The number of hits

[DWilly]

Abby was not only murdered but she was brutally murdered. In my opinion she was a victim of what I have heard called "over kill." In other words not only did the killer want her dead but it seems just by the number of times Abby was hit that this shows a very strong hate on the part of the killer. The thing is who would hate Abby this much? Did she have any strong enemies in Fall Rivers or anywhere else? Would a man in 1892, be willing to direct that much physical anger to an old woman? What does the number of hits tell us about the murderer? I think it rules out the theory of Lizzie and Emma paid someone to commit the murders since I think a paid killer would be more indifferent and less likely to want to hit an old woman that many times. I see too much emotion in the murder of Abby.

[Yooper]

I agree, Abby's murder seems to be the result of extreme emotion, but what is the probability of it being the result of inexperience as a hatchet murderer? It could be that the hatchet was less effective than anticipated and the murderer struck multiple blows to assure the desired end was realized.

[Bob Gutowski]

I agree - and that's one element of the murders which make them so continually fascinating. Who could have hated Abby Borden THAT much?

Hmm!

[DWilly]

I agree, Abby's murder seems to be the result of extreme emotion, but what is the probability of it being the result of inexperience as a hatchet murderer? It could be that the hatchet was less effective than anticipated and the murderer struck multiple blows to assure the desired end was realized.

But nineteen times? My goodness, I would think by blow number eleven or twelve you'd be pretty sure she was dead. Nineteen is a lot of hits. Especially, when Abby didn't seem to be struggling.

By the way, if it was due to inexperience with a hatchet then that would rule out Billy Borden and David Anthony. Supposedly both had experience wielding such objects. Or at least that's the impression some have given. Would either of these men needed that many whacks on a poor old woman lying on a floor dying?

[Yooper]

It would be interesting to know how may superficial blows were struck and how many killing blows. I haven't been able to determine any exact numbers, but there seems to be several relatively shallow strikes and a few off-center hits in Abby's case.

[Bob Gutowski]

I don't think Abby was carrying a case.

(Sorry! It's Friday, and I'm giddy.)

[Yooper]

Aha! That's it! Abby's case was the target all along! She wore her purse over her head and was simply an unintended victim! Case solved!

It's contagious, Bob!

[Wordweaver]

Abby was not only murdered but she was brutally murdered. In my opinion she was a victim of what I have heard called "over kill." In other words not only did the killer want her dead but it seems just by the number of times Abby was hit that this shows a very strong hate on the part of the killer. The thing is who would hate Abby this much? Did she have any strong enemies in Fall Rivers or anywhere else?

I believe that it's overkill motivated by overwhelming hatred. And, as far as anyone knows, nobody else in the world but her stepdaughters hated Abby that much. Possibly Bridget; it does happen that an employee can loathe an employer.

The only other people she spent time with were the Whiteheads -- her much-younger sister and family. They apparently adored her. (Or so Abby Whitehead Potter said to Robert Sullivan.) It's an outside chance that Sarah, her younger sister, hated Abby, but she certainly didn't kill her; she was at the police picnic that day. (That's according to William Masterton.)

Would a man in 1892, be willing to direct that much physical anger to an old woman? What does the number of hits tell us about the murderer? I think it rules out the theory of Lizzie and Emma paid someone to commit the murders since I think a paid killer would be more indifferent and less likely to want to hit an old woman that many times. I see too much emotion in the murder of Abby.

Wellllll, once you get over the idea that it's wrong to kill people, you can do what you want. Look at HH Holmes. Look at Jack the Ripper. And who knows? If there was a hired killer, maybe he hated his mother.

The other thing that should be considered is the emotional effect of adrenaline. And here I am speaking from experience. If you've ever worked off steam by doing something hard and physical, you know how refreshing it can be. How *liberating*, even. I generally do it by kneading bread dough, which can't be harmed by aggression. But once you start pounding, you don't necessarily want to stop.

