with reasonable scenarios, and then also the question of *why not* at 9 or 9:15?

[Smudgeman]

Do you think her coming back downstairs to get the pillow shams has any significance? If she knew she was going to make the bed or re-make the bed, why didn't she bring everything she would need upstairs, sheets and pillow shams? Lizzie could have been up there, and suggested to Abby "why don't you change the pillow shams"? That would have given her enough time to get the weapon in hand and wait for her to return. She could have been waiting by the door, and as soon as Abby entered, whack! The only problem with that scenario is the pillow shams would be lying on the floor or in disarray. Maybe she surprised her during or right after the room was in order.

[Allen]

It also fills the gap of time between murders.
How does someone get hyped up twice in 2 hours enough to kill in such a way.
A first strike through common rage at Abby is one thing, but that wait between kills is too hard to explain otherwise.
Drugs could have fueled the second murder, even if they didn't fuel the first.

Several killers I can think of drank booze before killing. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, the Moors Murderers: it lowered their inhibitions. Others nowadays do take drugs and murder purposely.

I think the only reason for the gap is the killer HAD to wait. I don't think they had a choice, you can't very well kill someone if they aren't there.
If they wanted both Abby and Andrew dead, a two hour wait is not so uncommon in a murder.There have been instances of the killer waiting even longer than this. When I did my research paper on kids who kill, I ran across the case of a 17 year old named Aaron Lamb. He waited in his victims aparment patiently for him to return home. There was even evidence he made himself something to eat while he was waiting. He didn't even know his victim. Serial Killers have been known to stalk their prey for weeks or even months before approaching them. If this was a deliberate killing, a wait of two hours between the murders is not really anything I find all that odd or uncommon.

[Kat]

It's not really the wait which concerns me, it's the viciousness of the attack after the lying-in-wait.
A newly-minted killer (say, Lizzie) is not going to be able to handle that and still go through with a hatchet job on Andrew, without some stimulus.
It's the stimulus which enabled the killer to work up the same amount of rage, in a shorter period of time, as in the first attack, which is tricky to explain.

[Allen]

I think $$$ were the only stimulus needed. It's been the case for many murders. Aaron Lamb hit his victim in the head with a hammer 35 times, after lying in wait, and making himself something to eat while he waited. It was the first murder he ever committed.

[theebmonique]

I agree that Lizzie's main and probably only (if any), impetus for involvement was the almighty dollar. I am thinking that if there had been even an inkling of dug involvement, that it would have already come up. It seems that Porter, Pearson...SOMEBODY...or even 'Lincoln dearest' would have at least alluded to it. I guess I am having a hard time with the drug idea at all...maybe since 'drugs' are a topic in two separate catgories in this forum, I am just being 'overdosed' ?


Tracy...

[Audrey]

Although it is interesting to speculate about Lizzie's everyday life and what may have motivated her-- I find it nearly impossible to entertain the drug theory. I would think that if she had been purchasing large amounts of over the counter medications and tonics-- it would have come out with the prussic acid scandal... Wouldn't you think other pharmacists, eager for their 2 minutes would have spoken up? Telling everyone who would listen they sold Lizzie this or that? I do. Likewise, if she was addicted, it would have been hard for her to leave Smith's without picking up a few bottles of this or that...

We have heard and even entertained WILD theories. Remember the one where Doc Bowen performed an abortion on her right after the murders? The matrons in the jail would have certainly known had Lizzie had a recent abortion as she would have needed napkins. Weeks worth of them. Likewise-- had she been a junkie, I would think someone would have noticed her withdrawal symptoms... And again-- that her "shopping lists" would have somehow become public.

If we want to entertain all the "rumors" how could a drug addicted, kleptomaniac, lesbian who was selfish, manipulative and of a repellent disposition NOT have become a murderer?

