If Lizzie didn't do it?

[snokkums]

If Lizzie didn't do it, who do you think did it? Does anyone think that she was innocent? And I have always wandered if there was a big debate over it when the trial was going on. You know, like with the OJ Simpson trial was going on, everyone was talking about and everyone had an opinion of if he did it or didn't.

[RayS]

If Lizzie didn't do it, who do you think did it? Does anyone think that she was innocent? And I have always wandered if there was a big debate over it when the trial was going on. You know, like with the OJ Simpson trial was going on, everyone was talking about and everyone had an opinion of if he did it or didn't.

I believe that the murders were done by an intruder, not anyone who had spent the night in that house. Because of the lack of physical evidence against Lizzie (or Bridget). Emma and Uncle John had perfect alibis.

Arnold Brown spent two years researching this, and his solution works. It was a relative of Andy whose identity was kept secret by Lizzie etc. Lizzie was innocent of committing the murders; "family honor" keeps secrets today.

The books do say there was a split among people as to guilt or innocence in that time. Frank Spiering's book is good for many background details; just don't believe "Emma did it". I think David Kent's book also touches on the arguments over this case.

Most white folks think OJ did it and got away with it; most black folks disagree. At first I sort of believed he did it, but after the facts started to leak out in August 1994 I came to the factual conclusion that he was innocent. The limo driver picked him up at 11pm and drove him to the airport: he could not have personally committed the crime. The limo driver arrived just after 10:20pm and parked outside; he did not see anyone or any car leave the compound while he was parked there.

You can only wonder at the propaganda campaign in the corporate media. Just remember that Jayson Williams killed his driver in front of witnesses, and has walked away (so far). How's that for Jersey Justice?

Could it be that the corporate aristocracy approve of an employer who shoots and kills an employee?

I'll be you raised this question just to start a controversy?

[bobarth]

I think she is innocent, IMHO I think maybe one of his business associates or more likely one of the owners of some house he repossessed. Or just someone who he had done wrong. Although Harry's post on wills being wrote on round cylinder type paper got me thinking, perhaps it was a will that was burned. So opinion can change at any time....

From what I have read and so much of that which was written contains errors. I think the case divided households and it seems like I read where there were more divorces during that time period than normal. So it does sound like that there were some very heated arguments over her guilt or innocence.

[1bigsteve]

I believe Lizzie either did the killing herself or at least helped the killer. She tried to get Bridget out of the house, came up with the note and changed her own alibi several times. Lizzie knew a lot more than she was letting on about. No doubt Bridget put two and two together and realized that Lizzie must have done it. Her leaving that day was to get away from Lizzzie lest she be next. That is my view anyway.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

I have a few pressing questions yet to find an answer.

1. If Andrew was the target, why did the killer come to the house so early- at 9:15 or thereabout when Mr. Borden was habitually at his barber, post office, bank, business rounds?

2. Why would anyone come to murder someone in bright daylight on a busy street with people at home? In those days you could count on a woman usually being at home at that time of day, or a servant- and in this case possibly 2 daughters!

3. How did the murderer know Emma would be away, Lizzie would have chosen the moment of the killer's entry into the kitchen to be out of sight, Uncle John would be on the way to Weybosset Street and the maid would be on the North side of the house. Granted, a killer might see Bridget outside.

4. Why did nobody come forward to claim the $500 reward for writing, sending , delivering that famous note? When a mill worker made $6 a week, that was a whopping big chunk of money.

5. If the killer had come to get Andrew- why was Abby murdered? Why was Lizzie not also killed-or Bridget if the killer was afraid of discovery?

6. Why did the killer hang around the house when clearly Andrew was not there and he/she had already killed Abby? Surely any maniac would flee if things had gone that wrong.

7. How did the killer get out the door and escape without being seen by Lizzie, Addie Cheetam, or any one of dozens of people surrounding that house, on the street, across the street or next door, backyard, etc. about 11-11:15 a.m.?

8. How did the killer know the layout of rooms, locks, and stairs in that house? If he had been a business associate or irate renter, he would not have seen the whole house, probably just the parlor, front hall or sitting room.

All of these questions, I am sure "Todd Lunday" posed in one form or another in that revealing little booklet . And of course, I pose them in light of not having any connection to Brown's book and theories.

[1bigsteve]

These are all excellent questions, Shelley, and the only answers I can come up with indicate to me that it was an inside job. Either Lizzie did it or she worked with the killer. I just can't see a killer getting in and killing two people with out being discovered, especially after hiding in a cubby hole for two + hours.

My big questions are how did Lizzie keep the blood off herself (provided she used the hatchet) and where did she hide the hatchet. Hmmm...

-1bigsteve (o:

[Angel]

Internal family tensions (for whatever reason- finances, incest, unstable personalities, etc. etc. etc.) caused some kind of crisis. Emma may have left to get away because she couldn't take it. John Morse could have been called in to help, whether it was to send a volatile Lizzie away or whatever. Lizzie had been spending time obsessing on her very limited possibilities to take care of the increasingly intolerable situation-- reading up on and exploring poisons, etc. Then, either something Lizzie heard while John was visiting with Andrew, and/or a last straw with Abby that morning caused her to lose control and whack away at Abby in a frenzy. Afterwards, her plans to get out of the house were thwarted when Andrew came home early. She now knew she couldn't get away with murdering Abby without shutting up her father, so she had to do the same with Andrew. She had gone past the point of no return. The axe was now on Crowe's roof, so she got the ice axe, put on Andrew's coat and finished him off. She had little time to construct a story, so that's why it was so feeble. But she was lucky enough to get away with it

[Shelley]

Hatchet killings I would imagine could be classified as killings of passion-not premeditation. It would be hard to imagine a person hellbent on killing Mr. Borden, to decide upon a hatchet as the weapon of choice to do away with an enemy. It was summer, men wore a short sack coat or frock coat in the morning. Where would he conceal such a bulky thing on his person? It would have to be in some sort of container, bag, valise. None of that makes much common sense. Even if Bridget were seen outside the house, how did the killer know the side screen door would be unlocked? He was sure leaving a lot to luck. Or perhaps the idea was to find a weapon in the house to use-and who could plan on finding a nice sharp hatchet ready to use? It's all ridiculous to think any killer would think this way, of course, and it is pretty safe to say burglary was no motive.

