Let's play "What if"

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:29 pm

I got to thinking what if Bridget had gone out to that store that had the sale on material? The police wouldn't even had to ask Lizzie her whereabouts, because she was the only one in the house. Unless she was out to. What about that imaginary note that Abby was suppose to have gotten? What if she really did get it and went out, at the same time Lizzie was the only one in the house? She would have surivived and Andy would have been the only one to die. Or, since Abby didnt get axed, then there would have been no reason to kill Andy.

Boy, if I am not letting my imagination running away with me!!

rgreen4411 · Post by **rgreen4411** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:00 pm

The writer Masterton says there was a note,

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:41 pm

If I recall correctly, no note was every produced, nor did anyone admit to sending a note to Abby. The only one who mentioned a note was Lizzie.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:51 pm

But still playing the what sencerio. what happened if?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:57 pm

I always thought it significant that the defense never offered a reward for the note. Lizzie and Emma did offer a $5,000 reward for the apprehension of the killer. It took a New York newspaper to offer a reward of $500. This from Rebello, p114:

"ONCE A WEEK TO THE AID OF A FRIENDLESS WOMAN

After Mrs. Churchill had sworn positively that Bridget Sullivan, the servant, told her that Mrs. Borden mentioned the reception of a note to her (Sullivan), the following was inserted in the Boston and Fall River papers:

Five Hundred Dollars Reward!

The whole country is interested in the Borden murder mystery. The evidence of Mrs. Churchill renders it possible that a note was received by Mrs. Borden on the morning of the murder, asking her to visit a sick person. The credibility of Lizzie Borden, the prisoner, would be established by finding the writer of that note.

Strictly in the interest of justice and in defense of American womanhood, Once A Week, of New York, will pay five hundred dollars to the writer of that note to Mrs. Borden. This money will be paid upon the endorsement of the attorney-general and Judge Blaisdell that the accuracy of the claim has been established.
Peter Fenelon Collier, Proprietor

Source: Collier's Once A Week, vol. ix, no. 22, Saturday, September 10, 1892: 2.:"

Once A Week was the name of the newspaper. Needless to say the reward was never paid.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:03 am

Hi Harry! Did that really happen, or did the newspaper get their information wrong? I thought Lizzie was the only person who knew about that note.......

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:12 am

Actually according to Mrs. Churchill's Preliminary testimony both Lizzie and Bridget told her about the note.

Lizzie on page 272:

"Q. Coming back again. She said something about going out to the barn, as you have testified. What was the next thing that happened, as you remember?
A. I asked her where her mother was. She said she had a note to go see someone that was sick."

Bridget on page 278:

"Q. Do you remember anything more being said about that note, than what you have testified to?
A. Yes sir, Bridget told me that Mrs. Borden had a note to go to see someone that was sick, and that she was dusting the sitting room and hurried off. She said “she did not tell me where she was going; she generally does.”
Q. Did you hear anything else said about the note?
A. No sir."

She testified similarly at the trial but that would have been after that reward appeared in the papers.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:43 am

Thanks for the testimony, Harry.

In 1892, that kind of money was NOT pocket change! Even by today’s standards, $500.00 is a lot of money.

If there was a note, I can’t imagine anyone ignoring the opportunity of receiving that kind of money for simply coming forward as the writer, that is unless the writer of the note happened to be Lizzie.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:06 am

Is there any way of knowing Bridget's source for the information about the note? The subtleties involved make me wonder about that. We have Mrs. Churchill directly quoting Bridget: "She said 'she did not tell me where she was going; she generally does.'" This makes Bridget the source for the information in the comment. However, the information preceding the quotation might have been third hand. Lizzie might have told Bridget about the note and that it was conveyed by Abby while Abby was dusting, and Bridget is simply repeating it. The part about not telling Bridget where she was going is added by Bridget, addressing the fact that Bridget found it odd that Abby would do this. Bridget may have been attempting to raise a red flag here with the comment about how Abby usually tells her when she is going to be away from the house. If Bridget found the story about the note unbelievable, she might have been trying to let Mrs. Churchill know about it, but the subtlety is lost in either the hearing of it or the telling of it by Mrs Churchill.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:56 am

