What if Bridget hadn't gotten sick that day?

[dalcanton]

Hi, all - okay, these random thoughts have been popping up in my head, so please bear w/me.

It's been surmised that Lizzie wanted to get Bridget out of the house by suggesting that sale @ Sargant's. However, Bridget did not go. Instead, she said she went upstairs to lie down because she wasn't feeling well.

Suppose Bridget had really gone upstairs to lie down as she said. What if she HADN'T gone upstairs? Would the murder of Andrew had still happened - either by Lizzie or someone else hiding in the house? If she hadn't gone upstairs, what would the killer (Lizzie) have done then now that his/her plan had been thwarted? Don't you think it was a stroke of luck that Bridget had been really sick that very day & had chosen that exact time to go to her room. Perhaps Andrew's life would've been spared - and then how would the story have played out? Would Lizzie have still been arrested for the murder of her stepmother?

Another thought: what if Bridget was in on the murders? Perhaps she only lied about going upstairs & instead helped Lizzie kill her father. Lizzie in turn never really called upstairs to her after all. Did the events up until 11:10 or 11:15 described in Bridget's testimony really happen? Perhaps Andrew was killed as soon as he came home & that gave Lizzie AND Bridget 30 minutes to clean up before "going into their act" for the neighbors. Something to think about it.

[Allen]

If Bridget hadn't gone upstairs to lay down that might have made Lizzie's killing of Andrew a little harder to execute that's certainly true. It might have nipped the idea altogether. What other chances might have arisen at that time? Uncle John was also possibly due back for supper. I've thought about this note business a great deal as well. What were all the possible reasons she said Abby had gotten a note to go out? In my opinion it was to buy herself time so Abby's body would not be searched for because the other members of the house would think she was out seeing to a sick friend. This bought Lizzie a little breathing room.

But how could she have counted on having Bridget out of the way to kill Andrew? That one is tough I've thought about that a lot over the years. Bridget seemed to have been done with her chores until the next meal was to be prepared. According to Bridget's testimony the dinner hour was around 12'o'clock on Wednesday. Assuming this was the normal time, Uncle John could've been back around that hour for dinner. If Andrew arrived home shortly before 11, that only gave Lizzie a short window of opportunity. Abby was "out" and had no other chores to assign Bridget at the time. Andrew was not feeling well and I'm wondering if Andrew ever did any assigning of chores. Lizzie did try to get Bridget to leave the house for the cloth sale, but that didn't work. Bridget seems to have had a little free time on her hands until the next meal was to be prepared. The menu had already been planned, and it consisted of leftovers that probably would've just required a little warming up.

Bridget was asked during the trial if she went up to her room at all on Wednesday, after her ironing was through, she replied yes. She went up to her room at around "quarter to five or half past four; I cannot tell" and came back down "about half past five as far as I can remember." Maybe it was Bridget's habit to retire to her room when she had free time. What else would a maid do when she had a gap in her schedule? Did she shoot the breeze with her employers? I'm going to say there wasn't too much social mixing of employer and maid at that time. I'm not sure how proper that would be considered. I'm going to guess from what I've read in contemporary sources, not just about the Borden case, that she would've retired to her room until it was time for the next meal.

Maybe Lizzie counted on this to present her with some opportunity to kill Andrew. Having Bridget out of the house and assuring she saw and heard nothing would've been better I'm sure. But a murderer will probably take whatever chances they get. But if she hadn't gone to her room, or Uncle John returned before she could kill Andrew, she could've been back into a corner where she had to just cut her losses and try to save her skin. My guess is she would've played out the Abby going to see a sick friend theme, until the other members were forced to go and look for her because she didn't turn up.

[Allen]

If it's true that Bridget went up to her room whenever her schedule permitted, she might have spent a good deal of time there. I'm guessing free time for Bridget is when she took care of her own affairs. Sewing and mending clothing, reading, writing to family, what have you. Or just taking a plain old fashioned nap. But the description of her duties in her trial testimony are as follows:

Q. What were you general duties in the household, Miss Bridget?
A. Washing, ironing and cooking, with sweeping.

Q. Did you have care of any of the chambers?
A. No, sir.

Q. Except your own, I suppose?
A. That is all.

----------------

Q. Now do you know who had care of the rooms, belonging to the daughtersor occupied by the daughters?
A. Themselves took care of them, as far as I know.

