Am I right when guessing that the amount of time alloted for Lizzie to kill her father (from the time she sent Bridget upstairs to the time she called for her) is roughly about fifteen minutes, if that? Hopefully this will not be too much of a debate, but I have been asking myself for years how one person in a house with such limited lavoratory resources, could have washed every SPECK of blood off him/herself without at least leaving a LITTLE. It seems impossible Lizzie Borden could have done all this in such a small amount of time, give or take fifteen minutes. By all this, I mean the washing of blood from her person (hair, face, neck, arm, torso?)and concealing the weapon, readying herself for her performance of a lifetime.
Am I wrong about my assumption of the time frame? I have been studying different aspects of this case for years but have never really gotten past this.
15 minutes
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Tina-Kate
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:08 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South East Canada
-
1bigsteve
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:29 pm
- Real Name: evetS
- Location: California
It's quite possible that Lizzie, if she committed the killings, wore something over her dress, perhaps the paint-covered dress that she later burned in the stove, and a head covering of some sort. All she had to do is remove them after each killing then burn them after Andrew's death. No doubt she would have checked herself over in the mirror.
It's also possible that Lizzie worked with a killer, maybe someone brought in by Uncle Morse, but I don't think so.
We also have to note that exerting herself during the killings in a covering of some sort on a warmish day would have probably resulting in Lizzie sweating. Yet no one mentioned that Lizzie had been sweating or that her hair had been mussed up. Strange.
-1bigsteve
It's also possible that Lizzie worked with a killer, maybe someone brought in by Uncle Morse, but I don't think so.
We also have to note that exerting herself during the killings in a covering of some sort on a warmish day would have probably resulting in Lizzie sweating. Yet no one mentioned that Lizzie had been sweating or that her hair had been mussed up. Strange.
-1bigsteve
"All of your tomorrows begin today. Move it!" -Susan Hayward 1973
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
From Lizzie's estimate, she says she thinks she was in the barn for 20 minutes, so I think that may be very close to the amount of time she had after Andrew was whacked.
That was probably one of the main points of why she was acquitted - she had no blood on her. I don't think she killed Andrew. It would be impossible to clean up that good, tho she did have a lot of time after Abby, as Tina-Kate says.
If Lizzie had walked over to Andrew to see what was wrong, she would have gotten blood at least on the bottom of her dress and on her shoes. She says she didn't do that. But if she had, it would have been understandable. She could even have said she became hysterical and threw herself on Andrew and got all smeared with blood, and that might have been believed.
Yes, I agree that there was probably blood on the dress with "paint" on it that she burned. Even if she didn't do either killing, she still could have gotten blood on her dress by getting too close. But why would she even have that dress on if she didn't at least kill Abby? Maybe the killer wore the dress when killing Abby, then wore Andrew's coat when killing Andrew?
That was probably one of the main points of why she was acquitted - she had no blood on her. I don't think she killed Andrew. It would be impossible to clean up that good, tho she did have a lot of time after Abby, as Tina-Kate says.
If Lizzie had walked over to Andrew to see what was wrong, she would have gotten blood at least on the bottom of her dress and on her shoes. She says she didn't do that. But if she had, it would have been understandable. She could even have said she became hysterical and threw herself on Andrew and got all smeared with blood, and that might have been believed.
Yes, I agree that there was probably blood on the dress with "paint" on it that she burned. Even if she didn't do either killing, she still could have gotten blood on her dress by getting too close. But why would she even have that dress on if she didn't at least kill Abby? Maybe the killer wore the dress when killing Abby, then wore Andrew's coat when killing Andrew?
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
The cops wouldn't have known if any of Emma's clothes were missing or not, since she was away on her trip. Oh, I guess that doesn't matter since she came back on the murder evening. 
That is true - the killer could have worn anything and took it with him.
Abby kept a large cape in the dresser drawer of the guest room - her best cape. I can picture Lizzie saying, "Here, use this - she won't be needing it any longer, heh, heh, heh."
I think Andrew's Prince Albert coat is a clew. Could it have been placed under his head so his blood wouldn't run all over the carpet? Like, it was put there to lift his head a little?
Nah. I think the killer must have used it in some way and thought of the perfect way to dispose of it. Finding Andrew's blood on it would have been self-explanatory. I agree with the theory of the killer wearing it during the murder.
That big silk handkerchief that was shown in "Lizzie Borden Had an Axe" seems suspicious to me. It was really large - too huge, I think, to be used for dusting or wrapping on Abby's head. I think somehow it was used by the killer. Maybe to shield his face or something.
I wonder what he/she wore to whack Abby? He/she had to wait another hour and a half for Andrew. I don't think he could have sat around in his 'costume' all that time. Maybe that "paint" covered dress of Lizzie's?
That is true - the killer could have worn anything and took it with him.
Abby kept a large cape in the dresser drawer of the guest room - her best cape. I can picture Lizzie saying, "Here, use this - she won't be needing it any longer, heh, heh, heh."
I think Andrew's Prince Albert coat is a clew. Could it have been placed under his head so his blood wouldn't run all over the carpet? Like, it was put there to lift his head a little?
Nah. I think the killer must have used it in some way and thought of the perfect way to dispose of it. Finding Andrew's blood on it would have been self-explanatory. I agree with the theory of the killer wearing it during the murder.