That's what I was wondering, Yooper, seems I remember reading that it was Lizzie who told Bridget about Abby getting a note. That gives it a whole different aspect Abby might have been murdered before she got a chance to tell Bridget. If indeed there really was a note, and not just Lizzie giving Bridget a reason for not seeing Abby. Yes, indeed, 500.00 dollars is a nice amount to offer, and anyone but the murderer would have come to collect it, if they knew about it or wrote it or even just delivered it. Thanks Harry! I really need to re-read all the testimony!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:26 pm

Bridget's Preliminary testimony, p20-21:

"Q. Did you hear her say anything to Mr. Borden?
A. I heard her ask him if he had any mail for her. I heard her telling her father very slowly that her mother got a note, that Mrs. Borden had a note that morning, and had gone out.
Q. You heard her telling that very slowly?
A. Yes Sir, to her father.
Q. Had got a note?
A. From some sick person. Of course the conversation was very low, I did not pay any attention to it; but I heard her telling her father that.
Q. What else did you hear her say to her father?
A. Not any more."

Then Bridget's trial testimony, p237-238:

"Q. You in the meantime washing the windows?
A. I was washing the last window in the dining room.
Q. Did she [Lizzie] say anything to you, or you to her, while you were doing that, and she was doing what you describe?
A. She said, "Maggie, are you going out this afternoon?" I said, "I don't know; I might and I might not; I don't feel very well." She says, "If you go out, be sure and lock the door, for Mrs. Borden has gone out on a sick call, and I might go out, too." Says I, "Miss Lizzie, who is sick?" "I don't know; she had a note this morning; it must be in town."

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:44 pm

So, Bridget never mentioned Abby as a source for the note information, only Lizzie. It would have been in the interest of the defense if Bridget had heard about a note directly from Abby as well as from Lizzie. Rather than present the information from the familiar perspective of "the" note, Bridget adopts the more indifferent perspective of "a" note. I get the idea that overhearing Lizzie talking to Andrew was the first Bridget heard of the note.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:45 pm

So Bridget goes out to wash the windows and apparently Abby is still inside the house and very much alive at that point. When she comes back in Abby is gone and Lizzie tells her about the note to explain Abby's absence. Since the front door is locked and bolted from inside, she obviously did not use the front door when she went out. That leaves the side door. If she left by the side door Bridget did not see her leaving the house. Although at that point Bridget really had no need to be suspicious about Abby's absence. She probably began to put two and two together when Abby's body was found, though. Lizzie told her Abby had a note and went out...but in reality Abby was lying dead in the guest room. Lizzie was the only one in the house at that point. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened. No one ever came forward, even with a large reward, to admit sending the note...so that pretty much tells us no note was ever sent; Lizzie lied about the note to explain Abby's absence. Then, when everyone was questioning her about where Abby had gone so they could notify her about Andrew, suddenly Lizzie "thought she heard her come in". Abby came in the front door, ignored the other people who were gathering in the house, ignored Andrew's body on the couch, and went straight upstairs to the guest room? And Lizzie was very insistent that someone check the guest room....Lizzie knew darned well what was in the guest room.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:20 pm

Yep, and no one else saw or heard her come in!!! Why in the world would she go to the guest room once she got home anyways?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:45 pm