Picture a heated encounter (if Andrew had been home)-then the killer says "Hold that thought while I go find a weapon". Then the killer either reaches into his bag, nips down to the cellar for a good snoop, tells Lizzie and Bridget to look the other way , then works himself into an on-the-spot rage, and decides to mince Abby up too just for the fun of it, both victims cooperating fully and putting up no defense, then waltzes out the door, and makes a clean getaway. I am pretty sure the police (who often get such short shrift) also mentally went down this same path and realized the scenario of a malcontent walking in off the street did not make much sense either. Yes, we are on the same page-this smacks of an inside job-or at the very least , inside cooperation. Still, no hired killer would work under such preposterous circumstances, deal out so many blows with such a weapon, then take such a chance on getting away unseen with weapon and bloody clothing.

Want to bump Andrew off? Get him in a dark alley one evening- with a small Deringer, one clean shot to the head-tiny hole, not much noise-and a quick getaway. And for heaven's sakes- why do Abby in also, then hang around knitting a sweater waiting for Andrew to come home so the killer could repeat the whole thing again? I imagine the police were wringing their hands in despair at the way the whole affair ended.

[1bigsteve]

Makes good sense, Shelley. A hatchet could have been concealed between the chest and upper arm, inside the coat but getting it out would have been a pain. He would almost have to wrap it up after the killings to keep blood off himself. Of course he could have carried it in a bag, like a doctor's bag. He would still need a way of keeping the blood off himself during the killing. One drop of blood in his hair or on his clothes would have gain him some unwanted attention unless he had some private means of getting home like a carriage. A large knife would have been a smarter weapon. A gun would have made too much noise. Personally I would have snapped their necks.

Getting Andrew alone in a dark alley would have been a good idea but I doubt Andrew went out much at night. Killing Andrew in the day time would have created some unwanted eye witnesses. Killing Andrew in his house would have been safer for the killer. The fact that both Abby and Andrew were killed leads me to believe that:

A. Both Abby and Andrew were targets, or,

B. Abby had to be killed so she wouldn't be around later to upset the killing of Andrew.

So, who would want to kill both Abby and Andrew? Most likely Lizzie.
So, who would be brave enough to hang around in that house for two hours to kill Andrew? Most likely Lizzie.

No matter how I cut the Pumpkin pie it always comes back to Lizzie. The fact that there were no signs of a struggle leads me to believe that the killer raised no alarms in the minds of the victims. They had their guards down.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Angel]

The idea of a hired killer choosing an axe to do the deed is preposterous. A professional killer would choose something like a knife because it would be easily concealed and not make any noise, like a gun in broad daylight. And if he was hired to cold bloodedly kill someone he would not chop up the victim in a frenzy. A few hits would do it to make sure the person was dead, but he wouldn't feel it was necessary to mince him like an onion.
Another thing-- if Andrew was involved in an argument with, say, Billy Borden, he would not then lie down in a vulnerable position to take a nap. There were absolutely no signs of a struggle or any attempts by Andrew to protect himself. That meant he was feeling totally secure in his home enough to lie down and go to sleep, without any fear of something unknown attacking him. He was not the kind of man that would leave himself open to attack if he had any inkling something foul was afoot.
If Billy had somehow gained entry into the house and gone into a frenzy (although how Abby could ignite this seems ridiculous) he would have continued his rampage like most mass murderers and gone after everyone in the house. I'm sure if he was nuts enough to hate Abby, his hatred would know no bounds when it would come to a legitimate, accepted daughter like Lizzie. Bridget would be next. He would not then sit there for an hour and a half perusing the Ladies Home Journal until Andrew came home.

[Shelley]

Driving around Fall River today one tends to forget that in 1892 there were still isolated pockets all over town and the outskirts of town- orchards, small farms, heavily wooded sections, etc. Andrew also went over to Swansea -so there could easily have been occasions where he might have been vulnerable to an enemy who had decided to kill Andrew in a secluded place.

Even in the luckiest of cases, where the killer gained entry- he could never count on Andrew dozing on the sofa and able to be slaughtered so docilely and unaware. Imagine a scenario where the killer confronts Andrew in the sitting room, Bridget and Lizzie both in the house-and Andrew not asleep? Even an old guy would have put up some sort of struggle which would have brought down the roof. To have the 100% pure luck of weapon, entry, concealment, unwitnessed double homicides with no struggle with nearly 1 1/2 hours between, and clean getaway is really stretching the limits of feasibility. Yes, we are cutting the same pumpkin pie

[RayS]

The lack of bloody clothes, socks, and shoes says Lizzie didn't do it.
Any arguments about shielding or changing reflects the mistake of coming to a conclusion and then picking the facts to support that conclusion.

Why not weigh all the facts and then come to a conclusion?
Please read or re-read Arnold Brown's book for his 2-year study of this case.

[snokkums]

I have a few pressing questions yet to find an answer.

1. If Andrew was the target, why did the killer come to the house so early- at 9:15 or thereabout when Mr. Borden was habitually at his barber, post office, bank, business rounds?

2. Why would anyone come to murder someone in bright daylight on a busy street with people at home? In those days you could count on a woman usually being at home at that time of day, or a servant- and in this case possibly 2 daughters!

3. How did the murderer know Emma would be away, Lizzie would have chosen the moment of the killer's entry into the kitchen to be out of sight, Uncle John would be on the way to Weybosset Street and the maid would be on the North side of the house. Granted, a killer might see Bridget outside.

4. Why did nobody come forward to claim the $500 reward for writing, sending , delivering that famous note? When a mill worker made $6 a week, that was a whopping big chunk of money.

5. If the killer had come to get Andrew- why was Abby murdered? Why was Lizzie not also killed-or Bridget if the killer was afraid of discovery?

6. Why did the killer hang around the house when clearly Andrew was not there and he/she had already killed Abby? Surely any maniac would flee if things had gone that wrong.

7. How did the killer get out the door and escape without being seen by Lizzie, Addie Cheetam, or any one of dozens of people surrounding that house, on the street, across the street or next door, backyard, etc. about 11-11:15 a.m.?