That big silk handkerchief that was shown in "Lizzie Borden Had an Axe" seems suspicious to me. It was really large - too huge, I think, to be used for dusting or wrapping on Abby's head. I think somehow it was used by the killer. Maybe to shield his face or something.
I wonder what he/she wore to whack Abby? He/she had to wait another hour and a half for Andrew. I don't think he could have sat around in his 'costume' all that time. Maybe that "paint" covered dress of Lizzie's?
-
Lenchen
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Montgomery, Alabama
- Contact:
Where's the blood?
I just don't see how anyone could have gotten out of there without tracking blood behind them -- Lizzie OR anyone else -- that's what really gets me -- that, and the timing -- Lizzie stood right at that door just minutes after Andrew was murdered and yelled to Bridget to go get a doctor -- where were the blood tracks, smears, etc., on the floor? Even if William the half-brother exited through the cellar wearing a duster, he had to have had some blood on him -- it's almost like a ghost did this! I've been wondering about it only since 1975, when I was 11; guess no one will ever know -- but I WANT to know! :)
Also, Ellan Eagan said the man she saw was "foul-smelling," and that it was so bad, she never forgot that smell. OK, put him inside that hot house in August, and don't you think that odor, whatever it was, would have "left its calling card," so to speak?
Just a few thoughts - I'm new here but not new to the Lizzie mania at all!
Also, Ellan Eagan said the man she saw was "foul-smelling," and that it was so bad, she never forgot that smell. OK, put him inside that hot house in August, and don't you think that odor, whatever it was, would have "left its calling card," so to speak?
Just a few thoughts - I'm new here but not new to the Lizzie mania at all!
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
- Real Name:
Welcome to our little corner of the zoo, Lenchen. 
You've hit upon but a few of the most intriguing questions there - applicable to any potential suspect in the case.
You've hit upon but a few of the most intriguing questions there - applicable to any potential suspect in the case.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
- Robert Frost
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
Welcome, Lenchen! Looking at it from the opposite perspective, since there wasn't any blood tracked around, then maybe there wasn't enough blood to be tracked. This causes me to believe that there was remarkably little spatter, certainly less than we might expect. Carry this a step further, and the fact that no one noticed any blood on Lizzie does not excuse her as the perpetrator.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
A couple of people got blood on them that day.
(Lizzie might ask, "What day?")
Dr. Dolan on his pantaloons~ and, reportedly, Dr Foley on his shoes.
Dr. Dolan
Prelim
119
Q. Did you see Dr. Bowen have any blood upon his hands?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you get any blood upon your clothing?
A. No Sir. I beg your pardon, I did get two or three spots on my pantaloons; I think it was down stairs though.
Q. Before you came up there?
A. I think so; I would not be positive about that.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Proceedings, pg. 217
(Jenning's Notes)
d. Crowther John--Reporter on News got blood on his shoes while going around house, says Dr. Foley did too.
~~~~~~~~
And Trial,Defense Closing
1734
Then you will remember, what was very significant, there was no blood upon Miss Lizzie's hair. Now, it does not seem possible that she could have gone through that without getting blood upon her hair, and you know very well, as the doctors told you, as Doctor Cheever did, if you get blood in the hair it is almost impossible to get it out except by special treatment. You will bear in mind if she endeavored to get it out her hair would be wet, and these ladies noticed her when they bathed her face, and surely if her hair had been wet they would have known it, and you would have heard of it.
And:
1737
Had it been a blue dress, a spot of water would have been as significant as a drop of blood. She did not have one dress over the other. The dress maker would have perceived it on account of its tightness, and in the next place she did not have two on because such women as Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Holmes and Miss Russell, being round her as she was lying on the lounge, fanning her, and doing everything to comfort her, and the doctor attending her, with the blue dress two or three inches longer than any other dress she had, would have noticed the fact. It would have shown her shoes and stockings, but there was not a drop on them. Why, do you not all think with me of what a blessed providence it was that interfered with that girl, so that as she walked about that house, passing from the sitting room into the dining room and hall, she did not step on some of the blood and have it on her shoes? Anybody else, according to the theory of the government, could have stepped on that blood and have bloody shoes, but if Lizzie had walked there just the same as any other person innocently, and there had been so much as a pin head stain upon one of her shoes, it would have led her to the severest penalty on their theory.
(Lizzie might ask, "What day?")
Dr. Dolan on his pantaloons~ and, reportedly, Dr Foley on his shoes.
Dr. Dolan
Prelim
119
Q. Did you see Dr. Bowen have any blood upon his hands?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you get any blood upon your clothing?
A. No Sir. I beg your pardon, I did get two or three spots on my pantaloons; I think it was down stairs though.
Q. Before you came up there?
A. I think so; I would not be positive about that.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Proceedings, pg. 217
(Jenning's Notes)
d. Crowther John--Reporter on News got blood on his shoes while going around house, says Dr. Foley did too.
~~~~~~~~
And Trial,Defense Closing
1734
Then you will remember, what was very significant, there was no blood upon Miss Lizzie's hair. Now, it does not seem possible that she could have gone through that without getting blood upon her hair, and you know very well, as the doctors told you, as Doctor Cheever did, if you get blood in the hair it is almost impossible to get it out except by special treatment. You will bear in mind if she endeavored to get it out her hair would be wet, and these ladies noticed her when they bathed her face, and surely if her hair had been wet they would have known it, and you would have heard of it.