Q. And did that care include sweeping and dusting as well as making the beds?
A. Yes, sir. I didn't have anything to do with the rooms.

Q. You had nothing of any kind to do with any bedroom?
A. No, sir.

--------------------
Q. Can you tell who had charge of the parlor sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of it?
A. Miss Lizzie in the summer.

Q. Did you have anything to do with it?
A. No, sir.
-------------------

[Harry]

It apparently was Bridget's habit of going to her room if she had time.

This is from Bridget's Preliminary hearing testimony (p25-26):

Q. Why was you not at work getting your dinner at that time?
A. I thought I had time enough to start to get dinner at half past eleven, with the dinner I had to get.
Q. Was it your habit to go up stairs that way?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When?
A. When I got through with my work down stairs, if I had not anythingelse to do, I always went up stairs, before I started to get dinner, if I had time.

If Lizzie had been observant of this habit she could assume Bridget would not be coming down immediately.

I don't know whether Lizzie knew what was to be for dinner.

[Allen]

Thank you Harry for posting that. I do not have access to the preliminary hearing, although I wish I did. It's cool to learn my hunch was correct.

[Yooper]

In my opinion, the note was needed to explain why Lizzie hadn't missed Abby all morning. It didn't come up until Andrew arrived, someone Lizzie would have to answer to, and Bridget didn't know anything about it until then. If Andrew remained alive, even if she wasn't suspected of Abby's murder, she would still have had to answer why she hadn't missed Abby, at least to Andrew.

Assuming Bridget wasn't involved, if Andrew's murder had been planned, it would have been necessary to kill Bridget before Andrew arrived so she couldn't prevent Andrew's murder or witness it. This is why I believe Andrew's murder was a crime of opportunity, a spur of the moment decision. If Bridget had not gone upstairs to rest, Andrew probably would not have been killed.

Lizzie got lucky with Abby having gone upstairs to the one room where she would least likely be discovered by accident. The odds of killing Bridget in a similar situation are slim. Then Lizzie would have to hope Andrew didn't wander around too long when he got home. She would have to catch him by surprise, too. Lizzie could not rule out Morse returning during all of this, she had no way of knowing he didn't plan to return, as he clearly did return.

Lizzie would have to know exactly when Bridget would finish the windows in order to plan on her being upstairs before lunch, and then hope Bridget had no other chores. I think Lizzie got as lucky with Andrew napping in the sitting room while Bridget rested upstairs as she did with Abby working in the guest room that day. It would be impossible to plan all of this.

[Allen]

The one wild card really would've been Uncle John. Who it seems also made a habit of visiting around a great deal of the time. I'm sure Lizzie could assume that once Bridget was finished with the windows, there wasn't much else she had left to do until the meal. The clothes were done for that week. The windows were done. Abby had been doing the dusting, and Bridget had nothing to do with any of the bedrooms or the parlor. According to Lizzie Abby was going to do the shopping while she was "out". Looking at her job description what else was there to do before the meal? And if it really was her custom to go upstairs, she probably did this quite frequently. She did have her own needs and tasks to attend to, and I'm going to bet she did these in her own part of the house, her room. I try not to look at what happened just that day, but ask myself did it happen that way every day? Or even most of the time? Was it the norm? If it did, Lizzie could plan around it.

I'm not quite sure why she had to kill Bridget before Andrew got home. She hadn't had to kill Bridget to keep her from witnessing the murder of Abby. Why then did she need to kill her to stop her from witnessing the murder of Andrew? She also hadn't needed to wait for Andrew to nap if things got right down to it. All she needed was to catch him unaware. If he was reading a book, or paper, or just sitting unaware, all she had to do was hit him one good time in the head. No one heard anything of Abby's death and she had been awake to scream. Why then does everyone assume Andrew needed to be asleep? If he was even just sitting on that end of the lounge reading instead of sleeping she could've crept up to the doorway the same way some believe she did when he was asleep.

If she had no chores, I believed Bridget would go upstairs to her room. I'm sure Bridget had washed the windows before, this windows was not a singular occurence that only happened on that day. She had worked there 2 years and nine months, I'm sure she had washed the windows several times in that interval. That chore could be roughly calculated. If Lizzie really wanted Abby up in the guest room, I'm sure she could've found a reason to ask her to go there. Why did she need to wait for Abby to go there herself? "I can't find the thread to baste this loop on my sleeve. Do you know where it is? " Why does everyone assume that Lizzie waited around for Abby to go of her own free will? Or that Andrew had to take a nap?

