An oddity about the alibis

[snokkums]

An oddity that I have found in all of my readings on the case is that it seems that everyone (Bridget, Lizzie and John Morse) all had alibis for the time of Andrews' murder, but not for Abbys. In particular, Lizzie said she was out in the barn looking for sinkers at 11 A.M. She never claimed to be out of the house between 9 and 10 A.M. Might it be that she didn't have an alibi because Abby didn't die between 9 and 10 but rather around 11 nearly simultanously with Andrew?If I remeber correctly Dr. Dolan had felt the body of Abby to get tempurature instead of using a theometer. Touching the skin is very inaccurate way of determing the body tempurature of the time of death.

Finally, of the two people killed, who do you think is more likely the victim? andrew or Abby? Considering thier perponalities, the answer should be obivious. Legend has it that Andrew was an obscenely rich miser who turned out widows and orphans in to the streets if they fell behind on the rent. The truth is almost certainly less damming but the fact remains that Andrew Borden was detested by most of the people who knew him. In a fictional "whodunit", he would be the victim.

In contrast, Abby was pleasent, self-effacing woman who stayed close to home. Neighbors relatives and even the Fall River Globe had only nice things to say about her. Someone might pity or ignore her, but it's hard to belive that she could inspire the kind of hatred required to bring about two brutals murders. It seems far more likely that Andrew was the intended victim and that Abbys murder followed shortly afterwards in an effort to cover up Andrews

I think what it is for me is that Andrew was the inteded victim and Abby just was in the wrong place at the wrong time, because it seems no one had an alibi for the time she was supposedly killed, and most everyone hated Andrew.

[Yooper]

Lizzie tried to put herself in the kitchen during the time generally accepted as the time of Abby's death. It doesn't seem reasonable for both Bridget and Lizzie to be indoors simultaneously and each be unaware of the other killing Abby, so Bridget was likely outdoors washing windows as witnesses stated. If Abby's body temperature had dropped to where her skin felt markedly less than warm to the touch while Andrew's skin still felt warm, it would seem logical that Abby died first. I can't say for certain what the doctors palpated as they checked the bodies, but if there was a distinct difference between Andrew and Abby, then there was not much need for a thermometer. They were checked by several doctors the day of the murders and all reached the same conclusion, so I have to accept that Abby died some time before Andrew. The doctors were aware of the consequences concerning the order of demise, Andrew was a wealthy man and there might be some question of inheritance. If there were no palpable difference between Abby's and Andrew's temperatures, then I believe the doctors would have thought to use a thermometer to settle the question.

If the target had been Andrew, then there was really no reason for Abby to die at all. It would be far easier and safer for a murderer to kill Andrew while he was away from the house, possibly after dark. To kill him in his home in the middle of the day is sheer stupidity for someone bent on murdering Andrew, for whatever reason.

[snokkums]

Lizzie tried to put herself in the kitchen during the time generally accepted as the time of Abby's death. It doesn't seem reasonable for both Bridget and Lizzie to be indoors simultaneously and each be unaware of the other killing Abby, so Bridget was likely outdoors washing windows as witnesses stated. If Abby's body temperature had dropped to where her skin felt markedly less than warm to the touch while Andrew's skin still felt warm, it would seem logical that Abby died first. I can't say for certain what the doctors palpated as they checked the bodies, but if there was a distinct difference between Andrew and Abby, then there was not much need for a thermometer. They were checked by several doctors the day of the murders and all reached the same conclusion, so I have to accept that Abby died some time before Andrew. The doctors were aware of the consequences concerning the order of demise, Andrew was a wealthy man and there might be some question of inheritance. If there were no palpable difference between Abby's and Andrew's temperatures, then I believe the doctors would have thought to use a thermometer to settle the question.

If the target had been Andrew, then there was really no reason for Abby to die at all. It would be far easier and safer for a murderer to kill Andrew while he was away from the house, possibly after dark. To kill him in his home in the middle of the day is sheer stupidity for someone bent on murdering Andrew, for whatever reason.

