Is it possible that Lizzie invented the note story?

[Aamartin]

I think Lizzie lied about the note. No note was ever received.

[Yooper]

Something else should probably be considered; when did the note arrive? Neither Lizzie nor Bridget was aware of a note being delivered, so it had to be at a time when neither of them was in a position to hear or see Abby answering the door.

[NancyDrew]

Wow! I've been away and sure did miss a lot!

Totally off-topic, but to anyone who cares, I just spent 5 days in the hospital, so I couldn't perform my usual morning routine of coffee and reading the lizzie borden forum. (A really weird story: I was bitten, on June 30th, by my senile 15 year old miniature dachsund..a puncture bite to my thumb. I got a TDAP shot, the bite healed, no problem. UNTIL....2 weeks later, I developed a severe infection in my wrist and arm. Infectious tenosynovitis. Massive I.V. antibiotics; I may still need surgery, and doctors tell me it'll be weeks/months before I regain total use of my right hand again. And yup, I'm a rightie. ) but I digress.

I missed this forum, so ONWARD:

Franz, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have to admit, I have a hard time following your train of thought. Regarding the oft-spoken about note, I believe there was none. Why do I think that?

1. No one ever came forward: not the writer, not the sick person, not the messenger.
2. Someone here said that possibly the "sick person" wanted to avoid notoriety. Possibly...but more than one person would have had to know that a sick person sent for Mrs. Borden, and it is hard for me to believe that every single person who might have had knowledge of the note kept their mouths shut.
3. If someone delivered a note, they would have come to the front door, correct? Bridgette would have answered it; and she didn't testify to receiving one. If the note arrived while she was outside, then either Lizzie or Abby would have had to answer the door. If Lizzie answered the door, why didn't she recall more details about the delivery? (time, messenger, etc). If Abby answered the door to the would-be messenger, wouldn't she have kept the note on her? Perhaps put it in her pocket?

Regarding the guest room door, we have only Lizzie's testimony that it was closed.

There has also been mention on this thread of blood spatter. I concur with Allen that Lizzie probably covered herself with Andrew's coat while hacking him up, then stuffed it under his head. Something that has always bothered me, however...how did she KNOW that she wouldn't be covered in blood? What do you think was her contingency plan?

As it happened, there wasn't a lot of splatter. Not on Lizzie, not on the walls, the door frames, not on the stairs, not leading out of the house, nowhere. But how did she know this in advance? What would she have done if, it turned out, the coat wasn't sufficient to shield her clothes and hair from the cast-off? Lizzie got lucky---very, very lucky. She took a really big chance that the amount of blood from the wounds wasn't flinging in her direction, and/or she was able to cover herself adequately and clean up any noticeable traces. How would she have known she would be okay? Did Lizzie have any experience slaughtering animals? Had she ever killed a living thing in her life? I just find this question very interesting...thanks...

[Allen]

It's my opinion, and I think it has been expressed by others also, that Lizzie's first encounter with blood spatter probably happened when she killed Abby. After that murder she had plenty of time to clean up as it was needed. She could have gotten a good idea of how much blood spatter to expect with Andrew and the idea to take precautions the second time.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie had needed to clean up thoroughly after Andrew's murder, she would have done it. She would have called Bridget down when she was finished.

[Yooper]

Also in my opinion Lizzie was guilty because she had the means , motive , and opportunity .

If this is your reason for Lizzie's guilt, you should, in my opinion, prove that it was absolutely impossible that any onther person could have means, motives and opportunity all together as well.

You might want to suggest that to the Fall River Police and see what they think of it. As a matter of fact, they did take into custody everyone who had means, motive, and opportunity in the Borden murders.

[Allen]

If Lizzie had needed to clean up thoroughly after Andrew's murder, she would have done it. She would have called Bridget down when she was finished.

This is a good point an I agree. If she needed extra time to clean up, and she was the killer, she would have waited to call Bridget down. I think the blood spatter was minimal and easily cleaned up after using the coat to shield herself in case there was any blood spatter.