8. How did the killer know the layout of rooms, locks, and stairs in that house? If he had been a business associate or irate renter, he would not have seen the whole house, probably just the parlor, front hall or sitting room.

All of these questions, I am sure "Todd Lunday" posed in one form or another in that revealing little booklet . And of course, I pose them in light of not having any connection to Brown's book and theories.

Maybe both were the target, and whomever wanted them dead, maybe figured to get abby out of the way first. Or maybe the killer didn't know that Andrew was gone, and Abby was just in the way.Maybe Lizzie was really in the barn of the first murder(Abby) and she didint know that she was dead. And she might really have been in the back yard eating pears when her father was killed. As for knowing the layout of the house, maybe the person had been in the house before. Or it could have been an inside job.

[Allen]

This idea may be a bit far fetched but I will pose it just to see how viable you all think it may be. If Lizzie didn't do it, though I truly believe she did, then the person who did do it would still have to have some knowledge of the house and grounds. How else would they have gotten around so completely undetected. What if the daylight robbery, and the subsequent break in to the barn, were dry runs for the murders in a sense? Could the person have been scouting the premises for hiding places, testing how easily one could get in without being seen, etc? Had the person been watching the house for the comings and goings of the family?

[1bigsteve]

I think your idea is a possibility, Allen, but I highly doubt that would have happened. I have tried to put myself in the shoes of the killer and decide how I would gain entry and I still don't know how I would do it. Going in twice would not ring well with me. I think there were too many obstacles for me to over come. For all I know Lizzie could have shot me dead. Being that it was broad daylight means that everyone was up and at least one person would have seen or heard me enter. Going in twice would have doubled my already extreamly high risk.

Like Ellen said, a hatchet would not have been a professional killers number one choice for a weapon mainly because of the blood splatter. Swinging the hachet over his head would have gotten blood all over his hair and clothes. The same would have happened to Lizzie. But Lizzie could have made a cover for her hair and clothes and then burned them in the stove.

No matter what path I go down I still find Lizzie at the end.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Robert Harry]

It seems to me that four things have to be accounted for in this case: motive, opportunity, intimate knowledge of the household, and the desire to do away with BOTH Andrew and Abby. Im my opinion, only Lizzie (that day) had all four. If Andrew had run afoul of some merchant or laborer, I can't imagine how that person would have wanted to kill Abby, too, or how he/she could have "counted" on the times of opportunity without knowing who was expected to be out, etc. In my opinion, this excludes Emma (though she might have planned things with Lizzie in advance), because only Lizzie and Bridget were home that day, and I cannot buy the supposition that Bridget had adequate motive to kill both Andrew and Abby. Further, the possibility of an intruder calls for the existence of such fortuitous moments (not being seen by neighbors, etc.) that the only logical culprit is Lizzie.

[1bigsteve]

It seems to me that four things have to be accounted for in this case: motive, opportunity, intimate knowledge of the household, and the desire to do away with BOTH Andrew and Abby. Im my opinion, only Lizzie (that day) had all four. If Andrew had run afoul of some merchant or laborer, I can't imagine how that person would have wanted to kill Abby, too, or how he/she could have "counted" on the times of opportunity without knowing who was expected to be out, etc. In my opinion, this excludes Emma (though she might have planned things with Lizzie in advance), because only Lizzie and Bridget were home that day, and I cannot buy the supposition that Bridget had adequate motive to kill both Andrew and Abby. Further, the possibility of an intruder calls for the existence of such fortuitous moments (not being seen by neighbors, etc.) that the only logical culprit is Lizzie.

Well said, Robert.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

It seems to me that four things have to be accounted for in this case: motive, opportunity, intimate knowledge of the household, and the desire to do away with BOTH Andrew and Abby. Im my opinion, only Lizzie (that day) had all four. If Andrew had run afoul of some merchant or laborer, I can't imagine how that person would have wanted to kill Abby, too, or how he/she could have "counted" on the times of opportunity without knowing who was expected to be out, etc. In my opinion, this excludes Emma (though she might have planned things with Lizzie in advance), because only Lizzie and Bridget were home that day, and I cannot buy the supposition that Bridget had adequate motive to kill both Andrew and Abby. Further, the possibility of an intruder calls for the existence of such fortuitous moments (not being seen by neighbors, etc.) that the only logical culprit is Lizzie.

I absolutely agree. This was not a random event. The murderer had to kill both Abby and Andrew in a manner which exhibited intense hatred, and also had the self-control to avoid killing Bridget and Lizzie. That's a lot of passion to hold in check for any length of time while going undetected.

The problem still exists as to how anyone would know for certain that they would have the opportunity to kill Andrew after having killed Abby. Andrew's murder was a crime of opportunity. Abby's murder is the key to this, it clearly happened first. Why kill Abby and avoid Lizzie and Bridget while waiting for Andrew?

[Yooper]

The lack of bloody clothes, socks, and shoes says Lizzie didn't do it.
Any arguments about shielding or changing reflects the mistake of coming to a conclusion and then picking the facts to support that conclusion.

Why not weigh all the facts and then come to a conclusion?
Please read or re-read Arnold Brown's book for his 2-year study of this case.

Why do we assume that the murderer must have gotten blood on their clothing? Given the ferocity of the attacks, I think there was remarkably little blood spattered about.

Striking a pool of liquid with a relatively fine or narrow-edged object produces very little splash. Striking with a flat or blunt object produces a lot of splash. A wooden wedge and a liquid surface should prove this. Swinging a handled implement at arm's or elbow's length disperses liquid from the surface of the implement in a straight line, tangent to the arc of swing, and away from the user. Has anyone had occasion to shake the water from a paint brush after having washed it? Not by twirling the brush handle between the palms, but by snapping the brush at elbow's length to remove the bulk of the water. If so, how much water did you get on your clothing?

[Harry]

I agree with your post, Yooper. The amount of blood would not have had to be as great as some think. If the clothing was shielded or changed the amount becomes academic.

In the killing of Andrew it was said the blood spatter, to the extent that there was some, would have been mainly on the upper part of the attacker's clothes. Was not Lizzie's outfit more than one part, ie: a blouse and skirt? Could she have just changed the blouse? This would require far less time than changing the whole outfit.