And:
1737
Had it been a blue dress, a spot of water would have been as significant as a drop of blood. She did not have one dress over the other. The dress maker would have perceived it on account of its tightness, and in the next place she did not have two on because such women as Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Holmes and Miss Russell, being round her as she was lying on the lounge, fanning her, and doing everything to comfort her, and the doctor attending her, with the blue dress two or three inches longer than any other dress she had, would have noticed the fact. It would have shown her shoes and stockings, but there was not a drop on them. Why, do you not all think with me of what a blessed providence it was that interfered with that girl, so that as she walked about that house, passing from the sitting room into the dining room and hall, she did not step on some of the blood and have it on her shoes? Anybody else, according to the theory of the government, could have stepped on that blood and have bloody shoes, but if Lizzie had walked there just the same as any other person innocently, and there had been so much as a pin head stain upon one of her shoes, it would have led her to the severest penalty on their theory.
-
Lenchen
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Montgomery, Alabama
- Contact:
-
SummerCodSuz
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:39 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Florida
-
SarahJay
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:36 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
This always fascinates me!
As Kat pointed out, seems like no one had much blood on them (which i find really hard to believe...) but it also got me thinking:
Was there a little cleaning up before the alarm was sounded that ''ooops, someone has come along and killed dad'?
Sometimes when i'm really bored i think about the time line given by Lizzie and Bridget (i'm not accusing Bridget!!) and ask: what if Andrew was killed much earlier than we think (obviously not hours earlier) and this gives anyone - Lizzie - just a little more time to get themselves cleaned up and dispose of incriminating evidence.
If you committed a murder, how long would you wait until you were ready to announce the crime or allow someone to find the body?
I know we've gone over this many time, like i said, when i'm really bored...
Kat - You're right, the killer wearing Andrew's coat and Abby's dress is creepy. But kinda makes weird, perverted sense too :P
As Kat pointed out, seems like no one had much blood on them (which i find really hard to believe...) but it also got me thinking:
Was there a little cleaning up before the alarm was sounded that ''ooops, someone has come along and killed dad'?
Sometimes when i'm really bored i think about the time line given by Lizzie and Bridget (i'm not accusing Bridget!!) and ask: what if Andrew was killed much earlier than we think (obviously not hours earlier) and this gives anyone - Lizzie - just a little more time to get themselves cleaned up and dispose of incriminating evidence.
If you committed a murder, how long would you wait until you were ready to announce the crime or allow someone to find the body?
I know we've gone over this many time, like i said, when i'm really bored...
Kat - You're right, the killer wearing Andrew's coat and Abby's dress is creepy. But kinda makes weird, perverted sense too :P
-
xyjw
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:45 pm
- Real Name:
The timeline has always intrigued me too! I find the need to have nicely ironed hankies on a hot summer morning interesting. How much flame would have been in the stove to heat the flat irons? Did Lizzie burn whatever she wore to kill Abby and learn from Abby's murder that she would need to dress accordingly for Andrews murder? Did anyone ever account for all of Abby's dresses? Is there ever any mention of how the house smelled when people started arriving? Burning fabric probably has a strong smell... I've always been curious about what Lizzie and Dr. Bowen were doing at the stove. I've never thought the bedford cord was the "murder dress", I think Lizzie regarded it as just a cheap, functional garment and since she preferred nicer clothes it was a moment of freedom to burn that old dress. I've always thought she got paint on it accidentally on purpose, because she never liked the dress in the first place. I've sometimes wondered if after returning from europe and seeing all the beautiful fashions there, if Lizzie didn't possibly resent the bedford cord because it represented that Andrew was going to continue to keep her dressed like a penny-pinching yankee when she wanted to dress and live like a society lady.
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
Welcome, Lenchen. I hope you enjoy it here. All a friendly bunch here.
I have also been extremely curious about Lizzie and any blood she may have gotten in her hair. So, I did an experiment.
My husband says I am now certifiably insane.
I'm diabetic, and I took my sugar about a half hour ago. That means you have to prick yourself with a 'lancet', or thick needle. Sometimes, if you jab deep enough a bit of blood will come out. I jabbed it good, but didn't really hurt myself. Got enough for my sugar test then some.
(Then the phone rang, the extra blood smeared on the phone ... oh, you don't want to know.) But if I squeezed my finger, another huge drop would come out.
I went in front of the bathroom mirror and took a few strands of hair at a time from my bangs. I think Lizzie had brown or red hair - I don't believe she had black hair. Mine is brown. No hair dye at all on it.
I coated the strands thoroughly with one swipe, and did 3 or four small bunches of strands. Each group of strands took the entire drop of blood, so I'd squeeze the finger again and get a fresh drop, so each strand got swiped with one drop apiece. Right off the bat, it looked darker than blood. The strands were wet.
About a half hour later, I looked in the mirror (I didn't time it, tho, darn it - I should have) and the strands were dry and looked brownish. They were held together in their own group of strands, but not terribly noticeably.
Here's the kicker: Then I took a comb and combed the strands into the rest of my bangs - and it didn't look like blood at all. In fact - and I hate to say this because it does sound nutz - it gave my hair a beautiful shade of dark auburn that blended great with my medium brown hair.
There's a couple flaws in this, tho. One, my bangs have a lot of gray hair in them, and the samples of hair I used were gray. So I will redo the test at another time and put the blood on part of my hair that is brown.
Two, I didn't time it from the time I put the blood on until I checked it after it dried. I wanna know how long it takes to dry. This part of the test may not be real precise, because people's hair is different - some are more porous than others, and mine is dry and tends to absorb real good and dry fast. But at least I'd have more of an idea.