Look at it from Bridget's perspective. Bridget had missed seeing or hearing Abby since about 9:30, according to all accounts. If Abby was in the habit of telling Bridget when she was leaving the house, Bridget had no reason to believe Abby had gone anywhere. For all we know, this may have been the first time Abby missed telling Bridget of a planned absence, so this would have probably made Bridget a bit uneasy when she realized Andrew had been murdered. It might have first crossed her mind when she overheard Lizzie telling Andrew about the note, but there was no need at that time for apprehension. Bridget offered to run over to the Whitehead house assuming Abby would have gone there on a sick call, but she needed directions. She might have thought of that when she was summoning Alice Russell, and wondering why no one thought Abby might be interested in the recent events. If she had known where the Whitehead house was, she might have stopped there while she was out after Alice. At the time Bridget offered to look for Abby, she was preempted by Lizzie asking her to look upstairs for Abby. If she hadn't thought of it before, that had to be the moment Bridget put two and two together. I think the bit about "I thought I heard Abby return" was for Bridget's benefit, justification for sending her upstairs at that moment, because Bridget had specifically been told that Abby had gone out. Bridget went into the guest room while Mrs. Churchill delivered the news and Bridget possibly may have noticed the blood had coagulated beneath Abby, that is, if she looked closely. She may have been too upset by then, and I don't recall any testimony to that fact, so, maybe not.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:08 am

Lizzie didn't really have much of a criminal mind, if she had, she'd of sent Bridget out to look for Abby right away. And just let nature take it's course as to when her body was found. Wonder why she was in such a big hurry"?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:27 am

Lizzie may have wanted to retreat to her room in anticipation of all the people entering the house. She probably didn't want to be the one to discover Abby, and she would need to walk right past the guest room to get to her room. Mrs. Churchill was able to see Abby looking beneath the bed from part way up the stairs.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:14 pm

Yes, that's true, but you'd think the police would want to search the house, before anyone went anywhere. The murderer could still have been lurking around. I've never been to the house, but from pictures I've seen of the room and the location of the stairs, if you weren't looking that way and were just looking straight ahead, you'd miss Abby completely. Or even if you just glanced down at that second you'd miss it.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:03 pm

shakiboo wrote:Lizzie didn't really have much of a criminal mind, if she had, she'd of sent Bridget out to look for Abby right away. And just let nature take it's course as to when her body was found. Wonder why she was in such a big hurry"?

If Lizzie had ANY kind of a criminal mind, she'd have left the house as soon as she did away with Abby, and make it look like an intruder had come in and killed Abby while Bridget was outside washing windows. Instead, she hung around the house waiting for Andrew to come home. She obviously had plenty of time to get away from the house before anyone returned. That makes me feel that she intended to kill Andrew as well. She wanted them both dead!

I really, seriously don't think Lizzie ever dreamed that anyone would doubt her version of what had happened...she would tell her version of things, the police would take her word for it, and it would be assumed that an intruder did it. I think the night before she had been setting the stage with Alice Russell with her talk of "enemies". Andrew and Abby would be buried, the police would chalk it up to an intruder, and she and Emma would get their money. Their friends and family would also believe an intruder had committed the murders and the girls would have the sympathy of the town. Life would be good!

I think she was in such a hurry to find Abby's body because she had set the wheels in motion and she wanted to get the show on the road and get things over with.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:55 pm

The entire problem with the intruder scenario is the fact that Lizzie, or both Lizzie and Bridget, were spared. Why would an intruder, who had no connection to either Lizzie or Bridget and bent on mayhem, do that? It would be far simpler to have the run of the house without having to hide in a closet riding a broom handle. Lizzie would have done better to smack herself on the melon with the blunt end of the hatchet, then go staggering down the driveway hollering for the cops after stashing the hatchet.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:07 pm

Yooper wrote:The entire problem with the intruder scenario is the fact that Lizzie, or both Lizzie and Bridget, were spared. Why would an intruder, who had no connection to either Lizzie or Bridget and bent on mayhem, do that? It would be far simpler to have the run of the house without having to hide in a closet riding a broom handle. Lizzie would have done better to smack herself on the melon with the blunt end of the hatchet, then go staggering down the driveway hollering for the cops after stashing the hatchet.