There's a book called Evidence of Love about an axe murder in Texas. The killer was a nice young woman -- a Sunday School teacher -- and, according to psychologists, the extreme violence of the killing was partly because she felt so angry and threatened that everything just poured out in an orgy of blind unthinking blows. Moreover, the struggle happened in an enclosed space; military historians and behavioral psychologists talk about the escalating effects of tight spaces on violence, citing flight distance and territorial imperatives. (John Keegan discusses this in his brilliant The Face of Battle. Required reading for anyone interested in military history or the psychological effets of violence.)

I don't know if the territorial imperative played a direct role in the viciousness and number of blows that caused Abby's death, but one could argue that by coming into the room where Lizzie and Emma usually sat, she was invading their territory. And the tight space by the bed may have triggered some of that excess of violence -- fighting like a cornered rat.

[Yooper]

A difficult part of this whole incident lies in reconciling an apparent "slobbering, knuckle-dragging, PhD in Mayhem" personality with the lack of "mess" present while in "prim and proper" mode. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems that the two diametrically opposed personalities could be changed like throwing a switch.

My point is that we have to be careful about assumptions and separate the probable from the possible.

[Angel]

Since the guest room bed was on casters, maybe Abby had moved the bed a bit towards the door her self to clean under it. That would have created a lot more room for the murderer to get to her without necessarily straddling the body. Then, after the deed, the killer moved the bed back to the original position so it would not have seemed out of the ordinary and kept others from seeing the body for a longer time.

[theebmonique]

That's a good thought Angel. That could also account for the small amount of splatter on the bedspread.


Tracy...

[Bob Gutowski]

Wordweaver, I'm familiar with that book and with the stunning TV movie made from it. It's now available as a low-priced DVD under both the titles EVIDENCE OF LOVE, and A KILLING IN A SMALL TOWN.

I would love to be able to hear what conversation, if any, passed between the murderer and Abby.

[DWilly]

Abby was not only murdered but she was brutally murdered. In my opinion she was a victim of what I have heard called "over kill." In other words not only did the killer want her dead but it seems just by the number of times Abby was hit that this shows a very strong hate on the part of the killer. The thing is who would hate Abby this much? Did she have any strong enemies in Fall Rivers or anywhere else?

Would a man in 1892, be willing to direct that much physical anger to an old woman? What does the number of hits tell us about the murderer? I think it rules out the theory of Lizzie and Emma paid someone to commit the murders since I think a paid killer would be more indifferent and less likely to want to hit an old woman that many times. I see too much emotion in the murder of Abby.

Wellllll, once you get over the idea that it's wrong to kill people, you can do what you want. Look at HH Holmes. Look at Jack the Ripper. And who knows? If there was a hired killer, maybe he hated his mother.

And those men were all psychopaths. Did Lizzie just happen to find the right guy? Where and how would she have met someone like that?

If it were a lover, like some believe, then what kind of horrible man did Lizzie become involved with for a short time?

Btw, I don't know if someone else has already posted this but, while I was looking up things on psychopaths I found this little test you can take to see if you're one:

http://www.naute.com/puzzles/puzzle22.php

[Wordweaver]

And those men were all psychopaths. Did Lizzie just happen to find the right guy? Where and how would she have met someone like that?

I think she washed the killer's face every morning. You may not agree.

But you're right; that was a bad example. Those guys were serial killers and not really comparable to someone who committed one set of murders, either for gain or out of hatred, and then lived a relatively quiet life. OTOH, they might be comparable to someone amenable to murder for hire.

Which is one of the real issues, as I see it, in murder for hire, assuming Lizzie or Emma did the hiring. How would they know someone who could do that? Their social contacts were limited and not exactly a walk on the wild side. I suppose Bridget might have known a criminal, but the class and ethnic assumptions behind such a supposition are ugly and unsubstantiated. Or perhaps one of Lizzie's church activities could have brought her into contact with a hired killer, but it seems unlikely -- and how would she know what he did or whether to trust him?

*IF* Lizzie or Emma (or even Bridget) induced someone else to kill the elder Bordens, I suspect the strategy was the Pam Smart technique of seduction, defamation, and subtle hints inciting the lover to do murder in order to rescue his lady fair from the cruelties of the target couple.