[Allen]

Another thing about the note. In my opinion, if she just wanted to account for why she hadn't missed Abby, she could've said something simple like, "She told me she was going to visit Mrs. Whitehead." Making up a note from an unnamed friend adds an air of mystery that didn't need added if he wasn't a target. Afterwards she would still have to account for why the note was never found, and why the author of the note wouldn't come forward. It was going the extra mile. By saying it was a note from a sick friend, Andrew wouldn't know where to look for her, or when she might be back, anything at all. There was no way to go and confer with anyone to say "Well she wasn't here. I haven't seen her." He couldn't go and look for her. All he could do is sit and wait.

[Shell73]

interesting point. I think Lizzie knew Bridget's schedule therefore it was quite easy to know that once she had Abby out of the way she had a window of opportunity to get to Andrew.

Now if the killer was someone other than Lizzie that is a totally different take. And the question again would be where could they hide in that house without being found. In my opinion if Lizzie didn't do it herself than she had to be in cahoots with whoever did or it would have been at the very least a triple murder.

Uncle John could have foiled the murder of Andrew if he had in fact been told to return for lunch but not Abby. It would have made it very difficult for the murderer to go undiscovered.

[Allen]

I agree that if Uncle John had returned any earlier things probably would've been pretty messy.

I also agree with you about a killer not used to the house needing a place to hide, and finding a weapon if they hadn't brought one with them.

Interesting take on it possibly being a triple murder. I wonder what would've happened if Uncle John had returned home earlier. His return really was a wild card, because no killer could've planned on his being there visiting in the first place.

[Yooper]

Lizzie might have counted on what usually happened, but could she count on it that day? She had the habits of three people to consider, all of which had to stick to their usual habits, and we really don't know for certain what that was. Lizzie had to make the decision at about 9:30 am, could she bet her life on Bridget going up to rest? On Andrew not going to his room to nap where Bridget might have heard a commotion? On Morse not wandering back for lunch before 12:00?

Lizzie would have to kill Bridget to know she could kill Andrew, otherwise it was a gamble. Bridget might usually do whatever Bridget usually did, but could Lizzie count on it that day? As it was, there was little time to waste, the stove had gone cold. A wood cookstove takes time to warm up, a fire has to be kindled and started and the stove brought up to temperature. This takes time, and if lunch was expected at noon, the stove would have to be started not long after 11:00 am. Bridget did not have much time to rest the way it was, so how could Lizzie count on the fact that she would?

The fact that Lizzie would have to bet her life on all of these variables going the right way makes me believe it wasn't planned except in a very general sense. It is less of a stretch to see it as Lizzie having gotten lucky enough to kill Andrew rather than planning and executing this vast complexity. Ockham's Razor holds that the simplest adequate explanation should be the first one sought, it is probably the correct one. Einstein said that everything should be kept as simple as possible, but not too simple. Lizzie planning the murder only adds unneeded complexity to the solution.

Something drove Lizzie to a desperate act, she was willing to gamble her own life to deprive Abby of the rest of hers. She succeeded in her goal, and the rest was a matter of survival, whatever she had to do.

[Allen]

Lizzie was betting her life the moment she killed Abby. Any killer who ever stalked victims they didn't even know other than what they learned by watching them every day, have bet their lives on far greater risks and variables. And it happens every day all around the world. I tend to think it would've been crazier for Lizzie to kill Abby and leave Andrew alive. She bet her life to gain absolutely nothing from it. Her life would still be the same life she'd always lead in Second Street until Andrew died. Her life wouldn't have gotten on iota better. In my opinion, she risked being disinherited all together if that happened if Andrew suspected her. Andrew's money was Andrew's money. He could do with it as he pleased.

