"Criminal Minds" Approach

[annmarz]

I am new to this forum but have been interested in this case my whole life.

After much research and thought I have concluded that Lizzie was absolutely guilty. Taking a cue from "Criminal Minds" where they use profiling to ID the perpetrator:

Lizzie had the means (access to hatchets, cleavers, etc.), the motive (possible resentment toward the stepmother, money, etc.) and the opportunity (present at the scene).

The killings were personal. The extreme overkill shows rage. Which is why I think Lizzie actually did the deed - hands-on - rather than having paid someone else to do it. This fact alone points at Lizzie.

They were premeditated (the attempt to buy poison, get Bridget out of the house, etc.).

The stressor that pushed her over the edge from hatred to actual murder was probably the property/will event.

Lizzie (and Emma) were the ones who benefitted from the crime. (follow the money).

Maybe Lizzie was bipolar or suffering from PMS. Maybe Andrew had been abusing her. That certainly would not have been discussed back then.

I think both Andrew and Abby were targets, with Abby purposely killed first to insure the inheritance succession. Did Bridget know? How could she not?! Did Emma know or suspect? I have no idea. But I think she eventually found out which caused the break between her and Lizzie later in life.

In her sick mind, Lizzie may have thought the killings were justified (especially if there was abuse or incest) so when she claimed to be "innocent" she believed she was.

I would love to see this case solved.

[doug65oh]

Good morning Ann, and welcome to our little corner of the zoo. Your conclusions are interesting I must say, indeed make perfect sense. Two questions come immediately to mind though:

1. If as you theorize the property transfer was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, can you account for the passing of some six years’ time? Or rather, do you place more weight on the theoretical existence of a will? Perhaps I’m misreading or not catching something there, pardon me.

2. The presumption regarding Bridget Sullivan seems a bit thin. “Because it’s there…” works when citing reasons to scale Everest, but proximity alone – is that really sufficient to tar the maid do you think?

[Harry]

Hi Ann, welcome to the forum!

That's a pretty damning list against our fair maiden of Fall River. Much of which I agree with, BTW.

I still believe however there is room for reasonable doubt and agree with the jury's decision.

Again, welcome!

[annmarz]

Re Bridget: I meant to say I thought Bridget had to have known that Lizzie did it, not that she was in on it or knew ahead of time if Lizzie was planning the crime. If not for sure, she must have had strong suspicions. After all, she did not see anyone else enter the house. I think she kept quiet out of fear and intimidation, and/or Lizzie paid her off.

Re the property transfer, I do not know about the amount of time and how that may have come into play. It just seems like that would have provided a strong incentive.

I welcome all comments - I am certainly no expert.

[Yooper]

Welcome to the forum, Ann. I also agree with your conclusions.

Bridget may well have suspected Lizzie about the time she first viewed Abby's body. If the blood was clotted, Abby had been dead for a time. Bridget offered to go to Abby's sister's house in an effort to locate Abby, and Lizzie forestalled the effort sending Bridget upstairs to look for Abby. The last Bridget had heard was that Abby was out, Lizzie told her that shortly before Bridget went upstairs to nap. If the blood was clotted, then Abby had to have been killed before Bridget went for her nap. That means that Abby had to have left and returned without Bridget knowing about it, if Lizzie was to be believed. The fact that Lizzie had directed her to the only possibility left at that time for "upstairs" probably made Lizzie the primary suspect in Bridget's mind.

[SarahJay]

Hi AnnMarz!

i also agree with many of your conclusions and i am interested as to what you think about Uncle John in all of this.
I used to think that Lizzie (and i guess i still do on many days) did both murders, but in the last year or so i have really started to place more emphasis on Uncle John - perhaps he took an axe (and its on these days i think about two murderers) or perhaps he had another role (which i haven't really figured out yet).
As i said, i agree with much of what you said but very curious as to what you think about johnny boy and where he fits, if at all, in your conclusions.

Welcome aboard!