Or possibly, like Ruth Snyder or Edith Thompson, she had a lover who decided more or less on his own that he should eliminate the reason she couldn't marry him. In the Snyder and Thompson cases, the barrier was an existing husband; here I'm imagining a socially ineligible lover, someone Andrew would condemn as a fortune-hunter, a scoundrel, a Catholic, or otherwise not an acceptable husband for his daughter.

This is speculation, of course, but the basic questions remain. How could the heiresses find and control an outside killer? How could a nice maiden lady commit a heinous double murder? How could an outside killer get in the house and slaughter two elderly people without anyone noticing? I think we're all agreed that *someone* killed the Bordens; the murder-suicide theory just doesn't wash.

Lynn

[DWilly]

And those men were all psychopaths. Did Lizzie just happen to find the right guy? Where and how would she have met someone like that?

*IF* Lizzie or Emma (or even Bridget) induced someone else to kill the elder Bordens, I suspect the strategy was the Pam Smart technique of seduction, defamation, and subtle hints inciting the lover to do murder in order to rescue his lady fair from the cruelties of the target couple.

Or possibly, like Ruth Snyder or Edith Thompson, she had a lover who decided more or less on his own that he should eliminate the reason she couldn't marry him. In the Snyder and Thompson cases, the barrier was an existing husband; here I'm imagining a socially ineligible lover, someone Andrew would condemn as a fortune-hunter, a scoundrel, a Catholic, or otherwise not an acceptable husband for his daughter.


Lynn

I can't see either Lizzie or Emma going out and seducing anyone. Pam Smart had the personality and the sexual sophistication to pull of something like that. Neither Lizzie nor Emma, in my opinion, had those traits. That's one reason why I don't buy the "Hyman Lubinsky" theory. I just can't see Lizzie trying to seduce some sixteen year old. Not at that point in her life anyway. I think it was Dr. Bowen who said something about how Lizzie never showed emotions or something along those lines.


The problem with the lover is over and over people in Fall Rivers said Lizzie never had one. I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have confided in a single friend of hers had she had a lover. Also, it still wouldn't explain why Abby got hit 19 times and Andrew only 11. Why the hate toward Abby of all people? As has been pointed out, Abby would have been thrilled about Lizzie getting married and moving out.


My own thought on this is Lizzie and Emma are the only two people, as far as I know, who hated Abby so much that they would have done that kind of violence to her.

[Allen]

That's a good thought Angel. That could also account for the small amount of splatter on the bedspread.


Tracy...

I think the small amount of blood spatter on the bedspread can also be explained in other ways. The direction Abby and the killer were facing would dictate the direction of it. Whether Abby was lying on the floor when the blows were struck would also be a factor. The point of impact of the weapon usually determines the direction of the blood 'spatter'. Once the blood ceases to pump through the heart, usually the majority of the spatter is from the weapon itself.

[Kat]

There was the over-kill of Bertha Manchester- supposedly a one-time crime.
She was reported to have had 23 cuts with an axe. (Boston Globe, 6/1/93)

The area of her attack was the kitchen which was given as 6x8' area. (B.Globe, 5/31/93).

[mappam]

I think that Panic could also play a role.

What if whomever struck Abby saw her fall to the floor and Not Know if she was dead?

The "Oh My God - What have I done!" and then the ""What if she TELLS someone I did this?" thoughts surfaced?

[FairhavenGuy]

That's a good thought Angel. That could also account for the small amount of splatter on the bedspread.


Tracy...

But then there should be splatter found under the bed, right?


I've always thought that most people vastly over-estimate how much splattering there would be in this case.

So many people seem to picture the killer wildly swinging a hatchet over his/her head over and over again.

Do you swing a hammer over your head each time you hit the head of a nail?

A small, sharp hatchet with a 1 lb. steel head can make most of the chops we see in this case just by being raised a relatively short distance above the victim. Hatchets and axes chop more from the weight of their heads falling than from any force provided by the person wielding it. When a butcher chops with a meat cleaver, gore is not splashing all over the shop. . .