Oh, that's too funny !!!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:20 am

Dr. Bowen testified that he suggested Lizzie go to her room sometime after he returned from sending the telegraph. His reason for doing so is open to speculation.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:41 am

I thought he did it so Lizzie could have some privacy, and could be more comfortable. Wasn't she being tended to by Alice and Mrs. Churchill in the kitchen?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:43 am

shakiboo wrote:I thought he did it so Lizzie could have some privacy, and could be more comfortable. Wasn't she being tended to by Alice and Mrs. Churchill in the kitchen?

I have to agree with you on that. I think she needed to have a little privacy. Must have been pretty shook up.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:26 pm

I doubt he would have suggested it to try to conceal anything, so it was probably done to get Lizzie and her attendants away from the investigation.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:25 pm

what did you have in mind? Do you think there was more to it? If I remember correctly, he was acting a bit odd.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:54 pm

Dr. Bowen was likely trying to get Lizzie and the other women out from underfoot. He probably realized there would be a number of people coming to investigate, so it might be better to isolate Lizzie under the circumstances. It would allow her to choose who she wanted to speak with, more or less. I think he, as well as everyone else at that moment, saw Lizzie as a victim rather than the perpetrator.

He did seem distracted according to testimony from others, and he seemed to have some trouble at times recounting events according to his own testimony. Some of that may have been the result of badgering by attorneys in their questioning. I think they had him on the run, they wanted more accuracy from him. The exchange about the color of Lizzie's dress is a good example. He said he didn't particularly notice the dress, but that wasn't good enough so they went on for quite some time about it. Another incident was the questioning about the morphine prescribed for Lizzie, he should have clarified the answer, but he didn't. He had prescribed 1/8 grain, the minimum for about a 125 lb person which he later increased to 1/4 grain, the maximum for the same body mass, and coincidentally, double the original dose. In fact, he said it was double the dose in his testimony, he used those terms. The next question was whether double doses of morphine cause delusions, but that refers to a double maximum dose, or 1/2 grain, four times the original dose! Lizzie was never prescribed a 1/2 grain dose, but most people came away with the idea that Lizzie was overdosing on morphine at the inquest and might have been delusional. That exchange still fools people, even today! Bowen should have caught the implication and clarified it, but he missed it.

One item that has always stuck in my mind was Bowen's comment about how he was satisfied something was wrong because they had all been sick the previous day. That always bothered me, how to logically progress from food poisoning to a hatchet murder, it seems like an extremely weak premise. While I have nothing to substantiate it, I think Abby had complained of more than just simple food poisoning on her visit, I think she wanted to convey that she feared for her life. I don't think she was successful, either she couldn't state it properly, or he wasn't listening, but he minimized it to food poisoning and he was probably right. Next day he's called to the Borden house, and if he wasn't listening on the 3rd, he was all ears on the 4th! I think if Abby had conveyed a fear for her life and he more or less laughed it off, he would have blamed himself to some degree. He had no way of knowing who Abby might have told about her visit, maybe he thought his reputation was at stake. There was something about Bowen being "greatly relieved" to find out the results of the tests on the stomachs and the fact that there was no poison present. If that's true, then why?

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:54 pm

I think Dr. Bowen knew way more that he said. I wish there was a record of his later correspondence, or that he had kept a diary. That must have been the most incredible day of his life and career and I bet he had insight to the real story.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:47 am

I think any number of people knew more than they said. I think we underestimate the public's aversion to sending a woman to the gallows. Anything furthering the prosecution's case would have purposely been kept quiet. That probably hampered the investigation and the prosecution from the start. There was an article published about Alice Russell, referring to her as a traitor for coming forth with the information about the dress burning. I think most folks were glad Massachusetts didn't have to execute a woman, they had avoided that for some time. This makes it all the more improbable that if there had been a sender and a delivery person for Abby's alleged note, they didn't come forward to help get Lizzie off the hook.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:22 pm