I don't think it's a vast complexity to count on people following the same schedule they may have followed every day for years. Like I stated above, serial killers do it all the time to stalk prey they do not even know. I think it's more of a complexity to think Lizzie would've left Abby upstairs dead in the guest room and let Andrew roam around the house alive to find her with no better alibi than, "She got a note to see a sick friend." And then not be able to produce either the note, or the sick friend. And still not be able to explain to Andrew where she had been when Abby died, and why she hadn't heard anything. Because she never said once that SHE had gone out anywhere. Only that she thought Abby had, that left her in the house with Abby when she died. How was she to explain all this to Andrew once Abby's body was found? And once Andrew discovered the body, then what? I have tried to think of how the scenario would've played out with the way things had occured up until that point. To me it just doesn't make sense to think Andrew wasn't a target.

And as for the cook stove heating up, according to what Harry posted in Bridgets preliminary hearing testimony, she wasn't even going to come down to start the dinner until around half past 11. It might not have taken that long to start the fire again if Bridget's claims are true. That still left her a half an hour to get dinner on the table by noon.

[Yooper]

Yes, of course Lizzie was betting her life on killing Abby. What we don't know is why. We may presume it was for money, but we don't know that for certain. I think killing Abby was to prevent Abby's family from any gain. Killing Andrew might have been for personal gain, but only if the opportunity arose, and it did. Killing for personal gain was not necessarily the motive. Lizzie and Emma would have inherited the bulk of Andrew's estate if Andrew died intestate, Abby would have the use of part of the estate while she was alive, but that money would have gone to the daughters when Abby died. Lizzie didn't have to take the chance with her life to benefit from her father's fortune, she only had to wait. Granted, her life on Second Street wouldn't be any more pleasant than it had been until then, but it would be a hell of a lot worse if she got convicted as a murderer! How pleasant was it to have been ostracized by Fall River the way it was even having gotten away with it? What did she really gain, a nice house?

How do we know those people followed the same schedule every day for years? Morse seemed impervious to schedules! Andrew was not feeling well, he might be home any time. Just counting on one person to behave as expected is a chance, to count on all three doing it is absolute foolishness.

The note also prevented Andrew from searching for Abby, that's true. But the first time anyone hears about a note is when Lizzie tells Andrew about it, presumably in a response to "where's Abby?". Lizzie's needs at the time were to prevent Andrew from searching the house and to explain why she wasn't concerned that Abby wasn't home, nothing more than that. Bridget was still washing windows, she was up and about, no guarantee Lizzie would have a chance to kill Andrew at that point. What else could Lizzie offer under the circumstances?

There is absolutely no complexity in Lizzie killing Abby. She either had to leave her lying where she fell and make up a lame story, or move the body in broad daylight to prevent Andrew finding her.

[Allen]

Why if Abby's body was going to be found anyway, and Andrew was not a target, did she need to prevent Andrew from searching for Abby? At that point, whether Andrew searched for Abby then, or at a later date, Lizzie's alibi for where she was when Abby was killed would've been the same. In the house. I'm sure she had spent the last 90 minutes or so thinking about that. And children killing their well off parents for their money is not a phenomenon that has never happened before. It happens all the time. Money can be for some people, worth risking everything for.

[Yooper]

I suppose she could have told Andrew she didn't know where Abby was and didn't really care. She might have told him Abby could be found in the guest room. Maybe she didn't want her father to be the one to find her. Preventing Andrew from searching for Abby was a secondary benefit, the real point at the moment was to show no need for concern in Abby's absence.

I'm not saying Andrew was not a target, he very clearly was! I'm saying it is unnecessarily complex to contend that it was all planned. An opportunity presented itself, and Lizzie took advantage of it.

[Allen]

No need for concern on Abby's absence didn't give her an alibi. It also would not explain why she hadn't heard, or seen anything to Andrew once the body was found when she had been right there in the house. Or how the killer gotten past her, and all those locked doors, to kill his wife. I am thinking Andrew would've been way less forgiving on details ike that than the jury. Or even Emma. This was his wife. A wife he knew Lizzie didn't get along with. That Lizzie treated spitefully. That she had stopped calling mother over some trivial matter like a half house. No need for concern on not seeing Abby all morning would've been a moot point once the body was found.

[Yooper]

What do you suggest she should have told Andrew under the circumstances? Wasn't there some precedent about phantom intruders established or alleged?

The note was a lame excuse at best, no doubt! But it was the only one she had, and she had nothing to lose by using it at the time.