Anyway, I have to say that it looks like if Lizzie just combed her hair, whether she had red or brown hair, blood soaked hair would just blend in with her own. (And it's pretty!)
I'm gonna take a shower soon, and I'll let you know if it washes out with no special treatment other than a regular shampoo.
- The Cemetery Wall Jumper
I have also been extremely curious about Lizzie and any blood she may have gotten in her hair. So, I did an experiment.
My husband says I am now certifiably insane.
I'm diabetic, and I took my sugar about a half hour ago. That means you have to prick yourself with a 'lancet', or thick needle. Sometimes, if you jab deep enough a bit of blood will come out. I jabbed it good, but didn't really hurt myself. Got enough for my sugar test then some.
(Then the phone rang, the extra blood smeared on the phone ... oh, you don't want to know.) But if I squeezed my finger, another huge drop would come out.
I went in front of the bathroom mirror and took a few strands of hair at a time from my bangs. I think Lizzie had brown or red hair - I don't believe she had black hair. Mine is brown. No hair dye at all on it.
I coated the strands thoroughly with one swipe, and did 3 or four small bunches of strands. Each group of strands took the entire drop of blood, so I'd squeeze the finger again and get a fresh drop, so each strand got swiped with one drop apiece. Right off the bat, it looked darker than blood. The strands were wet.
About a half hour later, I looked in the mirror (I didn't time it, tho, darn it - I should have) and the strands were dry and looked brownish. They were held together in their own group of strands, but not terribly noticeably.
Here's the kicker: Then I took a comb and combed the strands into the rest of my bangs - and it didn't look like blood at all. In fact - and I hate to say this because it does sound nutz - it gave my hair a beautiful shade of dark auburn that blended great with my medium brown hair.
There's a couple flaws in this, tho. One, my bangs have a lot of gray hair in them, and the samples of hair I used were gray. So I will redo the test at another time and put the blood on part of my hair that is brown.
Two, I didn't time it from the time I put the blood on until I checked it after it dried. I wanna know how long it takes to dry. This part of the test may not be real precise, because people's hair is different - some are more porous than others, and mine is dry and tends to absorb real good and dry fast. But at least I'd have more of an idea.
Anyway, I have to say that it looks like if Lizzie just combed her hair, whether she had red or brown hair, blood soaked hair would just blend in with her own. (And it's pretty!)
I'm gonna take a shower soon, and I'll let you know if it washes out with no special treatment other than a regular shampoo.
- The Cemetery Wall Jumper
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
I agree that the first murder was an inadvertent "dry run" (not literally!): Lizzie was better prepared for the second.
I think she either (a) had a dress similar to the Bedford cord (paint-stained and later burned) that she donned after Abby's murder-- a dress similar enough to the paint-stained one to cause Mrs. Churchill's confusion;
or (b) she actually changed into the dress that she turned over to the police, and Mrs. Churchill's confusion stemmed from her memory of seeing Lizzie frequently in the dress that was ultimately burned.
I think Lizzie wore Andrew's coat as protection. He never would have wadded it up under his head.
The crux of the blood-splatter problem would have been in the swinging of the hatchet. Once the heart stops beating, the blood will not spurt from a wound, as it would on the initial strike-- and a subsequent strike, if the victim's heart were still beating.
Nice research, Augusta! I think the fact that Lizzie was so meticulously unbloodied is suspicious. in and of itself.
*************************************************************
I think Lizzie may have sewn up a dress pattern than she purchased in New Bedford in late July, one similar to the paint-stained Bedford cord in which she most probably murdered Abby, prompting the need to burn it. She admitted to purchasing several inexpensive patterns-- she says two. Could have been three.
As for tracks-- Lizzie could have removed her shoes after murdering Abby, then cleaned them during her "hour interlude"-- ergo, no tracks across the landing or in her room.
With Andrew, if she removed her shoes and set them aside before doin' her bidness, there would have been no tracks.
Now, if someone had come upon Lizzie fifteen minutes after Abby's murder, I think she would have had some serious splainin' to do.
I think she either (a) had a dress similar to the Bedford cord (paint-stained and later burned) that she donned after Abby's murder-- a dress similar enough to the paint-stained one to cause Mrs. Churchill's confusion;
or (b) she actually changed into the dress that she turned over to the police, and Mrs. Churchill's confusion stemmed from her memory of seeing Lizzie frequently in the dress that was ultimately burned.
I think Lizzie wore Andrew's coat as protection. He never would have wadded it up under his head.
The crux of the blood-splatter problem would have been in the swinging of the hatchet. Once the heart stops beating, the blood will not spurt from a wound, as it would on the initial strike-- and a subsequent strike, if the victim's heart were still beating.
Nice research, Augusta! I think the fact that Lizzie was so meticulously unbloodied is suspicious. in and of itself.
*************************************************************
I think Lizzie may have sewn up a dress pattern than she purchased in New Bedford in late July, one similar to the paint-stained Bedford cord in which she most probably murdered Abby, prompting the need to burn it. She admitted to purchasing several inexpensive patterns-- she says two. Could have been three.
As for tracks-- Lizzie could have removed her shoes after murdering Abby, then cleaned them during her "hour interlude"-- ergo, no tracks across the landing or in her room.
With Andrew, if she removed her shoes and set them aside before doin' her bidness, there would have been no tracks.