[Golaszewski]

I agree that Lizzie's main and probably only (if any), impetus for involvement was the almighty dollar. I am thinking that if there had been even an inkling of dug involvement, that it would have already come up. It seems that Porter, Pearson...SOMEBODY...or even 'Lincoln dearest' would have at least alluded to it. I guess I am having a hard time with the drug idea at all...maybe since 'drugs' are a topic in two separate catgories in this forum, I am just being 'overdosed' ?


Tracy...

Lizzie could have been very discreet about her drug use. It is also possible that she just started using drugs recreationally. The most likely person to take a "crazy dose" of a drug is a newbie. Experienced users are the ones who know what the right dose is, and what is too much.

The main problem with this drug theory is there isn't much evidence to support it.

[Audrey]

Please explain to me how a person who it is "most likely possible just started using drugs recreationally" -- one STUPID enough to inquire for prussic acid at a hometown drug store would have known or had the wherewithal to be discreet about her drug use????

Especially when, as I stated above-- her every move prior to the murders was investigated and speculated about, with pharmacy visits high on the list...

The problem with Lizzie on drugs in not that there is no evidence to support it-- it MAKES NO SENSE.

[Harry]

Where's Ray when we need him?

I rank the drug theory one notch below Billy Borden.

[theebmonique]

Audrey and Harry,

Very well said. THANK YOU.


Tracy...

[doug65oh]

One notch below Billy Borden?

So that's what that vile stench is! (All this time I thought it was just some really stinky cheese!!)

[Golaszewski]

Please explain to me how a person who it is "most likely possible just started using drugs recreationally" -- one STUPID enough to inquire for prussic acid at a hometown drug store would have known or had the wherewithal to be discreet about her drug use????

If she had just started using drugs, even if Lizzie was less than discreet odds are very high her drug use would never have been noticed. Unless she did it in public, none of the townsfolk would have known. And if she had done drugs just after retiring to her bedroom to sleep, Abby and Andrew wouldn't have seen it. They'd just see her going of to bed sober, and sober when she woke up because the drugs had worn off.

And we have no idea why she wanted to purchase prussic acid. Cyanide poisoning would have been immediately obvious, and only someone living in the house could have managed to kill both Andrew and Abby. If Lizzie did kill them, using an axe would have been a much wiser strategy. In fact, if she did kill them with an axe, as she was found not guilty she literally got away with murder.

[Golaszewski]

I rank the drug theory one notch below Billy Borden.

Given the total lack of evidence that Lizzie was using drugs recreationally, I would agree it is a weak theory. All this theory has going for it is that Lizzie would have had easy access to drugs. Of course so did everyone else in Fall River.

[Audrey]

Please explain to me how a person who it is "most likely possible just started using drugs recreationally" -- one STUPID enough to inquire for prussic acid at a hometown drug store would have known or had the wherewithal to be discreet about her drug use????

If she had just started using drugs, even if Lizzie was less than discreet odds are very high her drug use would never have been noticed. Unless she did it in public, none of the townsfolk would have known. And if she had done drugs just after retiring to her bedroom to sleep, Abby and Andrew wouldn't have seen it. They'd just see her going of to bed sober, and sober when she woke up because the drugs had worn off.

And we have no idea why she wanted to purchase prussic acid. Cyanide poisoning would have been immediately obvious, and only someone living in the house could have managed to kill both Andrew and Abby. If Lizzie did kill them, using an axe would have been a much wiser strategy. In fact, if she did kill them with an axe, as she was found not guilty she literally got away with murder.

I think you missed the point of my question.....

[Golaszewski]

I think you missed the point of my question.....

Then clarify your point. At the time, with preparations containing opium or cocaine being commonly sold in pharmacies, and to many different people, that Lizzie would have bought some such preparations wouldn't have been seen as remarkable. Particularly if she was either an occasional, recreational user, or a newbie. These preparations were widely used by upstanding citizens, and only a fool of a prosecutor would try to argue that because she had used these preparations this turned Lizzie into an axe murderer. Odds are many, if not most, of the men (or their wives) on the jury had used drug preparations that contained opiates or cocaine. That she had bought such drug preparations may well have been known at the time. And ignored because nobody saw any relevance between these purchases and a vicious double murder.