About that note, what if Lizzie had gotten her imformation about a note from Abby? What if Abby had told Lizzie she had recieved a note and was going to go out? There's so many things that could have happend, Those two murder's had to have been a shock to everyone who was in the house, like Bridget for example, up until the time she knew about it, she had no reason for keeping track of everything she did or didn't do, it was just another day to her till then. I just sat here and tried to re-call everything I had done today from the time I got up, till 11 o'clock and believe it or not, I had forgotten things, or wasn't really sure about the order of event's because it was just another normal, habit filled day. Where I went about doing things that I do every day. That's where the phrase "as best as you can remember" comes in to play. Anyway, that not only applied to Bridget, but also to Morse, and Lizzie. I couldn't do it with 100% accuracy and I wasn't being asked by an officer of the law regarding two murder's which had taken place right in my own home. Not to mention, one of the three people were related to the murdered.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:04 am

From the witness statements, August 4th, Harrington:

During this conversation with Lizzie, I cautioned her about what she might say at the present time.
I said owing to the atrociousness of the crime, perhaps you are not in a mental condition to give as clear
a statement of the facts as you will be tomorrow; and also by that time you may be able to tell more
about the man who wished to hire the store. You may recollect of having heard his name, or of seeing
him, and thereby be enabled to give a description of him, or may recollect of something said about him
by your father; so I say it may be better for you not to submit to an interview until tomorrow, when you
may be better able to recite what you know of the circumstances.” To this she replied “no, I think I can
tell you all I know now, just as well as at any other time.” This conversation took place in Lizzie’s
room, on the second floor, in the presence of Miss Alice Russell, who sat in a chair by the door which
leads to the front hall, by which I entered Lizzie’s room.

Lizzie was not overwrought, according to Lizzie.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:02 am

There is nothing other than Lizzie's word to indicate the presence of a note. No author or delivery person came forward, and Bridget found it odd that Abby didn't tell her of plans to be away from the house. Bridget never testified that Abby told her of a note directly. If Abby had done so, why would Bridget avoid disclosing it? If a note existed under these circumstances, we would need to explain the ulterior motives of three ostensibly unrelated individuals, occurring simultaneously and independently. Once we've come to grips with the unlikelihood of that, we would have to conclude that if the scenario is to hold up, they must have acted in unison, in dependent fashion. Then we need to explain why these three individuals conspired to at least see Lizzie convicted, and at worst, kill Abby themselves. They would need a motive. A REAL one. The only reasonable conclusion is there was no note. Lizzie was the only one to gain anything from the presence of a note, she would then have reason to not miss seeing or hearing Abby since 9:30 am. Other than that, a note would have made no difference at all in the case.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:28 am

OK, since we're playing "what if...",: What if Bridget had one of her friends write and send a note. Bridget somehow dodges Lizzie and kills Abby. Bridget then waits for Lizzie to go to the barn, and kills Andrew in order to frame Lizzie. Maybe?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:12 pm

Yooper wrote:From the witness statements, August 4th, Harrington:

During this conversation with Lizzie, I cautioned her about what she might say at the present time.
I said owing to the atrociousness of the crime, perhaps you are not in a mental condition to give as clear
a statement of the facts as you will be tomorrow; and also by that time you may be able to tell more
about the man who wished to hire the store. You may recollect of having heard his name, or of seeing
him, and thereby be enabled to give a description of him, or may recollect of something said about him
by your father; so I say it may be better for you not to submit to an interview until tomorrow, when you
may be better able to recite what you know of the circumstances.” To this she replied “no, I think I can
tell you all I know now, just as well as at any other time.” This conversation took place in Lizzie’s
room, on the second floor, in the presence of Miss Alice Russell, who sat in a chair by the door which
leads to the front hall, by which I entered Lizzie’s room.

Lizzie was not overwrought, according to Lizzie.