Now, if someone had come upon Lizzie fifteen minutes after Abby's murder, I think she would have had some serious splainin' to do.
-
Lenchen
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Montgomery, Alabama
- Contact:
Thanks for all the friendly welcomes! I much appreciate!
Augusta, that is just the coolest thing -- wonder if anyone else has tried that and just never told anyone? Today, any prosecuting attorney would do it in a heartbeat (no pun intended), but you're right; Lizzie did have dark brown/auburn hair (from what I've read, seen, heard, etc.) and it WOULD "blend in!"
Geez, who needs Clairol? I'm going gray myself!
Augusta, that is just the coolest thing -- wonder if anyone else has tried that and just never told anyone? Today, any prosecuting attorney would do it in a heartbeat (no pun intended), but you're right; Lizzie did have dark brown/auburn hair (from what I've read, seen, heard, etc.) and it WOULD "blend in!"
Geez, who needs Clairol? I'm going gray myself!
-
nbcatlover
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:10 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: nbcatlover
- Location: New Bedford, MA
-
Angel
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
- Real Name:
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
This is true, Angel. My personal theory is that Lizzie, Em, and Uncle John got a third party to do it.
But even if a third party did it, if he (I doubt they'd hire a woman) wore that coat, how could he have folded it up under Andrew's head, or bunched it up, without blood from the coat dripping all over. And no footprints from anybody ...
What if Lizzie followed the killer and wiped up the blood of any footprints or droplets? The rug was patterned. Unless it was a distinct clew, the doctors and cops were so excited they may not have noticed any, or could have figured someone else who was in there after the alarm was given (there were a ton of people) trailed it from their shoe or something to parts of the carpet. Those bloody rags in the kitchen would have done a good job of swiping the carpet so you couldn't notice it. (Luckily I don't have a patterned carpet. Hmmm .... Who do I know who does ....)
High five, Lenchen! I love doing stuff like this - which is how I sometimes get in trouble ...
It covers gray excellently. It did wash out with a regular hair washing. I think it'd take too much blood to do a person's roots. But it sure gave gorgeous highlights.
Nbcatlover, with all the blood from Abby earlier and upstairs where it was hotter, then Andrew later downstairs which must have gotten worse by the hour, I don't think anyone needed to camoflauge the smell. I think Lizzie's fleas were done by Thursday morning (?). We talked about it before and I think reasoned that she didn't even have fleas on Thursday. I may be wrong.
But even if a third party did it, if he (I doubt they'd hire a woman) wore that coat, how could he have folded it up under Andrew's head, or bunched it up, without blood from the coat dripping all over. And no footprints from anybody ...
What if Lizzie followed the killer and wiped up the blood of any footprints or droplets? The rug was patterned. Unless it was a distinct clew, the doctors and cops were so excited they may not have noticed any, or could have figured someone else who was in there after the alarm was given (there were a ton of people) trailed it from their shoe or something to parts of the carpet. Those bloody rags in the kitchen would have done a good job of swiping the carpet so you couldn't notice it. (Luckily I don't have a patterned carpet. Hmmm .... Who do I know who does ....)
High five, Lenchen! I love doing stuff like this - which is how I sometimes get in trouble ...
It covers gray excellently. It did wash out with a regular hair washing. I think it'd take too much blood to do a person's roots. But it sure gave gorgeous highlights.
Nbcatlover, with all the blood from Abby earlier and upstairs where it was hotter, then Andrew later downstairs which must have gotten worse by the hour, I don't think anyone needed to camoflauge the smell. I think Lizzie's fleas were done by Thursday morning (?). We talked about it before and I think reasoned that she didn't even have fleas on Thursday. I may be wrong.
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
-
Lenchen
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Montgomery, Alabama
- Contact:
DJ, I agree -- easy to do that. And the carpet stains that Augusta mentioned wouldn't have been noticed either, or even looked for (shoddy police work, as it was), but here's the thing: All those blows to the head of each? You can knock someone off with one good blow, I would think?
I just can't imagine her doing that; never have been able to really get that picture wedged in my mind. And if she did it, it was planned out -- seemingly -- (homebody Emma gone, Abby "had a note", Morse left, came back, said, "What in God's name happened here, Lizzie?" when he returned, as if he "knew" -- sounds like he's accusing her of getting everything all out of control, and Lizzie's prints were NOT up in the barn; etc.) But I can't see Morse doing this; yes, to Abby, maybe, but to a brother-in-law / friend for more than 30 years?
I don't think Lizzie "snapped." You snap, you get caught. And usually, you plan, you get caught! Who thinks she really stood there over both of them and hacked them that many times each? It's just hard for me to take that in for some reason. Lucid insanity? God, we'll never know, and that drives me crazy!
I just can't imagine her doing that; never have been able to really get that picture wedged in my mind. And if she did it, it was planned out -- seemingly -- (homebody Emma gone, Abby "had a note", Morse left, came back, said, "What in God's name happened here, Lizzie?" when he returned, as if he "knew" -- sounds like he's accusing her of getting everything all out of control, and Lizzie's prints were NOT up in the barn; etc.) But I can't see Morse doing this; yes, to Abby, maybe, but to a brother-in-law / friend for more than 30 years?
I don't think Lizzie "snapped." You snap, you get caught. And usually, you plan, you get caught! Who thinks she really stood there over both of them and hacked them that many times each? It's just hard for me to take that in for some reason. Lucid insanity? God, we'll never know, and that drives me crazy!