[Yooper]

Good point, Harry, a blouse would be easier to dispose of (perhaps in the stove) than an entire dress. I think the sleeves of a blouse, especially the wrist area, would run the greatest risk of being spotted with blood. What is the probability that just a sleeve could have been worn? Did they use long rubber gloves back then for washing dishes?

[Allen]

I agree with your post, Yooper. The amount of blood would not have had to be as great as some think. If the clothing was shielded or changed the amount becomes academic.

In the killing of Andrew it was said the blood spatter, to the extent that there was some, would have been mainly on the upper part of the attacker's clothes. Was not Lizzie's outfit more than one part, ie: a blouse and skirt? Could she have just changed the blouse? This would require far less time than changing the whole outfit.

This does indeed make a lot of sense. It would be much faster to just change the blouse than it would the entire dress. This brings the dress pattern back into play for me. Could Lizzie have made another blouse that looked enough like the one that originally went with the dress that no one would even suspect a change?

[1bigsteve]

I agree with your post, Yooper. The amount of blood would not have had to be as great as some think. If the clothing was shielded or changed the amount becomes academic.

In the killing of Andrew it was said the blood spatter, to the extent that there was some, would have been mainly on the upper part of the attacker's clothes. Was not Lizzie's outfit more than one part, ie: a blouse and skirt? Could she have just changed the blouse? This would require far less time than changing the whole outfit.

This does indeed make a lot of sense. It would be much faster to just change the blouse than it would the entire dress. This brings the dress pattern back into play for me. Could Lizzie have made another blouse that looked enough like the one that originally went with the dress that no one would even suspect a change?

Could have been, Allen. Did Lizzie have enough experience to make a passable dupe? It is possible that she made a light weight full length "apron" that covered her entire length from head to toe. Since Abby was laying on the floor and Andrew was laying at about Lizzie's thigh height, I think it would be reasonable to assume that blood splatter would have hit Lizzie in the lower half of her body. Also, as the hatchet is raised in an arc over her head some blood drops would have dropped on her head and shoulder. I can't imagine as much blood as shown in the Montgomery movie (over-kill) but just one pea-sized drop would have sealed Lizzie's fate but yet she was totaly bloodless. There was blood on the wall so some of it would have hit Lizzie as well.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Harry]

Lizzie knew how to use the sewing machine. There is reference to her and Emma and even Abbie using it together.

I can't remember the exact date Emma left for Fairhaven but Lizzie would have had the guest room (with the sewing machine) all to herself until Uncle John's arrival on the 3rd. Plenty of time to throw something together. It needn't have been well made as it wasn't intended to be used again.

All speculation of course.

[doug65oh]

Emma herself said at trial (page 1541) that she had been absent from the house "Just two weeks" at the time of the murders. Is that the date reference you were thinking of Harry, or is there a more exact one you had in mind?

[Harry]

Thanks Doug. The exact date wasn't important and I was too lazy to check it out.

[RayS]

I have a few pressing questions yet to find an answer.

1. If Andrew was the target, why did the killer come to the house so early- at 9:15 or thereabout when Mr. Borden was habitually at his barber, post office, bank, business rounds?

2. Why would anyone come to murder someone in bright daylight on a busy street with people at home? In those days you could count on a woman usually being at home at that time of day, or a servant- and in this case possibly 2 daughters!

3. How did the murderer know Emma would be away, Lizzie would have chosen the moment of the killer's entry into the kitchen to be out of sight, Uncle John would be on the way to Weybosset Street and the maid would be on the North side of the house. Granted, a killer might see Bridget outside.

4. Why did nobody come forward to claim the $500 reward for writing, sending , delivering that famous note? When a mill worker made $6 a week, that was a whopping big chunk of money.

5. If the killer had come to get Andrew- why was Abby murdered? Why was Lizzie not also killed-or Bridget if the killer was afraid of discovery?

6. Why did the killer hang around the house when clearly Andrew was not there and he/she had already killed Abby? Surely any maniac would flee if things had gone that wrong.

7. How did the killer get out the door and escape without being seen by Lizzie, Addie Cheetam, or any one of dozens of people surrounding that house, on the street, across the street or next door, backyard, etc. about 11-11:15 a.m.?

8. How did the killer know the layout of rooms, locks, and stairs in that house? If he had been a business associate or irate renter, he would not have seen the whole house, probably just the parlor, front hall or sitting room.

All of these questions, I am sure "Todd Lunday" posed in one form or another in that revealing little booklet . And of course, I pose them in light of not having any connection to Brown's book and theories.

I beleive that Arnold Brown answered these questions in his book.
Why would this person arrive so sneakily and early in the AM? So the neighbors couldn't see him. Any man who resembled Andy would create gossip, then or now.
The arrangements for a Secret Visitor explain some ot the questions.

We all know it is easier to ask questions than to answer the, So I say you should read Brown's book, and others, and try to answer your own questions. I've already done this in "Proof for Brown's Theory", as best I can. Thank you for reading this.

[1bigsteve]

Lizzie knew how to use the sewing machine. There is reference to her and Emma and even Abbie using it together.

I can't remember the exact date Emma left for Fairhaven but Lizzie would have had the guest room (with the sewing machine) all to herself until Uncle John's arrival on the 3rd. Plenty of time to throw something together. It needn't have been well made as it wasn't intended to be used again.

All speculation of course.

Wasn't the sewing machine a "Singer" brand? And wasn't there a Singer Company on the upper floor of the Andrew Borden building down town? I seem to remember hearing about that years ago.

-1bigsteve (o:

[snokkums]

This idea may be a bit far fetched but I will pose it just to see how viable you all think it may be. If Lizzie didn't do it, though I truly believe she did, then the person who did do it would still have to have some knowledge of the house and grounds. How else would they have gotten around so completely undetected. What if the daylight robbery, and the subsequent break in to the barn, were dry runs for the murders in a sense? Could the person have been scouting the premises for hiding places, testing how easily one could get in without being seen, etc? Had the person been watching the house for the comings and goings of the family?

Even if the person(other than Lizzie and family) had some knowledge of the grounds and house, some one still could have noticed a person sneaking around trying to get in the house. Espeically since there was a maid that was working on the windows and could have let them in.And in that case, Lizzie and the maid would have probably been hacked to death too. Why leave the witnesses?