Part of me wants to say wholeheartdly that Andrew was the victim because the fact that he wasn't very well liked, but your why kill him in the house. Somebody could have killed him when he was out, it would make more since. Besides, with three other people in the house, you'd have to kill both Andrew and Abby and everyone else in the house.

The only other scenrio I can come up with that would some sense is that both Andrew and Abby were the intended victims. The reasoning-- inheiratance. In that case, it would have had to have been "an inside" job, a family member or someone who thought they were in the will.

And would point the finger squarely at Emma and Lizzie, and with Emma being out of town, that finger squarely at Lizzie. I mean, why would Bridget kill Abby and Andrew? She wasn't in the will, she was getting paid better that most maids, and she didn't have to worry about paying rent and buying food, she had room and board. The only reason I can come up with for Bridget killing the Bordens is that she was a disgruntled employee, but then, to me, she would have to have had to take out Lizzie, too. For me, it's Lizzie that killed her parents.

[RichardX]

By killing Abby first, the killer ran the risk of her body being discovered before Andrew could be killed. So I think if any conclusions can be drawn it's that Abby was definitely a target and Andrew was secondary if the opportunity still presented itself. Too risky to leave Abby laying around if Andrew was the primary person the killer was after. She could have been discovered by Uncle John or Bridget before Andrew ever came home. The killer would have no control over the timing of movements of people who were out and about that day.

[Allen]

I think Andrew and Abby were both targets. If we believe Lizzie was the killer she had no opportunity to kill them both anywhere else.She can't stalk Andrew about town waiting for an opportunity to present itself. She killed Abby while Andrew was out. She concocted the story about Abby going to see a sick friend to keep Andrew from looking for Abby until she could dispatch him. I think this is why she tried to get Bridget to go out as well. Bridget had no reason to go upstairs to the second floor. She had no duties there.

[snokkums]

I always have thought that the reason why Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew was because she thought that she and Emma were being cut out of the will. She didn't really like Abby and I think she felt like abby wasn't entitled to any of the Borden money. With Andrew I think she felt he was a miser and didn't want make improvements in the house because it cost to much money. I mean, why get indoor plumbing when we've been using an out house. It's working isn't it?

[Yooper]

I think that the motive for the murders was ultimately money, but more to prevent it from leaving the Borden family than to actually control it. It could be that Lizzie and Emma would have tolerated the living conditions if Andrew was alive and Abby was out of the picture, but there was no practical way to accomplish that. Once Abby was killed, there was nothing more to lose by killing Andrew, they can only execute you once. It may very well be that the fear of a will favoring Abby in some way was the motivating factor.

[Allen]

I also think Andrew would've suspected Lizzie had a hand in Abby's demise and could've left her nothing. It was at his discretion how his money was distributed after his death. If he suspected Lizzie at all she could've been left out of his will all together. So I don't see why she would take that chance by leaving Andrew alive and only killing Abby if the motive was money, as I believe it was. Living with Andrew alive would not have raised her station. He was, after all, the one who was the miser with his money. If they left Abby alive they would've gotten some of the inheritance, but not as much as if she was dead. And they would still have to contend with her. Do you think Abby would've suspected Lizzie? Would she have voiced even more loudly her fears of being poisoned, and talked about the strained relationships in the household to authorities? Would she have told authorities how she paid for most of the household items out of her own allowance and Lizzie and Emma contributed nothing? Would we have heard her spin on the half house sale? I also don't think it was feasible to kill Andrew without killing Abby. If Abby was a home body, and Andrew was known to be out on business during the day, the opportunity to kill Andrew without Abby being around probably didn't present itself much. Lizzie couldn't really stalk Andrew somewhere out about town after dark and...? Shoot him? Axe him in the street? Did Andrew even go out much after dark? Unless Lizzie concocted a way to get Abby out of the house herself she really had no way of knowing when she'd have a chance to have Andrew all to herself. Which would've raised even more eyebrows. I think we raise eyebrows over her telling Bridget about the cloth sale and asking if she was going to go to it. I don't see how Abby could've been in the wrong place at the wrong time, as she lived there