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
Let's say Lizzie did it-- Abby would have had to have known her attacker, one way or another (unless he crawled stealthily into the room, and at that had been hiding upstairs-- she would have heard the footfall on the staircase, otherwise, and looked). She did not whip around and attempt to ward off blows, or else there would have been wounds on her hands and/or arms, in an attempt to protect herself from the blows.
Also, if Lizzie couldn't have "surprised" Abby from behind, whipping out the concealed hatchet, then there's the possibility the heavier Abby could have struggled with the smaller Lizzie, possibly overpowering her before Lizzie could have dealt a lethal blow. Abby could have been wounded badly, but not mortally wounded. She could have lived long enough to identify her assailant.
So, if Lizzie did it, then there had to have been a certain amount of premeditation involved. She had to secure the hatchet from wherever it was stowed. If she had purchased (or five-finger discounted one) for the occasion, then that would have been incredibly premeditated. Otherwise, she would have had to secure one from down cellar, or the barn.***
Personally, I think Lizzie had been thinking murder for the entire week preceding Aug. 4th. I believe she returned from New Bedford (instead of proceeding to the beach party at Marion, with her friends) with the express intention of killing Abby, at least. (And then realizing, maybe not until the 4th even, that Andrew would never let her get away with it, so he became collateral damage, as it were.)
Lenchen, I think a will or property transfer or stock transfer was in the offing, and Lizzie learned of it, and believed she would be receiving the short end of the stick.
Moreover, I think she was willing to stand trial for murder rather than see Abby and her relations walking around Fall River, spending HER (Lizzie's) money. I think Lizzie could not bear the thought of (a) Abby having anything "more" than she, Lizzie; (b) the strong possibility that Abby's relations could later come into a share of the Borden fortune. All this was borne out with the Ferry Street house incident. Lizzie's state of mind is evident from that episode.
Back to the a.m. of the 4th: I think Lizzie's adrenaline started pumping when she first struck Abby, and that Lizzie's long-stored hatred manifested itself in the excessive number of blows. I also have the feeling that Abby may not have died after the first blow, that she may well have been thrashing or convulsing some. Lizzie had to make darn sure she was never getting up again.
As aforestated, Andrew "had" to go. The murders had to look similar. Lizzie couldn't get away with just one strike, although it is to be noted there were still less.
IOW: If Lizzie had dealt Abby only three blows, I don't believe she would have dealt Andrew the ten.
The rage, I surmise, manifested itself with Abby, and Lizzie was compelled to duplicate it with Andrew, although I doubt the same emotion came into play, in the act of killing him.
*** It's highly doubtful Lizzie purchased a new hatchet. That would have been incredibly stupid. Nor do I think she shoplifted one. No, I hold to the theory (rumored in at least one newspaper-- it's posted somewhere on the Forum, I think by Harry) that Lizzie had written friend Lizzie Johnston that she was coming to Marion with a sharp hatchet, in order to cut the firewood. There is no disputing that Miss Johnston received a letter from Lizzie, written prior to the murders, that distressed her greatly enough to go to attorney Jennings. Miss Johnston and Jennings never disclosed the content of the letter, although Miss Johnston may well have "let drop" the content to one or more of the Marion bunch, and that may be how the newspaper got wind of it.
The upshot? Lizzie would have had a sharp hatchet at hand.
Also, if Lizzie couldn't have "surprised" Abby from behind, whipping out the concealed hatchet, then there's the possibility the heavier Abby could have struggled with the smaller Lizzie, possibly overpowering her before Lizzie could have dealt a lethal blow. Abby could have been wounded badly, but not mortally wounded. She could have lived long enough to identify her assailant.
So, if Lizzie did it, then there had to have been a certain amount of premeditation involved. She had to secure the hatchet from wherever it was stowed. If she had purchased (or five-finger discounted one) for the occasion, then that would have been incredibly premeditated. Otherwise, she would have had to secure one from down cellar, or the barn.***
Personally, I think Lizzie had been thinking murder for the entire week preceding Aug. 4th. I believe she returned from New Bedford (instead of proceeding to the beach party at Marion, with her friends) with the express intention of killing Abby, at least. (And then realizing, maybe not until the 4th even, that Andrew would never let her get away with it, so he became collateral damage, as it were.)
Lenchen, I think a will or property transfer or stock transfer was in the offing, and Lizzie learned of it, and believed she would be receiving the short end of the stick.
Moreover, I think she was willing to stand trial for murder rather than see Abby and her relations walking around Fall River, spending HER (Lizzie's) money. I think Lizzie could not bear the thought of (a) Abby having anything "more" than she, Lizzie; (b) the strong possibility that Abby's relations could later come into a share of the Borden fortune. All this was borne out with the Ferry Street house incident. Lizzie's state of mind is evident from that episode.
Back to the a.m. of the 4th: I think Lizzie's adrenaline started pumping when she first struck Abby, and that Lizzie's long-stored hatred manifested itself in the excessive number of blows. I also have the feeling that Abby may not have died after the first blow, that she may well have been thrashing or convulsing some. Lizzie had to make darn sure she was never getting up again.
As aforestated, Andrew "had" to go. The murders had to look similar. Lizzie couldn't get away with just one strike, although it is to be noted there were still less.
IOW: If Lizzie had dealt Abby only three blows, I don't believe she would have dealt Andrew the ten.