Franz, to answer your earlier question I don't believe that a person's sex has anything to do with their ability to commit this murder. I do not understand why we need to frame our answer in a way you deemed "valid" if it concerns expressing our own opinion. The testimony given at trial said a person of average strength could have committed these murders. And there is ample evidence through out history that women can be just cruel and as capable of torture and murder as men.

in 1901 Jane Toppan admitted to killing 31 people by overdosing them with lethal injections of morphine. She is quoted as saying, "That is my ambition, to have killed more people - more helpless people - than any man or woman who has ever lived." In 1895 Maria Barbella entered a bar where her lover was and slit his throat in front of everyone with a straight razor because she felt she had to defend her honor. Belle Gunness mostly killed men and children for their insurance money. Their numerous remains were found buried on her farm and the count is believed to be somewhere around 40. We all have probably heard of Elizabeth Bathory and Constance Kent. Elizabeth Brownrigg physically abused, severely tortured, and starved her servants for her own pleasure. One of these servants, Mary Clifford, died from her injuries. The Manson girls do not need any explaining. In more recent years Laurie Dann walked into an elementary school and shot six children after having already bombed another school. She attempted to kill two other children and their mother by setting their home on fire while they were in the basement. She took a whole family hostage after shooting up the school, shot the father in the chest, and then shot herself. She had been sending arsenic laced treats to children she babysat before all this took place. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not,women are just as capable as men of committing heinous acts of violence.

[Yooper]

I agree, gender has nothing to do with the ability to commit the murders. However, I think a man would be more likely to swing the hatchet only once, assuming the blow was on target. Firewood was typically used as a heating and cooking fuel in 1892 so more people were accustomed to using hatchets, male and female, but I tend to think a lot of that depended upon social class. I expect it was more likely the men who cut and split the majority of wood for fuel, so a man might well have had more confidence in both his own ability and that of the hatchet to accomplish the task with a minimum of blows.

[Franz]

Thanks for your opinion Franz but I have no intention of getting into a debate .

I think this is more an exchange of ideas than a debate. In any case I will always be happy to read you in the forum.

[Franz]

Something else should probably be considered; when did the note arrive? Neither Lizzie nor Bridget was aware of a note being delivered, so it had to be at a time when neither of them was in a position to hear or see Abby answering the door.

I agree with you.

[Franz]

I think Lizzie lied about the note. No note was ever received.

What you said is a relatively more probable conjecture. But I think there are other possibilities to be considered.

[Franz]

Franz said: Soory, I don't accept it as "conclusion".[/quote]

Yooper said: That's unfortunate, I do.[/quote]

On the contrary, I think it's fortunate for me, and, if I permit myself to say so, more fortunate for Lizzie.

[Smudgeman]

Franz said: Soory, I don't accept it as "conclusion".

Yooper said: That's unfortunate, I do.[/quote]

On the contrary, I think it's fortunate for me, and, if I permit myself to say so, more fortunate for Lizzie.[/quote]



Fortunate how so? Lizzie is dead and was acquitted, so your belief in her innocence is fortunate for who?

[Franz]

Franz, to answer your earlier question I don't believe that a person's sex has anything to do with their ability to commit this murder. I do not understand why we need to frame our answer in a way you deemed "valid" if it concerns expressing our own opinion.

I think there is misunderstanding between us. I said I won't accept an answer when this answer is made under l'influence of other circumstantial evidence against Lizzie, for example, one says, "I choose B. A woman (Lizzie), because other evidence incriminate her."

Even though I am more convinced for Lizzie's innocence, I always admit those facts against her. Meanwhile, I think there are a number of facts in her favour. Those two questions I made reflect clearly my thought.

[Yooper]

I was referring to the habit of stating the conclusion or outcome of the argument as a premise, I have no idea what Franz was referring to.

[Aamartin]

I think Lizzie lied about the note. No note was ever received.

What you said is a relatively more probable conjecture. But I think there are other possibilities to be considered.

I concede that.

But we have no other testimony or facts other than that Lizzie reported Abby received a note and had gone out. A substantial reward was offered for the author of the note. No one claimed the reward.