[Audrey]

I have often stated that the reason for the different number of blows between Abby and Andrew may not be so complicated-- or psychologically meaningful.

Abby was face down..... Andrew was face up.

The killer would have been able to see that Andrew was clearly dead... Abby? Maybe it wasn't so obvious.

After killing Abby the killer was also more experienced.

Profilers have often made much of the fact that Andrew's face was obliterated. I think this fact holds little meaning. The weapon was a hatchet or other sharp instrument like that. Who ever died from a hatchet to the heart?

If Andrew had been stabbed repeatedly with a knife in the face-- that would be a different story.

Also-- even 90 minutes apart. A person not accustomed to physical activity like this may have pulled muscles and been a bit sore when it came time to hack Andy up.....

[Kat]

I was thinking today that we don't know how well the killer could see.
Meaning, they may have needed glasses and not known it. And Dr. Bowen said the room was shaded, not very ight in there.
If someone with poor eyesight took a hatchet to someone in a semi-darkened room, we might get as a result, not only those many blows, but those many blows that probably did not kill: and the ones that go every which way.

[RayS]

According to what I read in the past, the many whacks, sign of overkill, were due to emotional or fanatice hatred. What did you read?

In Aug-Sept 1994 I heard a radio talk show that had a retired police detective from NY city. He said the 25 to 30 stab wounds on Ron showed he was the target, and the 5-6 on Nicole show she was the innocent bystander. This policeman said he investigated many such murders in Manhattan. In each case where there were so many stabs the murderer was the rejected homosexual lover of the victim.
What did you learn from your true crime books?

[Bob Gutowski]

Emotional overkill may be the reasons for so many wounds (in fact, I'd agree that might've been the case in the guest room).

[Smudgeman]

According to what I read in the past, the many whacks, sign of overkill, were due to emotional or fanatice hatred. What did you read?

In Aug-Sept 1994 I heard a radio talk show that had a retired police detective from NY city. He said the 25 to 30 stab wounds on Ron showed he was the target, and the 5-6 on Nicole show she was the innocent bystander. This policeman said he investigated many such murders in Manhattan. In each case where there were so many stabs the murderer was the rejected homosexual lover of the victim.
What did you learn from your true crime books?

I have to disagree with you regarding Ron and Nicole. Ron was fighting for his life, alot of defensive stab wounds. OJ simply grabbed Nicole from the back and slashed away. Yes, OJ - The Murderer! Don't believe alot of Homosexuals are out committing murders because they were rejected either. Give me a break.

[RayS]

Smudgeman @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:22 pm
I have to disagree with you regarding Ron and Nicole. Ron was fighting for his life, alot of defensive stab wounds. OJ simply grabbed Nicole from the back and slashed away. Yes, OJ - The Murderer! Don't believe alot of Homosexuals are out committing murders because they were rejected either. Give me a break.

As with Lizzie, the decision of the jury settled that case, even if some don't accept it.
Remember this: the limo driver picked OJ up at 11pm and drove him to the airport. It was impossible for him to kill them. The Medical Examiner who did the autopsies said the murders occurred after 11pm. I guess you don't accept the established evidence.
I don't know anything about the cases referenced by that retired detective. I did read about a murder nearby some 15 years ago. Two guys living in an apartment, one stabbed the other to death. Family newspapers leave out a lot of details.

[Smudgeman]

Rays,

May I suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder" if you want to review the established evidence. The murders occurred between 10:15 and 10:40 P.M. The bloody Akita dog was found shortly before 11:00P.M. The limo driver arrived at 11:00, giving the murderer a window of 45 minutes from the victims house and his.

[Smudgeman]

Sorry I drifted off of the subject of this thread. I tend to agree with Audrey, in that Abby was face down, and maybe writhing around the floor, where as Andy was face up. It would be easier to to be certain he was dead. But once the killer had Abby down on the ground, why not just chop her head off? Why not go for the neck area instead of the skull? If there is no blood going to the brain, Bingo your dead.