The rage, I surmise, manifested itself with Abby, and Lizzie was compelled to duplicate it with Andrew, although I doubt the same emotion came into play, in the act of killing him.
*** It's highly doubtful Lizzie purchased a new hatchet. That would have been incredibly stupid. Nor do I think she shoplifted one. No, I hold to the theory (rumored in at least one newspaper-- it's posted somewhere on the Forum, I think by Harry) that Lizzie had written friend Lizzie Johnston that she was coming to Marion with a sharp hatchet, in order to cut the firewood. There is no disputing that Miss Johnston received a letter from Lizzie, written prior to the murders, that distressed her greatly enough to go to attorney Jennings. Miss Johnston and Jennings never disclosed the content of the letter, although Miss Johnston may well have "let drop" the content to one or more of the Marion bunch, and that may be how the newspaper got wind of it.
The upshot? Lizzie would have had a sharp hatchet at hand.
-
kssunflower
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:31 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Cindy
- Location: Kansas City
DJ, I am of the same belief, which I think I have posted in a previous thread. Though I'm not so sure of how long Lizzie had been contemplating Abby's murder, she was definitely the target of rage and Andrew was an unfortunate victim of circumstances.DJ @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:45 pm wrote:
As aforestated, Andrew "had" to go. The murders had to look similar. Lizzie couldn't get away with just one strike, although it is to be noted there were still less.
IOW: If Lizzie had dealt Abby only three blows, I don't believe she would have dealt Andrew the ten.
The rage, I surmise, manifested itself with Abby, and Lizzie was compelled to duplicate it with Andrew, although I doubt the same emotion came into play, in the act of killing him.
"To wives and sweethearts - may they never meet."
-
Lenchen
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:07 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Montgomery, Alabama
- Contact:
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
The mysteries abound, particularly regarding Uncle John. Also, who knew what, and when? (Re: Emma.) Also, Bridget was bound to have known more than she told, particularly as to the degree of "cordialty" between Lizzie and Mrs. Borden.
Still, Lizzie seems to have known the most and is the most evasive and least forthcoming. She had the all-important motive, means, and opportunity. If she didn't commit the murders, dollars to doughnuts she knew who did.
Still, Lizzie seems to have known the most and is the most evasive and least forthcoming. She had the all-important motive, means, and opportunity. If she didn't commit the murders, dollars to doughnuts she knew who did.
-
stargazer
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Jandolin Marks
- Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
- Contact:
It's hard to imagine Lizzie walking up to Abby calmly and doing her in. It's easy to imagine the two having words, and seeing Lizzie wail the hell out of Abby a few minutes later. I may be way off on this, but then, we each have a different perspective. Lizzie may have brought the axe upstairs, asked Abby a question, and depending upon the reply, Abby sealed her own fate. We will never know. Isn't it aggrivating ?
-
Angel
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
- Real Name:
I've always thought that something happened between the two of them that was the last straw for Lizzie, so she left the room, obtained a hatchet (or meat cleaver), came back when Abby was turned around, at which point Abby turned and Lizzie struck her, causing the side flap. This would explain why there were no defensive wounds on Abby's arms or hands because she was surprised.
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
I can only imagine the stress that began to foment in that household, beginning with the "Ferry Street house" incident, with Lizzie dropping the use of "Mother."
More than the negation of an endearment, it was an abandonment of respect, as the term was a courtesy title as much as anything during the late Victorian era.
After the "Daylight Robbery" of July 1891-- if Abby suspected Lizzie had stolen that gold pocket watch? It's a wonder Abby didn't take a hatchet to Lizzie.
Hindsight is 20/20, but, at that point, Mr. Borden should have established separate households: One for himself and Abby; one for Emma and Lizzie.
More than the negation of an endearment, it was an abandonment of respect, as the term was a courtesy title as much as anything during the late Victorian era.
After the "Daylight Robbery" of July 1891-- if Abby suspected Lizzie had stolen that gold pocket watch? It's a wonder Abby didn't take a hatchet to Lizzie.
Hindsight is 20/20, but, at that point, Mr. Borden should have established separate households: One for himself and Abby; one for Emma and Lizzie.
-
xyjw
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:45 pm
- Real Name:
Maybe Abby's murder was the result of an argument and Lizzie couldn't stand her another minute, but it is still suspicious that she came home from the Brownells after only five days. Uncle John was visiting and Andrew had said something about making a new will. In order for Lizzie and Emma to inherit Andrews fortune, Abby and Andrew both had to die and Abby had to be dead first so the estate would not transfer to her and then to her next of kin. Did Lizzie have a conversation with someone at the Brownells who knew about wills and inheritances? Her reason for returning home so suddenly is also a little suspicious. Someone else could have taken over her church responsibilities.
-
DJ
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
- Real Name:
Last night, I was pondering the ramifications of Lizzie's cessation of using the term "Mother."
And, let us note, that she didn't begin calling her father "Mr. Borden." Of course, she must have thoroughly understood where her bread was buttered, but-- Abby is singled out for having the stripes of stature ripped from her shoulders. It was Lizzie's way of denigrating her, and it's mighty cold.
Not "Abby" or "Mother Abby," but "Mrs. Borden." What if any of us referred to our mothers as "Mrs. Thus-and-So"?
Again, during the period-- when a great deal of public sentiment was attached to motherhood-- it must have shocked the public to hear that Lizzie had adopted this practice. No wonder suspicion fell so heavily upon her.