[Yooper]

If the murders were planned ahead of time, it seems like an extraordinary effort was made to allow "the Maggie" to remain alive. It would have been far simpler to kill Bridget before Andrew arrived, then wait for him behind the door and nail him when he entered. Lizzie could then smack herself a couple of times with the blunt end of the hatchet and crawl to the door hollering for help.

Maybe Bridget was involved, it would explain quite a bit.

[Allen]

I think it's a simple as Lizzie not having a reason to want Bridget dead. She also took pains to say that no one in the house could've done it, or that none of the employees of her father could've done it. She didn't implicate one single living soul. I think she just wanted her two targets dead. She didn't want or have any reason to hurt anyone else, so she didn't kill anyone else. If she wanted to she could've just killed everyone in their beds, including Emma, and claimed someone broke in and killed the whole lot of them.

[Yooper]

This gives rise to the question of how someone who had nothing whatever to do with the murders would know who couldn't have been the murderer. The reality is, anyone in the house could have done it, as well as anyone who worked for her father. If she had no knowledge of the murders, she had no cause to eliminate anyone. In fact, if Lizzie was innocent, the first person she suspected should have been Bridget because Bridget was the only live person in the house with Lizzie's dead parents.

[Allen]

In fact, if Lizzie was innocent, the first person she suspected should have been Bridget because Bridget was the only live person in the house with Lizzie's dead parents.

I agree. If Lizzie was innocent she should have suspected Bridget, she should've suspected somebody at least. This was the same logic I applied to Andrew suspecting Lizzie in the event he was left alive and found Abby's body. But Bridget had no motive, and in my opinion Lizzie was loaded with them. I think Lizzie not pointing fingers and not casting blame on innocent people was probably one of the most admirable thing she did in the whole mess. If there can be anything admirable about murder. She tried her best to pass it off on a stranger that could never be found, because they didn't exist. But if she had been innocent, or even less scrupulous about blaming others to save her own skin, she should've suspected Bridget.

[Yooper]

I'm quite sure Andrew would have seen through Lizzie and her story about a note, but others would probably buy it, and in fact, they did by implication. If it was used as a stalling tactic to forestall an immediate search of the house, it worked like a charm. Lizzie may have resolved to try to kill Andrew by the time he arrived home, she may have come to the conclusion she had to in order to survive, but I doubt it was planned much before that time. She suggested a fabric sale to Bridget, perhaps to get her out of the house, and Bridget did the next best thing by going upstairs. I think Lizzie simply got incredibly lucky that day, Abby went to the one place she wouldn't be discovered immediately, Bridget remained outdoors for a time and went to her room as if on cue, Andrew took a nap out of Bridget's hearing range, and John Morse didn't arrive early for lunch. Lizzie exploited every opportunity.

[Allen]

I have been researching Massachusetts probate and estate statutes. I was trying to find a good place to put these, but didn't want to start a new thread. This seemed to be a good thread to post them, since there was dicussion as to a motive of murder for personal gain.



The American State Reports By A.C. Freeman. 1890.


Personal Estate of Husband Leaving Widow and One or More Children. - The interest of a widow in the personal estate of her deceased husband was, by the statute of 22&23 Car. II, made subject to the payment of his debts and funeral expenses. Of the residue after such payment, the statute made it the duty of the ordinaries, and of all other persons entitled to make distribution "one- third part of the said surplusage to the wife of the intestate"; Williams on Executors, 1485, 1490; Schouler on Executors and Administrators, sec. 497.

In many states certain allowances are made to the surviving wife, either for the support of herself or of herself and minor children who are under her care. These are not properly regarded as advancements to her out of her share of the estate, but merely as provisions for the support of the family until the estate can be settled by appropriate proceedings in the courts. We shall not refer to the statutues on this subject, but confine ourselves to the share or interest to which the widow is entitled up the final settlement of the estate. In a majority of the states, the share of the widow in the personal estate of her deceased husband remains as fixed by statute of 22&23 Car. II., before referred to; viz., one third of the surplus remaining after payment of debts and funeral expenses of the deceased, and the expenses of administration. This is her interest under the statutes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and California:.....


Real Estate of Husband Leaving Wife and Child or Children. - At common law, every wife became entitled to dower "in all lands, tenements, or hereditaments, corporeal, or incorporeal, of which the husband may have been seised in fee or in tail." during coverture. Dower was absolute in a wife, surviving her husband, whether or not she had ever borne him any children. Upon his death, she was entitled to have assigned to her for life one third of all such real property.

