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.
If the person who carried it away also had blood spatter on his clothes and shoes, that would mean Lizzie didn't do it. And that is what this discussion is all about.
Since Lizzie had no bloody clothes, stockings, shoes, or hatchet then it follows as the night the day that Lizzie didn't do it.
Since Arnold Brown published his solution, no one else has come up with a better solution, or any solution. As far as I know.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
Okay- you need short sentences? Andrew started locking his bedroom. Nobody knows who desired this. Lizzie added on her little latch hook. I did not say the location of Abby's spare odds and ends had anything to do with the murder- only that Lizzie and Emma used their rooms and that front guestroom as their parlor and territory. By locking that door on both sides, clearly it was impossible for Abby to walk on the second floor of her home freely. Lizzie did not have to add that latch hook. It shows a certain defiance. She also always kept her door locked and said so. This is not a normal situation in a home. This all says something very clear about family relations and screams a lack of concern or kindness for Abby and her infirmities of age and size. If you ever climbed up those front or rear steps you'd get it. They are perilous.We keep the lights on all the time to prevent accidents.
How do you KNOW Lizzie had no bloody clothes, shoes, stockings or hatchet? Were you there watching her every minute? Was anyone? Old O.J. managed to explain away his shoes, gloves and cut on his hand. It does not follow that just because nobody could FIND any sign when they asked for her clothing many many hours later, she could not have done it. How do you know the clothing she gave the police was actually the clothing she had on that morning? If you have power point, I'll send you a program I presented at the University of Rhode Island on various descriptions of what people observed her wearing that day- and all the discrepancies in their observations.
And I doubt if Lizzie came up or down from wherever she is, heaven or hell- and told you the solution, you would probably tell her Brown's version was the only one. I hope this was short enough for you.
Does anybody have any ideas on who the intruder might have been if Lizzie didn't do it? I know he had alot of enemies, but are any of them dumb enough to do this?
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
snokkums @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:16 pm wrote:Does anybody have any ideas on who the intruder might have been if Lizzie didn't do it? I know he had alot of enemies, but are any of them dumb enough to do this?
Other than a possible killer that Uncle John may have brought with him, Snokks, I can't imagine any other person with the desire to kill Andrew and Abby other than Lizzie and/or Emma. I just can't imagine Bridget even knowing anything about the killings ahead of time. Possible but I doubt it. If Bridget was unhappy with working for the Bordens she could have left. Why should she put a rope around her own neck by commiting murder?
I think it was Lizzie or a killer she cooperated with. I still cling to an inside job given all the facts we know so far.
-1bigsteve (o:
"All of your tomorrows begin today. Move it!" -Susan Hayward 1973
You know, we really don't know for sure that Andrew had a lot of enemies - do we? We have a somewhat vague speculative statement by Lizzie - "I think father must have an enemy, for we were all sick" but that applied to poison.
John Morse, questioned on that point, said “I can't see who could do this; do not know that he has an enemy in the world.” Replying again to the question “Have you seen, or have you heard Bridget or Lizzie say that they had seen anyone around who they suspected’?" Morse said that he had not. (Both of these answers appear in the Witness Statements.)
Alice Russell mentions an enemy, but that remark again was merely a recounting of something Lizzie said.
Emma stated that she knew of no enemies of Abby Borden. (Trial, 2, pg. 1562.)
The Evening Standard carried a comment attributed to Lizzie to the effect that she was unaware that her father had any enemy. The gumshoe Hanscom hunted an enemy. Andrew Jennings remembered only one person who'd had a serious difference with the Mr. Borden - and it was not of such a nature as might provoke a murder. (Paraphrased, NBES, pg 46.)
I staid the night for shelter at a farm behind the mountains, with a mother and son - two "old-believers." They did all the talking...
- Robert Frost
Good point , Doug. I guess we sort of lump Andrew into the Ebenezer Scrooge catagory from seeing the 1975 Montgomery film, and also going along with the legend that may not be entirely factual- that he was a miserable old skinflint with no humor and little mercy for his associates. Funny how things get magnified over time and repeated so often that after a while people just assume they are true. I find this very true in Titanic lore, which has been my #1 obsession for 30 years. The lines between myth and fact start to blur- plus it makes a better story to make Andrew unlikeable and hated by his peers. Some might even say- well. he deserved what he got!
Lizzie mentions seeing someone lurking one night when she was coming home, and of course the guy who had the argument about renting a property from Andrew, but actually businessmen could sure disagree without killing each other. I think the way to really get Andrew's goat would be to outfox him in a real estate deal or something of that nature. Maybe beat him to the punch in buying that Birch property! That would be a proper revenge.
That I think was the language someone did use (either prosecution or defense) that while Andrew Borden might have had "petty business disagreements" at times, that was about the extent of it. No one of his business circle was known to hate him with such passion as to inspire bloodlust.
Exactly! The one real way to get at the old bird - sock him square in the wallet, so that he bleeds green rather than red. Even Hiram Harrington would have agreed with that I think, and perhaps secretly licked his lips, relishing the thought!
I staid the night for shelter at a farm behind the mountains, with a mother and son - two "old-believers." They did all the talking...
- Robert Frost
snokkums @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm wrote:Does anybody have any ideas on who the intruder might have been if Lizzie didn't do it? I know he had alot of enemies, but are any of them dumb enough to do this?
I am not a die-hard fan who is obsessed with this case.
I believe that Arnold Brown's solution works best (no surprise here?).
Previously explained in "Proof ... 1 & 2". It would have to be someone that Lizzie would shield (w/o understanding the consequences of a murder trial and eventual shunning), and, one who the ruling class would go along with (no great glory in hanging a crazy person).