[twinsrwe]

If Abby died around 11:00AM, nearly simultaneously with Andrew, then how do you explain the fact that Abby’s blood was congealed and Andrew’s blood was still in liquid form? This fact alone tells me that Abby died at a time which was quite a bit earlier than Andrew. As a matter of fact, Dr. Dolan testified that she (Abby) was lying in a pool of clotted blood, quite dark, as if it had been there sometime. It was not in the fluid condition that Mr. Borden’s was.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibr ... odEvidence

If Andrew was more likely the intended victim, then how do you explain the fact that Abby received almost double the number of wounds. It doesn’t make sense to me that the intended victim would receive less blows than a person who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Furthermore, since Andrew was killed in the sitting room on first-floor, and Abby was killed in the second-floor guest bedroom, I find it hard to believe that Abby was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally, I don’t believe the personalities of these two people had anything to do with their murders. I believe their murders occurred because of any money the girls may inheritance upon Andrews demise. In order for the money to go directly to the girls, Abby had to die first. I believe both Abby and Andrew were the intended targets.

[Yooper]

I agree, the number of blows Abby received indicates rage, it was overkill. Who in the world detested Abby?

Andrew would have very likely suspected Lizzie if he remained alive. I have the feeling some ultimatum was delivered shortly before the murders, maybe something to do with Andrew buying back the Ferry street house. If that exchange did not go well, maybe Andrew threatened to disinherit Lizzie or Lizzie and Emma both. This would have implied favoring Abby and her family unless Andrew left something to charity or other individuals. It also would have lent an immediacy to the task if the idea was prevention, and it would have pretty well determined Andrew's fate if Abby was successfully dispatched.

There was little point to leaving either one alive if the other had been killed, Lizzie would have been suspected by the survivor. Bridget's decision to go upstairs to rest probably prevented her being killed along with the others.

[Yooper]

It seems that once one or the other of Andrew and Abby was killed, the other pretty well had to go, too. The reason may have been to avoid suspicion by the survivor, which implies the murderer expected they might get away with it.

There may be an immaturity of thought present if Abby was the focus of the murders, and I believe she was. Abby being the main target implies that she was to blame for current conditions, it was all her fault. The real problem lies in dissatisfaction with current conditions and the need to fix blame for them. Someone apparently thought they were in a position to make that judgment, their wishes and aspirations came before those of others. Lizzie's reaction to Alice telling her that burning the dress was the worst thing she could have done was something about "How could YOU let ME do it?" 32 years old, and she's still holding others responsible for her actions!

[snokkums]

I think that both of them were the targets, but for different reason. Andrew because he was miseryly and he gave some property to Abby family, which made Lizzie made. I think Lizzie blamed Abby for getting some of the Borden wealth which Lizzie thought that Abby didn't deserve it. I think she was killed for that and that Lizzie just didn't like her.

[1bigsteve]

Lizzie probably felt that both Andrew and Abby had to be killed, not only so she would get the money, but also to keep Andrew or Abby from pressing crimminal charges. If both were dead Lizzie would have the money and wouldn't have to worry about witnesses causing a stink.


-1bigsteve (o:

[RichardX]

If Lizzie attempted to poison Andrew and Abby, she would have had no idea which would have died first. My guess is that she intended to kill both, but in no particular order. The notion that she killed Abby first for purposes of the inheritance is likely something thought up after the fact and not by the murderer. Abby just happened to be the first target of opportunity. As to why Lizzie did it, money is no doubt a factor. But who knows what kinds of petty grievances and jealousy arose in household like that one. Abby and Lizzie/Emma would have every reason to be wary of one another as Andrew grew older and they had no other independent means of support. Unfortunately, Bridget withheld whatever went on in that house and Lizzie and Emma had every reason to take it to the grave. So we likely will never know with certainty what triggered the murders.