A widow is entitled to dower by the statutes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennesee, Missouri, Arkansas, Oregon, and Georgia;....


Massachusetts Digest; 1881

Right to Distributive Share.

1. Under St. 1805, c. 90. 2. the widow was entitled to one third only of such personal estate as is left by her husband at his decease, undisposed of by advancement or otherwise. Stearns v. Stearns. 1 Pick. 157. (1822)See Gen. Sis. 91. 17.

2.The rents and profits of real estate, received by the executor or administrator, constitute no part of the personal estate of the deceased, and therefore the widow is not entitled to a distributive share thereof. Stearns v. Stearns.1 Pick. 157 (1822).

3. The widow's right to one third of the personal property of her intestate husband is a vested right, and is not defeated or affected by her subsequent marriage or death before actual distribution. In case of such marriage, her second husband may claim the property, after the decree of distribution; and if she dies, he not having reduced it to possession, it goes to her administrator.

4. After the death of an intestate, leaving a widow and children, the widow married a second husband and died; and after her death the estate of the intestate came into the hands of his administrator. Held, that the intestates children were not entitled exclusively to such estate, but that the administrator of the widow was entitled to one third of it as her distributive share.

5. So, if a testator leaves personal property undisposed of in his will, his widow takes her share by virtue of St. 1805, c. 90 2, as well as where he dies intestate. Nickerson v. Bosely, 8 Met. 424. (1814) And see Allen, 367.


It has never made any sense to me for Lizzie not to have intended to kill both Andrew and Abby. I think she always intended to kill them both. Killing only Abby and leaving Andrew alive makes no sense if the motive was her father's estate. Why risk possibly being imprisoned for murder, or at the very least being written out of her father's will for suspicion of her guilt, merely to keep Abby's family from getting anything? That means she wanted it all for herself and Emma. Which is personal gain. For me it doesn't add up to commit murder to keep the money in the "family", and then possibly wait years to collect. Also, Andrew would not be able to hush up a murder investigation as he had the robberies. There would be no calling the authorities off. She faced the same peril of being suspected whether she killed one or both of them. There was still the same chance for her to end up being ostracized even if she was never brought to trial. People talk and form opinions. Not every's guilt or innocence is settled in a court of law.

If she was out for Andrew's estate, killing Andrew makes more sense. Do not give him time to live and brood over Abby's murder. She was already into her 30's. She wanted the finer things life had to offer. Why kill Abby and wait maybe another ten years for Andrew to die? And then maybe be cheated out of it by a will? That would've made Abby's murder moot. There was a precedent for longevity in his family. Killing him at a later date woudn't be advisable in that situation. Two unexplained deaths, with any sort of gap in between, would look even more suspicious than one.

[Yooper]

It makes a great deal of sense to see the murders as being planned, both of them. The problem I've always had is the number of hatchet blows during Abby's murder. It indicates rage, someone completely out of control, rather than a cold, calculating individual. Once Abby had been killed, there was no turning back and absolutely no reason to slow down. They can only hang you once, no matter how many murders you've committed. The problem with planning Andrew's murder was what to do if Bridget didn't decide to take a nap and if John Morse returned to the house. What if Andrew hadn't decided to snooze before lunch? What if he and Uncle John returned together? What was the plan if Lizzie was confronted with all three, would she try to take them all out at the same time? How could Lizzie plan the actions of three individuals to come out this way? Out of all the possible scenarios, it simply happened in exactly the right way for Lizzie to kill Andrew without fear of resistance, just blind luck.

[Allen]

I think murders can be planned, and still executed with great frenzy. Many serial killers operate this way. I think there are two possible explainations for the number of blows Abby received. First, by all accounts Lizzie did truly resent Abby. Planning the murders ahead of time did not dull that hostility any. Once she got started she may have just vented all that pent up rage. Second, Lizzie was a first time killer. She may not have known exactly what and how many blows it would take to kill another human being. Better overkill than possibly leave Abby alive to name her as the killer. Which is something she may have been afraid of happening. Also the attacks were focused on the heads of both victims. So while there was a frenzy, it seems a calculated frenzy. There was no random chopping and stabbing of the extremities.