[Audrey]

Sorry I drifted off of the subject of this thread. I tend to agree with Audrey, in that Abby was face down, and maybe writhing around the floor, where as Andy was face up. It would be easier to to be certain he was dead. But once the killer had Abby down on the ground, why not just chop her head off? Why not go for the neck area instead of the skull? If there is no blood going to the brain, Bingo your dead.

I tend to think the killer was inexperienced in killing. I may know various ways to kill a person-- mainly from knowledge gained from the media, (tv, movies, books--even the news) but I am not convinced that the killer knew as much as we have access to today.

I know I am in the 'vast minority' in my opinion about the killer NOT expecting or knowing much about blood spurts and splatters... But I think this may have been more than a good possibility.

Assuming Lizzie did it and acted alone-- and assuming that she did try to buy the prussic acid days before (as many do) -- then the hatchet was not her weapon of choice and the total lack of decent alibi seems to indicate (again, assuming her guilt) that the use of the hatchet was a last resort with little planning. If she was desperate, P.O.'d and at the end of her rope-- she had no time for planning or plotting.

[Kat]

If it was Lizzie, and she had bad eyesight (undiagnosed) or anyone with bad eyesight, in a darkened room- do you guys think there would have been more missed blows, like on the bottom of the bureau or the camp chair or the side of the bed rail?

[theebmonique]

I would think that anyone with decreased vision, or if they weren't familiar with the premises would have missed even more. When I say familiar with the premises, I mean that if it were someone who did not live in the Borden home, they may not be able to function as well in a low lighted room as someone who could get around the house easily "with their eyes closed".


Tracy...

[Allen]

Are we talking about low light or complete darkness? I have impaired vision ( supposed to wear glasses and do not). I get around pretty well in the low light or even darkness. How impaired are you guys thinking the vision would have to be?

[Audrey]

I think the repetitive chopping motions would make it easier to hit a non moving target-- once she was dead!

[Kat]

Are we talking about low light or complete darkness? I have impaired vision ( supposed to wear glasses and do not). I get around pretty well in the low light or even darkness. How impaired are you guys thinking the vision would have to be?

Lizzie wore glasses later in life. So did Emma.
As for how dark the guest room was:

Witness Statements, 12, Mrs. Churchill:
"...I turned my head to the left, and through this door I could see under the bed of this room. On the north side of the bed, on the floor, I saw what I thought to be a prostrate body. There was not much light in the room, so I could not distinguish clearly, but I knew the object was more than a mat."

Dr. Bowen, Trial, 308:
Q. Where were you standing, Doctor, when you saw the form of Mrs. Borden?
A. Directly in the door of the room.

Q. What did you do?
A. I went around the back of the bed---that is, the foot of the bed---and between the form and the bed, and placed my hand on her head. It was a little dark in the room, somewhat dark, not very light. I placed my hand on her head and found there were wounds in the head. Then I placed my---felt of her pulse---that is, felt of the wrist, and found she was dead.

320
Q. I understand you to say that when you first saw her, after you got to the upper landing, by looking over the bed, the room appeared to be dark?
A. Not very light.

Q. Do you recall that you made any observation about the shutters?
A. I don't remember about the shutters on the west side.

Q. That is the street side?
A. The street side; yes, sir. The inside shutters were partly closed on the north side.

Q. That is toward Mrs. Churchill's?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 320

Q. They were partly closed?
A. The inside shutters, I think, were.

Q. And there is only one window there, I believe, on that side?
A. No, sir; I think not.

Q. And that window is a window which is near the end of the bureau as it then stood?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you speak of the shutters, I suppose there is no doubt that these shutters were the board shutters. They were not shutters like these in the court room, made of blinds, but they were board shutters?
A. Board shutters; yes, sir.

Page 321

Q. The inquiry is made upon the other side as to what you said about the shutters on the west side of the room, the street side of the room?
A. I don't know, I don't remember about that.

Q. Your answer was in reference to the south window or the window which is towards Mrs. Churchill's and the window at the end of the bureau is that the shutters of that window were partly closed?
A. Yes, sir,---the north window instead of the south.