[DJ]

I tend to think that things built up, like steam collecting in a boiler, from the time of the Daylight Robbery onward.

In previous discussions on the Forum, the "key on the mantel" has been dismissed as a convenience to Andrew and Abby-- but I strongly disagree. It was a slap in the face to Lizzie-- a double-dog-dare, if you will. (If it were such a convenience, and a convenience only, the placement of the key would have been instituted much earlier.)

I tend to think that Lizzie lost much of her Father's respect after the Daylight Robbery, which is understandable. Basically, he could no longer trust Lizzie.

As for Lizzie's much-strained relationship with Mrs. Borden, the D.R. left little doubt as to LIzzie's feelings: Abby's prized gold watch gone.

(Stop, think: Imagine someone in your household stealing one of your parents' prized possessions, and your parents obviously have a good take on the thief.)

Things were getting even worse in the few months preceding the murders:

(1) Andrew gets rid of the horse, which inconvenienced Lizzie. Furthermore, the horse apparently was a pet to her. And we are aware of how dear Lizzie held her pets.
(2) The Pigeon Massacre.
(3) The buyback of the Ferry Street property.

If Andrew was dispensing of Lizzie's pet horse and pigeons, with the intent of "getting back at her" (well, really, how else could one read his actions?), he probably had something bigger to unnerve Lizzie, up his coat sleeve. Probably a big lolly for Abby-- probably what sent Miss Emma packing. And, what pulled Lizzie back to the house in late July.

To sum: I think relations had become so strained in the household, that they had reached a point of no return with Lizzie.
She probably believed, correctly, that Mrs. Borden (and, by extension, her relatives) were going to receive just as big a cut of the Borden fortune as she, and she decided that that would happen over Abby and Andrew Bordens' dead bodies.

Indeed, Andrew may have been planning to leave half to Abby, and half to Lizzie and Emma. That may have been scenario enough to enrage Lizze and Emma. (As opposed to a three-way division.) How much longer did Abby have to live? Her heirs would be living just as grand off the Borden fortune as Lizzie and Emma. We know how Lizzie and Emma felt about that, as evidenced by the Whitehead affair.

After all, Uncle Hiram stated publicly to look for someone in the household as the murderer. Aside from Bridget and Uncle John, he probably knew as well as anyone how bad things were.

[Franz]

By killing Abby first, the killer ran the risk of her body being discovered before Andrew could be killed. So I think if any conclusions can be drawn it's that Abby was definitely a target and Andrew was secondary if the opportunity still presented itself. Too risky to leave Abby laying around if Andrew was the primary person the killer was after. She could have been discovered by Uncle John or Bridget before Andrew ever came home. The killer would have no control over the timing of movements of people who were out and about that day.

(The bold type is mine)

The note story, if invented by Lizzie, could not prevent Morse from returning earlier than usually and therefore finding Abby's body; the same note story, if invented by Morse and his conspirator (and if fortunately transmitted by Abby to Lizzie and / or Bridget), could efficiently prevent Lizzie and Bridget (and afterwards Andrew) from searching Abby.

Lizzie didn't know nothing of Morse's doing. She didn't even meet him. Morse was only in visit, he had not been living there, so his return time is more umpredictable than Andrew's. In this case, did Lizzie decide still to put into practice her murder plan (instead of waiting only one or two days for another safer occasion)? Everyone can make his / her judgement. For me all this is highly unlikely.

[hyacinth]

I think that both of them were the targets, but for different reason. Andrew because he was miseryly and he gave some property to Abby family, which made Lizzie made. I think Lizzie blamed Abby for getting some of the Borden wealth which Lizzie thought that Abby didn't deserve it. I think she was killed for that and that Lizzie just didn't like her.

If Andrew was really so miserly would he have given anything to anybody ?

[Allen]

We don't know Andrew's motives for buying Abby's family a half house. They could have been as self serving as wanting to make sure his in-laws never had to come and live with him.