Yes, technically Abby was a stepmother, but she was the only mother figure (aside from Emma) whom Lizzie had known.
And, let us note, that she didn't begin calling her father "Mr. Borden." Of course, she must have thoroughly understood where her bread was buttered, but-- Abby is singled out for having the stripes of stature ripped from her shoulders. It was Lizzie's way of denigrating her, and it's mighty cold.
Not "Abby" or "Mother Abby," but "Mrs. Borden." What if any of us referred to our mothers as "Mrs. Thus-and-So"?
Again, during the period-- when a great deal of public sentiment was attached to motherhood-- it must have shocked the public to hear that Lizzie had adopted this practice. No wonder suspicion fell so heavily upon her.
Yes, technically Abby was a stepmother, but she was the only mother figure (aside from Emma) whom Lizzie had known.
-
stargazer
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Jandolin Marks
- Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
- Contact:
I know one thing : If my father married someone I detested, I would never be cordial. Nowadays we can leave, but why turn over all the wealth to someone we consider a guttersnipe ? She waltzes in with her leechy relatives, and bingo. Instant resentment. Had Em and Lizzie moved out, Andrew may have taken it personally, and written them out of his will. Who knows what was running through the household minds ?
Neglect is a one way street to nowhere
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
The day time robbery was 24 June 1891 (Knowlton Papers, page 74).
Lizzie was not visiting the Brownells the summer of 1892- that was Emma, in Fairhaven. Lizzie went to New Bedford and visited the Pooles, and she and the Pooles went to Westport to visit another daughter of Mrs. Poole- Augusta Tripp (Hoffman, pg. 283).
Lizzie was not visiting the Brownells the summer of 1892- that was Emma, in Fairhaven. Lizzie went to New Bedford and visited the Pooles, and she and the Pooles went to Westport to visit another daughter of Mrs. Poole- Augusta Tripp (Hoffman, pg. 283).
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I was thinking about Lizzie coming home from her vacation, and wondered if her period had anything to do with it. I don't know how hard it was for her to deal with that while visiting friends.
Anyway, I was more thinking along the lines of her bringing back her laundry when she came home, on a Tuesday, July 26th. Maybe her wearing the Bedford Cord- if she did- was because she had not yet got around to unpacking or doing her laundry- and maybe her work on those handkerchiefs (that was brought up earlier here) was because she was readying for her further trip on the next Monday?
It was wondered, here, if she borrowed any clothing of Emmas', and if Lizzie was cleaning and sorting clothes to take on her next jaunt to Marion, maybe she did wear something of Emmas'. Also it may be why she claimed to be fixing a dress by sewing a piece of tape to it the morning of the 4th.
Anyway, I was more thinking along the lines of her bringing back her laundry when she came home, on a Tuesday, July 26th. Maybe her wearing the Bedford Cord- if she did- was because she had not yet got around to unpacking or doing her laundry- and maybe her work on those handkerchiefs (that was brought up earlier here) was because she was readying for her further trip on the next Monday?
It was wondered, here, if she borrowed any clothing of Emmas', and if Lizzie was cleaning and sorting clothes to take on her next jaunt to Marion, maybe she did wear something of Emmas'. Also it may be why she claimed to be fixing a dress by sewing a piece of tape to it the morning of the 4th.
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2543
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
Hi Brian welcome to the forum.
I think she probably could have done with the time alloted 15 minutes or so if (1) she had help in between the murders: (2) it was actually alittle longer between the murders or: (3) she was wearing some sort of covering. Or maybe she cleaned up after the murders with Bridgets help. I still think that Bridget knew more than what she was letting on.
I think she probably could have done with the time alloted 15 minutes or so if (1) she had help in between the murders: (2) it was actually alittle longer between the murders or: (3) she was wearing some sort of covering. Or maybe she cleaned up after the murders with Bridgets help. I still think that Bridget knew more than what she was letting on.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14767
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Personally, I do think the killer would have had a lot of blood on them and whatever they wore. But also:SarahJay @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:20 am wrote:This always fascinates me!
As Kat pointed out, seems like no one had much blood on them (which i find really hard to believe...) but it also got me thinking:
Was there a little cleaning up before the alarm was sounded that ''ooops, someone has come along and killed dad'?
Sometimes when i'm really bored i think about the time line given by Lizzie and Bridget (i'm not accusing Bridget!!) and ask: what if Andrew was killed much earlier than we think (obviously not hours earlier) and this gives anyone - Lizzie - just a little more time to get themselves cleaned up and dispose of incriminating evidence.
If you committed a murder, how long would you wait until you were ready to announce the crime or allow someone to find the body?
I know we've gone over this many time, like i said, when i'm really bored...
Kat - You're right, the killer wearing Andrew's coat and Abby's dress is creepy. But kinda makes weird, perverted sense too :P
I was thinking the only way Andrew was killed earlier was if Bridget was in on it from the beginning~ or made a quick deal afterwards. There was a story in the newspaper during the grand jury, which was supposedly a *leak* that there had been a lot of hot water on the stove when Bridget went up to her room- but that after she was called down it was gone.
The bits of stories coming out of that secret grand jury are almost as phony-sounding as the Trickey-McHenry stuff from October!
I call it *phony* because we never hear about any of those things again! (Except the story passed 'round that Lizzie was the culprit in the Borden daylight robbery- that still hangs on to this day!)