[Harry]

Wasn't the sewing machine a "Singer" brand? And wasn't there a Singer
Company on the upper floor of the Andrew Borden building down town? I seem to remember hearing about that years ago.

-1bigsteve (o:

The only place I could find that the Borden sewing machine was a Singer was in Lincoln's book. Page 179, paperback edition:

"Lizzie then remembered that Abby had said she was about to run up some new pillowslips on the sewing machine. But questioned, she admitted that she had not heard the sewing machine. (The old treadle-Singer made a racket; Bridget would have heard it, too.)"

If you look at a clear photo of the A. J. Borden building you can see the Singer sign in the window on the second floor. Maybe Andrew got a cut price on one.

Lizzie did take the sewing machine with her when she moved to Maplecroft. From the South Coast Times paper of Aug. 4, 1996, talking about the opening of the B&B:

"None of the original furnishings is in the house; after the murders, Lizzie (who was ultimately acquitted in a jury trial) put the family's possessions in storage in a waterfront warehouse, where all were destroyed when a hurricane tidal wave flooded the building. She had taken with her only her sewing machine and her writing desk and chair."

[1bigsteve]

So all of the Borden furnishings were destroyed. I have often wondered what Lizzie did with them after the trial.

Those old Singers did make a racket. I've seen some at local flea markets that were older than Lizzie's and my Mom had one that was foot powered probably made around 1900. She wore that thing out.

Thank you for the info, Harry. You are a walking encyclopedia on the Borden case. Thanks again.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

All good points above. The one thing that is the key issue for me is the weapon. One does not just wake up warm in one's bed in the morning and say "Today I think I will just take a hatchet to my Dad and stepmom. -" To have made a duplicate dress would really indicate extreme premeditation- and this frenzy killing seemed to me to be spontaneous and ignited by some stimulus which unleashed a volcano of pent-up rage.

And I agree, Harry, about the blood. All the docs and other medical folks who stay at the house tell me that there need not be quantities at the time of the attack, No arterial spurting when the heart stops. When we see the photos, we see a lot of blood long after the fact of the actual attack, when much time has elapsed for seepage. Allowing for about one second per blow, this was a fast hit and run. I think the emotional Victorian, highly-colored perception was such a crime ought to be gory and like a pig slaughter and the newspapers really play up on that drenched and reeking aspect- and it sells papers, but in actuality may not have been the fact.

[shakiboo]

Right from the get go as far as the questioning went there is (or seems to be a big mix up) Bridget says she let Andrew in finished her windows and went up stairs and that Andrew was in the large chair near the window and Lizzie was in the dining room ironing her hankerchiefs, 10 minutes later Lizzie was yelling up to her to come down that someone had killed her father. Lizzie says thatshe saw her father when he returned from the P.O. He sat down to read the paper (in the big chair?) and she went to the barn. If she did that and was gone only 7-8 minutes and came back in and found her father dead and called for Bridget then it does add up. What do you think????

[Shelley]

I think Lizzie's testimony of how long she was in the barn is all over the place- with her saying at one point she may have even been up there in the loft nearly a half hour, which of course is impossible. Given even there were some slow pocketwatches, and clocks, IF she ever went into the barn at all , she could not have been there any more than about 10-12 minutes.

Bridget also fudges on her time when Andrew arrives- giving 2 different times at various points in her statements, which might be believable. Going by all the other testimony by people who saw Andrew on the street, 10:45 would be about right, even given the discrepancies. Then he enters, goes into the diningroom to the window to looks at some papers, talks to Lizzie about things, including the note, goes upstairs, comes down, puts on his sweater, sits, and dozes off eventually on the sofa. All this should take about 15 minutes (and I have actually timed out all of this in the house). The only variable is how long did it take him to doze off- so 12-15 minutes is pretty close I think to the actual time it must have taken for all of this to happen, including Lizzie's exchanges with Bridget about the fabric sale.. Then Bridget's statement about the city hall clock chiming and the call upstairs coming somewhere between 11:05-11:10 would fit in with the other statements made about when the call came into the police station, Mrs. Churchill's testimony and recollections of others on the scene

Just as Lizzie "decided" later not to be on the stairs when her father came home, I believe she later saw an advantage to being in that barn as long as she could stretch it. I wish an expert team of interogators could have gotten her under the high powered lamps immediately and given her the third degree grilling right away, before she had had time to think.

[shakiboo]

the lack of blood would also not only benefit Lizzie, but also a stranger, they wouldn't be covered in gore either and less likely to be noticed. If a strange man did do it and wore a black jacket and pants blood wouldn't be visible unless really looked at closely. There was talk about a man dressed in a black jacket and pants wearing a black hat around town at the time acting very strange, I believe he walked with a limp, no one saw him around the house but there was one person who saw someone matching that discription. I need to check for that reference.

[1bigsteve]

I have often wondered if Andrew may have been sitting up-right when the first blow came. The vertical cut that sliced his eye may have been the first blow. The others probably came after he slumped over. It seems that the vertical cut would be awfully difficult to administer after Andrew slumped over unless the killer took a "side arm" swing. That is not very likely for a normal person. Most people would swing the hatchet up and down (over the shoulder) rather than side arm. However, if the killer slipped into the sitting room through the door closest to Andrew's head as Andrew laid down, the killer may have taken a quick side arm swing at Andrew, slicing through his eye.

If Andrew was sitting up-right at the time he was hit, Andrew must not have been alarmed by his/her presence. I doubt he would be sitting down if the killer was a business man or a stranger. If it was a business man, wouldn't Andrew have pulled up a chair for him to sit in so they could talk business? I feel Andrew would have done that. If it was a stranger, wouldn't Andrew have remained standing? When a stranger is in my house I always remain standing or pull up a chair for him to sit it. Evidently there were no chairs pulled up close to the black sofa. And, wouldn't it make more sense for Andrew to talk/meet someone in the front parlor rather than the sitting room?