That's true she did say that, but have you never been upset or not alright but still insisted that you were fine? You don't have to be visibly shaken up to be internally a mess. Weather she was guilty or not she couldn't have been calm, cool and collected, not on the inside. Would Dr.Bowen have given her something to help calm her if she was?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:21 pm

What if? OK, what if Arthur Buffington was one of those weird fellas who lived next door to two "maidens" and did his share of snooping, stalking or peeping? No one ever mentions him, what he was like, if he was questioned, and where he eventually went after the murders. Don't forget that Lizzie told of some shadowy figure around the house not once, but twice. Maybe he was not playing with a full deck and did in the Bordens when he was able to see from next door that no one was around when he could sneak in. Don't know why he would have done it, but sczhiophrenics march to their own drummers.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:25 pm

If we want Lizzie to be innocent, we have to be careful here. You're alluding to the fact that she was a good actress!

Dr. Bowen prescribed Bromo-Caffeine as a sedative initially, followed by a minimum dose of morphine, later increased to a maximum dose. Whether Lizzie was sedated at the time she made the statement, I don't know.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:39 pm

Yooper wrote:If we want Lizzie to be innocent, we have to be careful here. You're alluding to the fact that she was a good actress!

Dr. Bowen prescribed Bromo-Caffeine as a sedative initially, followed by a minimum dose of morphine, later increased to a maximum dose. Whether Lizzie was sedated at the time she made the statement, I don't know.

No, not so much that she would have been a good actress, she would also have been a product of her upbringing. Those days were so diiferent then they are today. She would have been taught from a very early age to act like a lady, not make a scene, to not do anything that would bring unwarrented attention to herself. She would then do all in her power to not make a scene, to not show her emotions, to remain the lady of the house, if you can see what I mean? I guess I do arque for her defence, I know what the facts are, for as much as we can know, but alot of those facts were based on opinion, someone's take on what they heard or saw, or felt. How many of the people thought her guilty after the trial, for no other reason then "if she didn't do it, who did"? I know, she more then likely did it, But darn, what if she didn't and we really are missing a big piece of the puzzle?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:10 pm

Given a calm and controlled demeanor, it's really impossible to tell if any internal turmoil exists. If she was in turmoil, she was acting if she appeared calm, she was playing a role. The point is, she was portraying something other than what she was feeling, whether shock and grief as a victim, or guilt and remorse as the perpetrator. Given the apparent emotional control, it is impossible to know which. Another possibility is that she genuinely wasn't upset by the events, whether guilty or innocent. Officer Harrington gave her ample opportunity to drop any role playing and be real, a delayed interview was perfectly acceptable. He even provided his reasons, she might be inclined to better accuracy when she had calmed down a bit. Lizzie thought that was unnecessary, she was as lucid at that moment as she would ever be. To my mind, she did not come off as the victim of a crime.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:36 pm

Angel wrote:What if? OK, what if Arthur Buffington was one of those weird fellas who lived next door to two "maidens" and did his share of snooping, stalking or peeping? No one ever mentions him, what he was like, if he was questioned, and where he eventually went after the murders. Don't forget that Lizzie told of some shadowy figure around the house not once, but twice. Maybe he was not playing with a full deck and did in the Bordens when he was able to see from next door that no one was around when he could sneak in. Don't know why he would have done it, but sczhiophrenics march to their own drummers.

An intruder would almost certainly have to be familiar with whatever patterns existed in the Borden household. I'm not well versed in forms of mental illness, but it would have to be a form which allows the individual to make sense of patterns observed, as well as the acuity to seek the patterns in the first place. The illness would also have to be debilitating enough to allow for the lack of a real motive, other than whatever dementia existed. Maybe there is such a condition, one which accounts for just the right amount of dementia, and the right amount of lucidity, I don't know. All of that implies purpose, the intent to commit the murders. In the case of a neighbor, the patterns might be realized without consciously seeking them, over the course of several years by more or less unconscious observation. That person could possibly just snap one day and perhaps instinctively have the timing right. Again, I have no idea if any of this is possible, it is simply conjecture. To me, it makes more sense than someone just arbitrarily walking in off the street, killing two people an hour and a half apart while dodging two other people, then simply walking out without being seen or heard by anyone.