Q. Yes, the north window; thank you. And are you able to recall now whether there is a shutter in the top part or the lower part that was open?
A. I think they were both thrown together loosely; shutters that fold the same as these do, only they were made of board, solid.

Q. Was there not an upper and under shutter?
A. Yes, sir.

[Audrey]

But Abbie was working in that room....

[Bob Gutowski]

Audrey, I think it's wise to assume that, if Lizzie was the killer, she had no idea where or how the blood would end up. This is slightly off-topic, but I am convinced she also didn't have any idea that dead Abby could be shown to have been dispatched way before dead Andrew.

Nowadays WE ALL know this stuff!

[Audrey]

Audrey, I think it's wise to assume that, if Lizzie was the killer, she had no idea where or how the blood would end up. This is slightly off-topic, but I am convinced she also didn't have any idea that dead Abby could be shown to have been dispatched way before dead Andrew.

Nowadays WE ALL know this stuff!

[RayS]

Rays,

May I suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder" if you want to review the established evidence. The murders occurred between 10:15 and 10:40 P.M. The bloody Akita dog was found shortly before 11:00P.M. The limo driver arrived at 11:00, giving the murderer a window of 45 minutes from the victims house and his.

I did read this book of opinion. Bugliosi never attended the trial, not even for an hour. Joseph Bosco was the only reporter to sit and witness the whole trial.
WHAT medical examiner testified from the direct evidence that the murders occured between 10:15 and 10:40? Or that the dog was found before 11pm? Does that witness have any corroboration? (My memory.)
Ron Goldman left the restaurant at 10pm and walked half mile to home (at least 10 minutes). He changed out of his uniform black pants (only one pair), then walked to where a friends' car was parked (5+ minutes). He then drove somewhere. The interesting thing is that the DA could never establish just where Ron went. To eat something (food in stomach)? That adds 30-40 minutes. He also parked a block or two away from Nicole's place, and that takes time.
Most of all, the limo driver parked there around 10:22 and never saw or heard any car or person leave or arrive until 11pm.

[RayS]

If it was Lizzie, and she had bad eyesight (undiagnosed) or anyone with bad eyesight, in a darkened room- do you guys think there would have been more missed blows, like on the bottom of the bureau or the camp chair or the side of the bed rail?

Not if the bad eyesight was near-sightedness. The fact of no missed blows suggests an experienced hand. IMO

[Smudgeman]

Rays,

May I suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder" if you want to review the established evidence. The murders occurred between 10:15 and 10:40 P.M. The bloody Akita dog was found shortly before 11:00P.M. The limo driver arrived at 11:00, giving the murderer a window of 45 minutes from the victims house and his.

I did read this book of opinion. Bugliosi never attended the trial, not even for an hour. Joseph Bosco was the only reporter to sit and witness the whole trial.
WHAT medical examiner testified from the direct evidence that the murders occured between 10:15 and 10:40? Or that the dog was found before 11pm? Does that witness have any corroboration? (My memory.)
Ron Goldman left the restaurant at 10pm and walked half mile to home (at least 10 minutes). He changed out of his uniform black pants (only one pair), then walked to where a friends' car was parked (5+ minutes). He then drove somewhere. The interesting thing is that the DA could never establish just where Ron went. To eat something (food in stomach)? That adds 30-40 minutes. He also parked a block or two away from Nicole's place, and that takes time.
Most of all, the limo driver parked there around 10:22 and never saw or heard any car or person leave or arrive until 11pm.

Blah, Blah, Blah........ Did YOU attend the trial. I have No intentions of arguing with you on this because you are simply WRONG. You know your arrogant, "know it all" attitude does not go over very well with many members of this forum including me. So lets just drop it and stick to the topic of this thread. Got it? Good...............

[Kat]

But Abbie was working in that room....

Maybe she was finished? Or maybe she wasn't in that room for that reason. Lizzie said Abby was going to close the room up after she was through. Lizzie claimed that door was shut later that morning.
Actually, it was Lizzie and Bridget who said Abby was going up there. Morse surmised that Abby went up to his room before he left the house because she disappeared into the front hall and he says he didn't see her again.