[annmarz]

I don't know what to think about Uncle John. It does seem an odd coincidence that the murders occurred when he was visiting, his alibi was too perfect, etc. Maybe he was in on it. I do think Lizzie did the actual deed because of the rage involved. Maybe Lizzie overheard something between John and Andrew that pushed her over the edge. Maybe John wanted Andrew dead and egged her on. She had to kill Abby first because of the inheritance issues. Or maybe his presence is just a coincidence after all.

The simplest explanation that fits the known facts is that Lizzie did it and acted alone.

Yet it is often said that there are no coincidences!

I still think Lizzie committed the actual murders and that she had been thinking about it and planning it for awhile. I think Bridget strongly suspected or knew after the fact. I think Emma may have been in denial that Lizzie could have done such a horrible deed but may have discovered the truth years later when she and Lizzie had their final falling out.

Uncle John is a mystery though!

[Yooper]

It's pretty hard to imagine an intruder having the intent to spare Lizzie and/or Bridget unless the intruder was a relative. That would have been done deliberately, there were likely several opportunities to do away with Lizzie and avoid the necessity of hiding.

[DJ]

Hey, Annmarz, and a belated welcome to you and other new members!

Too true, as you say, that Lizzie had ample motive, plus means and opportunity.

Yes, Bridget knew something, some things, that doubtless convinced her of Lizzie's involvement, above and beyond whatever Bridget heard/saw in the household over her years of service to the Bordens.

Bridget could have told us whether Lizzie was wearing the paint-stained dress on the a.m. of the Fourth, and whether she had changed into the Bengaline silk. At the very least, in spite of the shock, Bridget surely "registered" a change in Lizzie's clothing, if one occurred.

As for Uncle John, I can't help but believe he withheld far more than he let give (same for Emma). I believe he knew of a major financial happening that Andrew was planning to execute (a new will, property sale, transferral of stocks to Abby for her security, or some such) that he never mentioned, but that he realized would send Lizzie over the deep end.

Let's say we take Uncle John and Lizzie at their word, that they never interacted. However, U.J. did communicate with Emma, and Emma could have communicated same to Lizzie.

When he returned the a.m. of the Fourth, I believe he did indeed notice the crowd staring at the house (heck, the police were already inside), and that he had a pretty good idea that Abby, at least, was a goner. I think he ascertained from the crowd that Andrew was dead, and that's why Uncle John lingered at the pear tree in back, composing himself and deciding how best to approach the situation on his and Lizzie's (and Emma's) behalf.

Oh, I am very, very certain that he knew Andrew and Abby were dead when he finally came in the side door. Plenty of people in the crowd could have told him that Mr. Borden was dead, and Lizzie sho-heck wouldn't have killed Andrew and left Abby standing.

[annmarz]

Oh boy did I have a "duh" moment. It never ever occurred to me that there could have been two murderers. I really don't think it is likely but an interesting theory nonetheless. Perhaps a pact: I'll take Abby, you take Dad. Did they ever conclusively prove (as much as they could with the criminalistics of the day) that the same weapon produced both wounds?

[SarahJay]

well they did try to match up A weapon with Andrew's skull injuries at Lizzie's trial ((my memory is off this morning - did they bring Abby's skull in too??)
but from what i know, the actual murder weapon was never found at the time...somewhere on this forum is a thread about the nature of the injuries - how deep they were, how long etc. That might help you try to CSI the injuries and perhaps see if it suggests the same killer?

now you've got me wanting to reread and re examine the injuries...

[Yooper]

Both skulls were brought to the trial. The handleless hatchet found in the basement fit the wounds exactly. The defense attempted to demonstrate that any hatchet would fit the wounds, so they brought a different hatchet in to prove the point. The hatchet brought in by the defense did not fit the wounds, which tended to reinforce the prosecution's point which was that the handleless hatchet was likely the murder weapon.

The demonstration was not conclusive and did not prove that the handleless hatchet was the murder weapon, only that a specific size hatchet was the murder weapon. The benefit for the prosecution was that it narrowed the odds, specifically that a hatchet which fit the wounds exactly was coincidentally found on the Borden premises.

[SarahJay]

Thanks Yooper - now i remember!