Anyone got any ideas on this?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

"We all know it is easier to ask questions than to answer them, So I say you should read Brown's book, and others, and try to answer your own questions."I have read Brown's book and met Brown. And I have read just about every book out on the case over the past 15 years- even the crummy ones full of errors, and all of the source documents. When I posted my list of questions, Ray, I said at the end. these are posed without any regard for Brown's book, just to keep you from jumping in to argue. Look it up on the previous page. I dismiss Brown's book entirely as a good read,-nothing more- and a lot of undocumented hearsay we are asked to swallow whole and take his word for with blind faith. Come up with these secret documents and the midwife and a birth certificate and I might actually give it half a chance. So Ray, we disagree on everything- but I am entitled to my educated opinion just as we are all obliged to politely endure yours. I have no more to say on the topic.


I agree Big Steve, I would imagine Andrew interviewed business people in the parlor, and not in his cardigan sweater. He was clearly relaxing at home on his sofa in what we would now call our family room. Good point.

[snokkums]

All good points above. The one thing that is the key issue for me is the weapon. One does not just wake up warm in one's bed in the morning and say "Today I think I will just take a hatchet to my Dad and stepmom. -" To have made a duplicate dress would really indicate extreme premeditation- and this frenzy killing seemed to me to be spontaneous and ignited by some stimulus which unleashed a volcano of pent-up rage.

And I agree, Harry, about the blood. All the docs and other medical folks who stay at the house tell me that there need not be quantities at the time of the attack, No arterial spurting when the heart stops. When we see the photos, we see a lot of blood long after the fact of the actual attack, when much time has elapsed for seepage. Allowing for about one second per blow, this was a fast hit and run. I think the emotional Victorian, highly-colored perception was such a crime ought to be gory and like a pig slaughter and the newspapers really play up on that drenched and reeking aspect- and it sells papers, but in actuality may not have been the fact.

I think that you are right, a person just doesn't wake up one day and say I am going to kill someone. But Lizzie and Emma had alot of motive. They did not like their stepmom, Andrew was giving some land to Abbys sister and brother in law, and supposedly there was a new will being talked about. I am sure Lizzie had a way to get the job done and clean up.

[RayS]

A secret is something that is not given out to the public. If it is written down, it will eventually leak out. So a secret must never be written down, as if they want to leave a clue or solution to future generations.

Even if the secret birth certificate is ever revealed, there is no guarantee that the father's name would be filled in correctly. Asking for this suggests either a lack of thought (unlikely given your other statements), or a rhetorical question designed to stump others with a question that can never be answered.

The fact remains that ONLY Arnold Brown came up with a reasonable solution to the crime. An intruder (secret visitor) whose presence was kept secret by Lizzie, and the eventual agreement by the ruling class (the Mellen House gang). All those who claim "Lizzie dunnit" founder on the reef of the 'not guilty' verdict.

Suppose Abby did leave immediately after receiving that note, and returned around noon for dinner. How would this affect your theory?

[Shelley]

"Suppose Abby did leave immediately after receiving that note, and returned around noon for dinner. "Supposing is only speculating. If you can tell me how a 200 pound woman could walk down Second Street, bound for the market to get something for the noonnday meal, or go visit a sick friend. or just stroll for the fun of parading herself around in bonnet and shawl and have NOBODY see her, well, that would surely be something. Every tramp, wild-eyed man, carriage, and vomiting woman seems to be noticed that day. Second Street was not the dark of the Amazon- with livery stables, nosey neighbors and idling bystanders, I have every confidence somebody would have seen Abby on the street or in a shop. Where is the note- where is the writer of the note, who was sick, who delivered the note, and best of all, why did none of these people ever come forward in a murder case, or to claim the $500? And how very interesting that the moment the maid goes outside to wash windows Abby gets killed, and as soon as the maid goes upstairs, Andrew is dead within a few minutes. Curiously convenient for the one person left inside the house.

Affect MY theory? My theory is pretty simple. There was no note, Abby never made any attempt to leave the house on the day after she was so ill herself. She is found dead in an old cotton calico house dress upstairs. Her shawl and bonnet and going out clothing was not found in a place indicating she was going out. She was upstairs doing her domestic thing, made no apparent attempt to flee from her intruder, and was struck down, the first blow of necessity to the wound coming from the front. Other than Andrew, there might have been four people she would not have questioned being in the house uninvited- John Morse, Bridget, Emma-and Lizzie. Emma was gone, Bridget had the alibi of chatting up the Kelly maid and being seen washing windows, my jury is still out on John Morse who might have just squeaked by on the first murder but could not have done the second- and of course old Lizzie who had motive, opportunity, weapon. And of course the most obvious answer, -with the contents of her stomach indicating she was slaughtered not too long after she had eaten, and the state of the body and blood confirming that, she was not just merely dead- she was most sincerely dead before Andrew that morning. That's my story- and I 'm sticking to it until I see something better or new evidence turns up.

[shakiboo]

This is just speculation on my part, because it just doesn't make any sense to me for Lizzie to change her story over and over, she had to know they were writing down and keeping track of what was said.....so is it possible she was getting getting upset with being asked the same things over and over again, and just started trying to say what she thought they wanted her to say? In a "fine, don't want that one? how bout this one?" attitude. because if you take her first answer's they fit better. And she and Bridget aren't off by too much.

[shakiboo]

wow Shelley you should have been the prosecuting attorney!!!! I keep swinging back and forth between her being guilty and her being innocent! but your right on with that theory, it just had to have been her, but how? Where on earth is all the evidense, it was done (especially Andrew) in so short a time, how did she do it?

[Shelley]

The evidence- well, some of it was burnt in the stove Sunday morning- and the hatchet - well, it was either removed from the premises, or concealed in that slop jar or soaking pail of feminine hygiene towels until it could be disposed of. You can BET no man would have fished around in that mess.
And you are right, I think Lizzie was trying to give the answers people expected or would have sounded most innocent and believable under the circumstances-and also flavored by whom she was speaking with, friend, family or police. I have never deluded myself that Lizzie and Emma were nice little ladies. Anyone who would make Abby crawl up and down 2 sets of stairs just to get at her own clothes in the guestroom from her own room in my opinion- is not a kind soul. And I expect many people could mellow into sweet old ladies with a few million in the bank.

[Smudgeman]

A secret is something that is not given out to the public. If it is written down, it will eventually leak out. So a secret must never be written down, as if they want to leave a clue or solution to future generations.

Even if the secret birth certificate is ever revealed, there is no guarantee that the father's name would be filled in correctly. Asking for this suggests either a lack of thought (unlikely given your other statements), or a rhetorical question designed to stump others with a question that can never be answered.