[Audrey]

I disagree....

I think those pharmacists would have spilled about ANYTHING she bought....

[Golaszewski]

I disagree....

I think those pharmacists would have spilled about ANYTHING she bought....

But would the newspapers have considered it newsworthy if she bought small amounts of commonly sold medicines? Although now that I think about it, the Lizzie Borden case was the 1890s version of the 1990s O.J. Simpson case. The media reported all sorts of irrelevancies in the O.J. case.

[theebmonique]

I would think it would have been considered VERY newsworthy after the murders. Hell, EVERYTHING about Lizzie, including her 'time of the month' made the news in 1892/1893.


Tracy...

[Audrey]

and do not forget... There was an interest in her pharmacy purchases due to the prussic acid incident... It was a HUGE part of the prosecution's case and certainly they would have made an exhaustive investigation of ANY purchase Lizzie made...

[theebmonique]

Exactly !


Tracy...

[Allen]

Although it is interesting to speculate about Lizzie's everyday life and what may have motivated her-- I find it nearly impossible to entertain the drug theory. I would think that if she had been purchasing large amounts of over the counter medications and tonics-- it would have come out with the prussic acid scandal... Wouldn't you think other pharmacists, eager for their 2 minutes would have spoken up? Telling everyone who would listen they sold Lizzie this or that? I do. Likewise, if she was addicted, it would have been hard for her to leave Smith's without picking up a few bottles of this or that...

I totally agree with that Audrey. This is a point I have brought up as well. I just cannot agree with the idea that Lizzie might have been using drugs. For the reason stated above, and many others.One being she got all of her money from Andrew. I cannot believe she would be using her father's money to entertain a drug habit, and him not have the slightly idea about it.

[Kat]

She had access to mail order.
Don't forget the cat killing rumors in her description.

People still don't think OJ took drugs.
No way they say- not OJ.

[Golaszewski]

and do not forget... There was an interest in her pharmacy purchases due to the prussic acid incident... It was a HUGE part of the prosecution's case and certainly they would have made an exhaustive investigation of ANY purchase Lizzie made...

Might Lizzie have sent Bridget to buy drugs along with other ordinary items?

[Golaszewski]

She had access to mail order.

Hmm...that is an interesting possibility. With transportation being slow in those days, and a lot of people way out in rural areas where it would be difficult to get to a pharmacy, mail ordering drugs was common enough.

[Kat]

Oh well.
I thought it was a good theory. Stef never liked it either.
We spent hours on it.
I don't understand why we debate whether Lizzie killed viciously but people are so curiously incensed that she might have been high? I'm not even saying perpetually high or always high- just technically medically loaded on some over-the-counter preparation which was common to the everyday folk. It's like it's a threatening question or something, but everyone's entitled to their reactions. I'm just curious, as usual...

[Golaszewski]

Oh well.
I thought it was a good theory. Stef never liked it either.
We spent hours on it.
I don't understand why we debate whether Lizzie killed viciously but people are so curiously incensed that she might have been high? I'm not even saying perpetually high or always high- just technically medically loaded on some over-the-counter preparation which was common to the everyday folk. It's like it's a threatening question or something, but everyone's entitled to their reactions. I'm just curious, as usual...

I happen to run a couple websites that include news reports about people who while abusing a currently available OTC drug who have committed vicious murders while wasted on in. Such as a 14 year old boy with no history of violence bashing in his brothers brain with a claw hammer reportedly because he thought his brother was a homosexual. (He was convicted and is now doing a 20-40 year sentence in prison.) I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Lizzie loaded on some drug when she committed the murders. Note I don't particularly believe that this was the case. Merely that Lizzie being wasted on drugs at the time seems plausible to me.

[Nona]

I soo ADORE you AUDREE!!

Im so on the same page as you. You put it in a way that makes complete sense!

ahh a sane voice