But if Bridget and Morse are in on the aftermath with Lizzie, it's possible one of them set the room to rights after the killing. If Morse made his own bed when he got up, and Abby never went up there to change sheets, but rather was lured, then we aren't missing any sheets for the laundry after all, are we?

We had heard that the girls were in charge of that room. If so, maybe Abby had no intention of making up the room that morning: waiting to see if Lizzie would do it?

[Wordweaver]

But if Bridget and Morse are in on the aftermath with Lizzie, it's possible one of them set the room to rights after the killing. If Morse made his own bed when he got up, and Abby never went up there to change sheets, but rather was lured, then we aren't missing any sheets for the laundry after all, are we?

We had heard that the girls were in charge of that room. If so, maybe Abby had no intention of making up the room that morning: waiting to see if Lizzie would do it?

There are a number of mysteries about that room. Why did Uncle John sleep there on this visit? Normally he slept on the third floor next to Bridget. What did happen to the sheets for the laundry?

Totally speculative scenario:
Lizzie, who was not exactly a paragon of New England thrift and industry, waited for Abby to finish stripping and remaking the bed. Then she saunters by and says, "Mrs. Borden, I can take those used sheets down to the laundry basket for you."

Abby, surprised and gratified, hands them over. ("Perhaps little Lizzie is coming around at last--I do hope so.") She gets on her knees to start dusting the wooden side-rails of the bedframe. Thirty seconds later, Lizzie returns, with a sheet pinned over her dress and a pillowcase over her hair. She wallops her stepmother with the hatchet, wipes the blade and handle, rips the sheet and pillowcase into strips, and deposits the fabric in the lidded pot where her other menstrual rags are soaking.

At least in this scenario, poor Abby died happy.

[Allen]

There is testimony by Emma, and Bridget, that shows that Morse had slept in the guestroom during visits prior to that day.

[Allen]

The thing about the inside shutters is didn't they only covered the bottom half of the window, and the upper half would still expose sunlight? So even with the shutters closed there would be sunlight coming into the room.

[RayS]

Rays,
May I suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder" ...

I did read this book of opinion. Bugliosi never attended the trial, not even for an hour. Joseph Bosco was the only reporter to sit and witness the whole trial.
WHAT medical examiner testified from the direct evidence that the murders occured between 10:15 and 10:40? Or that the dog was found before 11pm? Does that witness have any corroboration? (My memory.)
Ron Goldman left the restaurant at 10pm and walked half mile to home (at least 10 minutes). He changed out of his uniform black pants (only one pair), then walked to where a friends' car was parked (5+ minutes). He then drove somewhere. The interesting thing is that the DA could never establish just where Ron went. To eat something (food in stomach)? That adds 30-40 minutes. He also parked a block or two away from Nicole's place, and that takes time.
Most of all, the limo driver parked there around 10:22 and never saw or heard any car or person leave or arrive until 11pm.

Blah, Blah, Blah........ Did YOU attend the trial. I have No intentions of arguing with you on this because you are simply WRONG. You know your arrogant, "know it all" attitude does not go over very well with many members of this forum including me. So lets just drop it and stick to the topic of this thread. Got it? Good...............

The jury did "attend the trial". While I first believed OJ was guilty, the facts that came out after the Preliminary Hearing convinced me otherwise. I also noted how many people made up their mind in Jun 1994 and never let the facts interfere with their prejudgment.
Funny, isn't it? I've heard that "know it all" before, whenever I explain the facts that refutes someone's perception of reality. I guess that's my fate.

[RayS]

The thing about the inside shutters is didn't they only covered the bottom half of the window, and the upper half would still expose sunlight? So even with the shutters closed there would be sunlight coming into the room.

The pictures show the shutters covering the whole window. Storm windows must not have been invented yet.
As I rememer it from 60 years ago, the louvres in the shutters were slanted downwards, shielding from the sunlight and rain and snow. You could look out, but difficult for the outside to look in. They shielded from the cold wind. In summer, you could open a window and not have animals get into the open window. Screens are more superior.