The fact remains that ONLY Arnold Brown came up with a reasonable solution to the crime. An intruder (secret visitor) whose presence was kept secret by Lizzie, and the eventual agreement by the ruling class (the Mellen House gang). All those who claim "Lizzie dunnit" founder on the reef of the 'not guilty' verdict.

Suppose Abby did leave immediately after receiving that note, and returned around noon for dinner. How would this affect your theory?

Abby clearly never left the house, there was no note, and Arnold Brown's theory is NOT a fact. Everything points to Lizzie as Shelley has so elequantly stated.

[RayS]

This is just speculation on my part, because it just doesn't make any sense to me for Lizzie to change her story over and over, she had to know they were writing down and keeping track of what was said.....so is it possible she was getting getting upset with being asked the same things over and over again, and just started trying to say what she thought they wanted her to say? In a "fine, don't want that one? how bout this one?" attitude. because if you take her first answer's they fit better. And she and Bridget aren't off by too much.

I am not making this up. I've read fiction and non fiction that say an innocent person is more likely to change their story under questioning. A guilty person invented an alibi and sticks to it. Bridget's story does not match Lizzie, proof of a lack of collusion.
Arnold Brown says that Abby would not have dressed up to visit someone who was socially beneath her (or a relative?). Besides, Abby might have gone up to the guest room to do something before she left!
What she was wearing is not proof that she wasn't going to change!

[RayS]

The evidence- well, some of it was burnt in the stove Sunday morning- and the hatchet - well, it was either removed from the premises, or concealed in that slop jar or soaking pail of feminine hygiene towels until it could be disposed of. You can BET no man would have fished around in that mess.
And you are right, I think Lizzie was trying to give the answers people expected or would have sounded most innocent and believable under the circumstances-and also flavored by whom she was speaking with, friend, family or police. I have never deluded myself that Lizzie and Emma were nice little ladies. Anyone who would make Abby crawl up and down 2 sets of stairs just to get at her own clothes in the guestroom from her own room in my opinion- is not a kind soul. And I expect many people could mellow into sweet old ladies with a few million in the bank.

You have betrayed your prejudices and mind-set! "Lizzie dunnit".
Abby was NOT made to "crawl up and down 2 sets of stairs just to get at her own clothes". THAT is just your imagination! I'm surprised nobody caught you on this.
Abby had a dressing room about the size of Emma's room. There was a 2nd floor closet shared by Emma and Lizzie.

You are making another assumption about "fishing around". Police work is not for the squeamish. One detective who worked on the Ramsey case had previously searched "50 bags of garbage" to find a clue that solved a case. They may not talk about it, but police work is not a white-coat laboratory or desk job. Only armchair detectives can ASSUME what goes on in. What TV do you watch?

If the hatchet was "removed from the premises" aren't you really saying the murderer carried it off as he left the house? Arnold Brown would agree with you.

[RayS]

"Suppose Abby did leave immediately after receiving that note, and returned around noon for dinner. "Supposing is only speculating. If you can tell me how a 200 pound woman could walk down Second Street, bound for the market to get something for the noonnday meal, or go visit a sick friend. or just stroll for the fun of parading herself around in bonnet and shawl and have NOBODY see her, well, that would surely be something. Every tramp, wild-eyed man, carriage, and vomiting woman seems to be noticed that day. Second Street was not the dark of the Amazon- with livery stables, nosey neighbors and idling bystanders, I have every confidence somebody would have seen Abby on the street or in a shop. Where is the note- where is the writer of the note, who was sick, who delivered the note, and best of all, why did none of these people ever come forward in a murder case, or to claim the $500? And how very interesting that the moment the maid goes outside to wash windows Abby gets killed, and as soon as the maid goes upstairs, Andrew is dead within a few minutes. Curiously convenient for the one person left inside the house.

Affect MY theory? My theory is pretty simple. There was no note, Abby never made any attempt to leave the house on the day after she was so ill herself. She is found dead in an old cotton calico house dress upstairs. Her shawl and bonnet and going out clothing was not found in a place indicating she was going out. She was upstairs doing her domestic thing, made no apparent attempt to flee from her intruder, and was struck down, the first blow of necessity to the wound coming from the front. Other than Andrew, there might have been four people she would not have questioned being in the house uninvited- John Morse, Bridget, Emma-and Lizzie. Emma was gone, Bridget had the alibi of chatting up the Kelly maid and being seen washing windows, my jury is still out on John Morse who might have just squeaked by on the first murder but could not have done the second- and of course old Lizzie who had motive, opportunity, weapon. And of course the most obvious answer, -with the contents of her stomach indicating she was slaughtered not too long after she had eaten, and the state of the body and blood confirming that, she was not just merely dead- she was most sincerely dead before Andrew that morning. That's my story- and I 'm sticking to it until I see something better or new evidence turns up.

My short simple answers to paragraphs 1 & 2.

I never claimed that Abby walked out that morning. Note how Uncle John showed up in the back yard w/o being seen, and later that evening left the house w/o being seen. you are reading history backwards.

Your "Lizzie dunnit" prejudice fails to account for the lack of bloody clothes, socks, shoes, and the murder weapon. you have slso failed to account for the fact of Lizzie being seen about 11am by Lubinsky the ice cream vendor (he saw a lady, it wasn't Bridget). Arnold Brown explains the note and the secret of a writer who did not come forth.

The Proof is this: who do you remember walking down a busy street yesterday (assuming you live on a busy street like Second St. then).

[Shelley]

"Abby was NOT made to "crawl up and down 2 sets of stairs just to get at her own clothes". THAT is just your imagination! I'm surprised nobody caught you on this. "

I am surprised nobody has caught you out on the fact that you have obviously read so little about the case. Abby kept personal articles of apparel in the drawers of the bureau in the guestroom. therefore, if is wanted one of these items, and was in her own room, she had to go downstairs, walk through the kitchen and diningroom,(or sittingroom) and up the front steps to the guestroom to get at it- why?- because after the break-in the door was locked between her room and Lizzie's and Lizzie also added her own little latch hook on her side of the door. Her room was also locked on the front hall side with a key she retained. So, Abby could not simply walk through Lizzie's room to get to the guest room. Got it? I am well aware of the layout of that house, Abby's dressing room and the dressing closet of the two girls. You may recall that Abby also kept coats, shawls and bonnets in that sitting room closet which is under the stairs. I have furnished photographs of the hooks and the closet on the House thread, page 2.