She could've planned the murders as first a poisonin which was unsuccessful. Then Abby started to talk to other people about her fear of being poisoned. I think Lizzie excellerated her plan and chose a weapon that was sure to get the job done. She may have been afraid someone would start to listen and take Abby seriously. She had only to plan the murders around the schedules of Andrew, Abby, and Bridget. Nobody knew John was coming until he showed up. By then it was maybe too late since Abby had started talking. Especially to the family doctor. She may have revisited Bowen and been more insistant about her complaints.

I believe, in my opinion, Thursday was the day Bridget normally did the windows. I think the fact that the Kelly girl was also out washing windows might hint this was a normal day for this job in general. Just like washing clothes on Monday, ironing then on Tuesday, and so forth. I also believe it was Bridget's custom to take a rest after finishing her morning chores. This was in testimony Harry provided from the preliminary hearing.

To get Abby to the guest room all she needed to do was make up some excuse to ask her to go there. She did not have to wait for her to go there on her own. Andrew conducted business out of his house. It might have been his practice to come home at around this time. There really is no evidence he came home earlier than normal that day. John was asked to "come back to supper". So if it was Andrew's custom to return before that hour, there was time. John was visiting relatives while Andrew was out conducting business. Andrew wasn't out visiting. So I really don't see the two would've met to return together. She didn't have to wait for Andrew to nap. I do not know why there seems to be this assumption that if he didn't nap, she couldn't have killed him. All she had to do was catch him unaware, the same as she had Abby. Abby was not asleep when she attacked her but she killed her non the less. The only wild card was Uncle John, who thankfully did decide to stay away long enough for Lizzie to execute her plan before he "came back to supper."

[Allen]

As a side note, another reason I believe that Thursday was the normal day for washing windows, is that that Monday thru Wednesday Bridget's mornings seemed to be tied up with doing laundry. She would have no time for washing windows.

[Chichibcc]

I agree with Jeff-concerning the logistics of who was where in the house at what time, things just fell into place for Lizzie (as best as they could under the circumstances). I think she planned on how to commit the murders-it was the when part that was probably more difficult to figure out.

John is lucky he didn't come back early-had he done so and witnessed anything, Lizzie may have had no other choice but to kill him, also, for obvious reasons-and maybe even Bridget, too, depending on where in the house she would've been at that time had a third murder taken place.

As far as the note is concerned, I don't think there ever was one to begin with, given how vague Lizzie was when mentioning it.

[Yooper]

The more I think about it, if Bridget hadn't gotten sick that day, Abby is likely the only person who would have been murdered. Look at it this way, great pains were taken to avoid having to kill Bridget. Granted, there was no direct motive to do so, but she might well have become collateral damage if it had been planned beforehand that Andrew absolutely must die in addition to Abby. If it was at all questionable whether Bridget would have time to nap before lunch, why wait until Andrew came home and have to face down two people? Why not just nail Bridget in the barn and be done with it? To me, it makes more sense that if Andrew was a planned target that day in spite of circumstances, then Bridget almost had to have had a part in it.

[Chichibcc]

As a side note, another reason I believe that Thursday was the normal day for washing windows, is that that Monday thru Wednesday Bridget's mornings seemed to be tied up with doing laundry. She would have no time for washing windows.

But if Thursday was a normal day for washing windows, why did Abby have to tell Bridget to do the windows that day? Wouldn't Bridget have known to do that automatically, without having to be told?

[Chichibcc]

The more I think about it, if Bridget hadn't gotten sick that day, Abby is likely the only person who would have been murdered. Look at it this way, great pains were taken to avoid having to kill Bridget. Granted, there was no direct motive to do so, but she might well have become collateral damage if it had been planned beforehand that Andrew absolutely must die in addition to Abby. If it was at all questionable whether Bridget would have time to nap before lunch, why wait until Andrew came home and have to face down two people? Why not just nail Bridget in the barn and be done with it? To me, it makes more sense that if Andrew was a planned target that day in spite of circumstances, then Bridget almost had to have had a part in it.

If I were Lizzie, I would've preferred not to get anyone else involved-the more people that get mixed up in something like this, the more likely it is for someone to "spill their guts," so to speak. Too risky.

Going solo would've been, by far, the best option for Lizzie.

[Yooper]

Absolutely! Half as many people is more than twice as simple! By her inquest testimony, Lizzie had trouble just covering her own behind, let alone anyone else's!