[Allen]

The thing about the inside shutters is didn't they only covered the bottom half of the window, and the upper half would still expose sunlight? So even with the shutters closed there would be sunlight coming into the room.

The pictures show the shutters covering the whole window. Storm windows must not have been invented yet.
As I rememer it from 60 years ago, the louvres in the shutters were slanted downwards, shielding from the sunlight and rain and snow. You could look out, but difficult for the outside to look in. They shielded from the cold wind. In summer, you could open a window and not have animals get into the open window. Screens are more superior.

Where are pictures of the inside shutters? There were shutters on both the outside and inside of the windows. Which ones were closed in this case? I would think it would be the ones inside. But that's just me.

[RayS]

I referred to the outside of the window, of course. That is how they did it up until the 1950s (as I remember it). I don't know about any inside shutters, are there pictures of this?

[Allen]

There are no pictures, but there is testimony to the fact that there were.

[RayS]

There are no pictures, but there is testimony to the fact that there were.

I accept your statement. But some others may want a citation from a book.

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 228:

What she is explaining here takes place prior to her washing the windows.

Q. Then you say you went in the dining-room and living-room and left down the windows?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do to them exactly?
A. Well, the windows was up, and I left down the windows.

Q. Shut them up?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you shut the windows in both rooms?
A. Yes, sir; there was a window up in both rooms.

Q. Were the curtains up or down in the rooms?
A. There was no curtains there.

Q. Were the shutters closed or open?
A. They was open at the bottom, I remember.

Q. Did you change their position at the time you shut the windows--the position of the shutters?
A. No, sir; I don't think I did.

Q. Up to the time you shut the windows on the outside in those two rooms had you in any way closed the shutters of the dining-room and the sitting-room?
A. No, sir; I don't think I did.[/i]


Here she is describing what she did as she washed the windows.

page 230:

Q. How many windows on the front of the house, of the parlor windows, did you wash?
A. Two.

Q. That is all there were?
A. There is three windows in the parlor, but there are two in the front.

Q. Had you been into the parlor to do anything that morning?
A. No, sir.

Q. Were the blinds of the parlor open or closed?
A. Closed.

Q.To wash them of course you had to open the blinds?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were the shutters in the parlor opened or closed?
A. There was curtains for the inside of the parlor.

Q. And these curtains were how?
A. I don't remember how they were.

Q. You don't remember whether the curtains were up or down?
A. No, sir; I do not.


Trial testimony of Dr. Bowen page 319+:

Q. I understand you to say that when you first saw her, after you got to the upper landing, by looking over the bed, the room appeared dark?
A. Not very light.

Q. Do you recall that you made any observation about the shutters?
A. I don't remember about the shutters on the west side.

Q. That is the street side?
A. The street side; yes, sir. The inside shutters were partly closed on the north side.

Q. That is toward Mrs. Churchill's?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. They were partly closed?
A. The inside shutters, I think, were.

Q. And there is only one window there, I believe, on that side?
A. No, sir; I think not.

Q. And that window is a window which is near the end of the bureau as it then stood?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you speak of shutters, I suppose there is no doubt that these shutters were board shutters. They were not shutters like these in the court room, made of blinds, but they were board shutters?
A. Board shutters; yes, sir.

Q. The inquiry is made upon the other side as to what you said about the shutters on the west side of the room, the street side of the room?
A. I don't know, I don't remember about that.

Q. Your answer was in reference to the south window or the window which is towards Mrs. Churchill's and the window at the end of the bureau is that the shutters of that window were partly closed?
A. Yes, sir--- the north window instead of the south.

Q. Yes, the north window, thank you. Are you able to recall now whether there is a shutter in the top part or lower part that was open?
A. I think they were both thrown together loosely, shutters that fold the same as these do, only they were made of board, solid.

Q. Was there an upper and under shutter?
A. Yes, sir.


I am glad that I went back and read this actually. Because I was thinking there were only blinds across the bottom half of the window. While actually they were dividing shutters, or upper and under shutters. The upper part could be open while the bottom closed... etc. Going back over this answered a lot of my own questions as well.