BUT, if anyone should ever publish a book that is acceptable to the public libraries, I would read it and reconsider. In 15 years no one has done so.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
I think Jennings believed in Lizzie so he must have thought someone else did it. Also, he knew Andrew pretty well, so he probably had an idea of who he thought it might be.
See his notes in the Hip-bath Collection:
An excerpt:
"m. Brigham Mr.--told Phillips that one Follett, 25 Calender St. Prov. R.I. told him that Mr. Borden had nephews in Providence--one of them resembles Dr. Handy's description and is capable of committing such a crime, the other nephew was killed in a road house 2 or 3 years ago.
n. Bowen Thueze--woman from out Rehoboth way told an incredible story about a man named Jim Collins.
....
p. Clarkson Alfred--exam(?) told me about Joe Carpenter."
______
Then there are some interesting people in the Suspect List at the website.
Also, the police kept running out of town to chase leads but we don't necessarily know what they were.
Carpenter is a decent suspect.
Kat @ Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:47 am wrote:I think Jennings believed in Lizzie so he must have thought someone else did it. Also, he knew Andrew pretty well, so he probably had an idea of who he thought it might be.
See his notes in the Hip-bath Collection:
From what I know, a defendant MUST tell the truth to his lawyer. Or the lawyer would be surprised and embarrassed when the truth pops out in the trial. HENCE Jennings must have known the Whole Truth, and referenced it in the trial. "The actions of a madman..."
Those who have been involved in a criminal trial can speak.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
I think a client SHOULD and are supposed to tell their lawyer the truth, but I don't believe a killer who's claiming to be innocent is gonna fess up to anyone, including his/her lawyer....you'd want your lawyer to believe in you 100% How could anyone (even a lawyer) sleep at night knowing he's defending someone guilty of such a horrific thing? I think in that case the client would lie, lie, lie....IMHO
shakiboo @ Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:14 am wrote:I think a client SHOULD and are supposed to tell their lawyer the truth, but I don't believe a killer who's claiming to be innocent is gonna fess up to anyone, including his/her lawyer....you'd want your lawyer to believe in you 100% How could anyone (even a lawyer) sleep at night knowing he's defending someone guilty of such a horrific thing? I think in that case the client would lie, lie, lie....IMHO
I totally agree. I think a guilty party would not necessarily admit even to their lawyer they were indeed guilty of the crime they are charged with committing.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Are either of you lawyers or have such an experience?
I read about Clarence Darrow. He fought for his innocent clients with every ounce of his strength. But if they were guilty, he made a deal.
I suspect other lawyers do the same.
Recall how Johnny Cochran first avoided becoming the lawyer to OJ (so they say) until he did his own investigation. Cochran had been DA #3 back in the 1980s? to reorganize the department so an ADA would immediately go out to any incident where this was needed.
Stephen Singular's book "Legacy of Deception" tells about his investigation that occurred at the same time.
No lawyer wants an embarrassing loss if he can help it. As for their motive, they do it for the money, all of them. If you were a car mechanic you wouldn't ask what your customer does for a living?
The series "Justice" is now on Monday nights on Fox TV. Its very good.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
Nope, no lawyer here, but a lier is a lier is a lier, I'd lay odd's that plenty of lawyers have been duped by their clients.......embarrassing yes, but it's been done non-the-less. If you've comitted a murder, embarrassing your lawyer isn't gonna even factor in, self preservation will win out. Especially if there's very little evidence and you have a good chance of getting away with it anyway.
I don't know if this came from a TV show (like "Justice"?), but they said an experienced lawyer knows or feels when his client isn't telling the whole truth. Can jury also pick this up?
This is a repeated story in the "Perry Mason" stories, and also featured in the classic "Maltese Falcon" novel. "We knew you weren't telling the truth, but the money you paid made up for it."
The Perry Mason series makes the point that the client as well as the others will be investigated by the peerless Paul Drake outfit.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
Even if a lawyer knew his client was guilty, he would still make sure his client got the breaks. you can read about this in true crime books. There's always some deal to be made.
David Greenglass tells about this in "The Brother" by Sam Roberts.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
I think Lizzie could fool Jennings in a heartbeat.
There were still gentlemen back then.
Jennings didn't know Lizzie that well, but he said he knew Emma. Lizzie probably got off by the jury vote for the same reason Jennings believed in her.
That was real life- not Perry Mason.
Also, it was 1893, not Perry Mason.
I'm with shaiboo & Missy on this one.
The murders were committed in a very deliberate and precise manner. The passion and rage apparent in their commission seems absent before, between, and after the individual acts. The murderer exhibited remarkable self-control, much as Lizzie did, according to investigators.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Kat @ Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:40 pm wrote:I think Lizzie could fool Jennings in a heartbeat.
There were still gentlemen back then.
Jennings didn't know Lizzie that well, but he said he knew Emma. Lizzie probably got off by the jury vote for the same reason Jennings believed in her.
That was real life- not Perry Mason.
Also, it was 1893, not Perry Mason.
I'm with shaiboo & Missy on this one.
All you've done is to express an emotion or desire in looking at this a certain way.
As someone has often said, "do you have documentary proof?"
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
Yooper @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:53 am wrote:The murders were committed in a very deliberate and precise manner. The passion and rage apparent in their commission seems absent before, between, and after the individual acts. The murderer exhibited remarkable self-control, much as Lizzie did, according to investigators.
The nineteen whacks on Abby and the eleven on Andy do NOT show "a very deliberate and precise manner". In fact based on other True Crimes. A professional would use only a few; he would know what was needed.
This was the anger and rage of a madman. Andrew Jennings said so.
As in 1892, this argues for Lizzie's innocence today.
It was Farmer William in the Bedroom with the Hatchet.