Lizzie also did not wear socks. She gave the black tie oxfords to the police, and her black stockings, mentioning that they had been washed, and a petticoat with a pin dot of blood coming from inside out on the back, and a navy blue bengaline silk/cotton blend dress which was not an everyday around -the -house work dress.

You must have a short memory Ray- it was you who asked ME, and I quote, "Suppose Abby did leave immediately after receiving that note, and returned around noon for dinner. How would this affect your theory?" and so I responded at length and in detail.

As far as the hatchet- it was of necessity either concealed, destroyed utterly or carried away. An elementary deduction which requires little thought. It was either in the house, or not in the house. If it was no longer in the house, then it was taken out of the house. By whom? That is the question- and one which nobody here can say positively. Another possibility occurs, and that is one of the weapons found by the police in the house WAS actually the murder weapon, or, the Bordens were killed with something very like a hatchet which was cleaned and returned to its place in the house without being suspected as being the weapon. There. we've exhausted that topic.

"You are making another assumption about "fishing around". No, not an asumption. If you read the witness statements, you will see that an attempt to search Lizzie's room thoroughly right after the discovery of the bodies Thursday was put off by Lizzie who said she it would make her sick, and Dr. Bowen who echoed her delicate "state" at the moment -lying sedated on her fainting couch. I believe her minister was also with her. A real hole and corner search was done Saturday when the ladies were at the cemetery. The idea of not tearing through a young lady's personal drawers, undergarments, etc. is a Victorian sentiment, not a notion comparable to the Ramsey case or today's no-holds-barred forensic bulldogs. The topic of the blood spot on Lizzie's petticoat and the cause for its being there, namely a menstrual period, was one of great delicacy and handled with such decorum and reluctance by the men during the testimony. If you read that exchange, it will become abundantly clear. I can pull up the quotes if you like. If they were reluctant to force the issue of examining her room, and self-conscious of holding up a petticoat with menstrual blood (fleabite) on it yes, I am putting forth the possibility that there would be some reluctance to hauling through a soaking bucket of used sanitary napkins(towels). Bridget says she never saw that bucket down there before which is interesting. I do not know if anything was concealed in that pail or Lizzie's slop jar. She makes 2 trips to the cellar that night, and that slop jar appears, and she does something in the sink in the washroom for 2 minutes. (These actions are documented). It is only an option that something may have been concealed, and due to the nature of the contents, not searched.

Lubinsky saw a lady- not Bridget whom he apparently knew by sight- with no hat. That is all he said. Lizzie said she came in from the barn, put her hat down on the dining room table, then went in to find her father cut.

Who do I remember walking down a busy street yesterday? Well, I remember seeing three people who were my neighbors, and their dog, and one had her toddler with her. This is my neighborhood, I know the people, they know me, and I bet if I had gone into the shop, someone who knows me, or perhaps even does not know me, might recall me being there. Many of the shops Abby frequented for daily staples were on Second Street or very close by- she was not an alien to the neighborhood. You suggested this premise of what if...- not I.

John Morse was seen by the way- going into the gate, backyard, then coming back up to the side steps and entering after he picked up the pears. There were herds of people at the side gate, side door and in the street by that time.

What TV do I watch-? not much- mostly I read. Amazing what you can learn from books.

"I am not making this up. I've read fiction and non fiction that say an innocent person is more likely to change their story under questioning. A guilty person invented an alibi and sticks to it. "
I would love to see your sources, just the non-fiction ones- and statistics for that comment.

As far as my prejudice about Lizzie- well, if you can show me a real person who fits the bill better as far as motive, opportunity, weapon-, I'd be happy to entertain an alternative. I would go as far as maybe a possible accomplice-but not a hired professional killer- and that would be a stretch. Prejudiced-? Gee, Ray have you looked in a mirror lately- waving the Billy Borden Fan Club banner?

[Allen]

About the personal items and articles of clothing. I wonder exactly what it was that was kept there, and how often Abby would have need for it? Since I assume most of her clothing was probably hung in the little room off of her bedroom, what exactly was it that was in those drawers?

[RayS]

"Abby was NOT made to "crawl up and down 2 sets of stairs just to get at her own clothes". THAT is just your imagination! I'm surprised nobody caught you on this. "
Again, it was just your rhetoric about "crawling up and down". OK, I can overlook that. The bottom line is that Abby kept a bedroom for her dressing room, and also kept other things in the spare guest room. THAT does not show being oppressed in my opinion. Abby seemed to have more power and prestige than her step-daughters.

I am surprised nobody has caught you out on the fact that you have obviously read so little about the case. Abby kept personal articles of apparel in the drawers of the bureau in the guestroom. therefore, if is wanted one of these items, and was in her own room, she had to go downstairs, walk through the kitchen and diningroom,(or sittingroom) and up the front steps to the guestroom to get at it- why?- because after the break-in the door was locked between her room and Lizzie's and Lizzie also added her own little latch hook on her side of the door. Her room was also locked on the front hall side with a key she retained. So, Abby could not simply walk through Lizzie's room to get to the guest room. Got it? I am well aware of the layout of that house, Abby's dressing room and the dressing closet of the two girls. You may recall that Abby also kept coats, shawls and bonnets in that sitting room closet which is under the stairs. I have furnished photographs of the hooks and the closet on the House thread, page 2.

Those are minor details (use of guest room)that do nothing to solve or resolve the crime. Agree?
Was the locking of the connecting door Andy's idea, Abby's idea, or a joint decision? Would Lizzie or Emma alone have that power?
I wasn't there to witness WHEN the door was locked, this history comes from Emma or Lizzie, Abby and Andy were silent. Must anyone believe everything that was said? If so, why?
Thank you for your interest, but I don't believe your opinion convicts Lizzie of doing the murders. And the jury agreed with this.
I really appreciate discussing aspects of this case that are based on the facts, as I'm sure you are. But shorter msgs are easier to answer, for me.
I try not to get bogged down in irrelevant details. Please forgive me?