So-- where do we draw the line? Do we discuss whether or not a ghost delivered the note?

I suppose it could be said that everyone in Fall River that day is a suspect.....

Lizzie was found not guilty-- as was OJ Simpson, George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony. People have been put to death and later cleared of the crime.

Personally, I think OJ, George and Casey should have been found guilty..... And have made the joke that if I wanted to kill someone and get off-- I'd do it in Florida!

But the facts remain the facts-- unless that law firm releases the files-- we are very unlikely to ever have astounding new evidence to consider and investigate. So we go with what we have. Theories are fun, it's finding evidence to support them that is hard work.

[Allen]

Franz said: Soory, I don't accept it as "conclusion".

Yooper said: That's unfortunate, I do.

On the contrary, I think it's fortunate for me, and, if I permit myself to say so, more fortunate for Lizzie.[/quote]



Fortunate how so? Lizzie is dead and was acquitted, so your belief in her innocence is fortunate for who? [/quote]

I was wondering the same thing.

[PossumPie]

I'm relatively new here, and don't post much.... but let's remember a few things.
1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT their own facts.
2. Attempt to always back a conjecture/theory up with facts.
3. Scientific Method:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
This applies to Everyday life...Even Lizzie Borden Forums!!!!

[hyacinth]

Also in my opinion Lizzie was guilty because she had the means , motive , and opportunity .

If this is your reason for Lizzie's guilt, you should, in my opinion, prove that it was absolutely impossible that any onther person could have means, motives and opportunity all together as well.

Is that really your idea of an exchange of ideas ?
Where is the proof of your conspiracy with John Morse and 2 unknown men ?

[Franz]

Allen, while checking old posts I read one of yours in which you said that you think Lizzie should have deceived Abby to go into the guest room and killed her intentionally there. I apologize if my memory was wrong (because I read a lot of posts these days). In any case I would like to talk about this issue here. If Lizzie was the murderess, I think it is more likely that she killed Abby in the guest room occasionally, not intentionally.

Let’s conjecture now that Lizzie acted alone, without the help of Morse. If Morse didn’t arrive (and therefore didn’t pass the night in the guest room), in Lizzie’s premeditation the guest room could have been a choice for Abby’s murder place. But since uncle John arrived unexpectedly, Lizzie should have changed her idea. Because, if I am not mistaken, Lizzie and Morse met each other only after the murders had happened. Lizzie couldn’t know what Morse would do in the morning of August 4th. Even though Lizzie could do some speculation according to uncle John’s routine of his precedent visits, there were always possibilities (risks for Lizzie) that Morse returned earlier than Andrew. A small and apparently insignificant thing could change all, for example, if Morse did forget his watch and therefore returned unexpectedly to the house? What would Lizzie do? I think if Lizzie wanted to kill Abby intentionally in a relatively safer place, then, Emma’s room, in my opinion, should be the best choice. Emma had been absent from the house for some days, her room should be the least place that Bridget, uncle John or Andrew would go in by any chance or for any reason.

Certainly, it would be totally another thing if Lizzie acted with the help of Morse.

On the other hand, if uncle John planned the murders, in my opinion, the guest room would be the best place either to kill Abby, or for the real killer to hide himself while waiting Andrew’s return.

What do you think about?

[Franz]

Hello everyone.

Yes, I have no proof for my theory (I said this is my first theory, it is not the last, definitive). But we are not in the court to prove Lizzie’s innocence or her guilt. We are in the forum to discuss the Borden case. It should be acceptable to propose new theories with different interpretations of the facts. Even if I were convinced for Lizzie’s guilt, I would never say to Mr. Brown or his editor: “Mr. Brown, you couldn’t propose such a thing, because you have no proof. Mr. X, you couldn’t publish Mr. Brown’s book, because he has no proof.”

Some of you, for example, Yooper, have made a conclusion (Lizzie was guilty), it’s OK. Very well for you. But me, considering all those facts generally considered as evidence against Lizzie and those facts in her favour, I am, “unfortunately”, not convinced at all for her guilt. In this case, even though I have no proof, could I make my own theory, giving my own interpretations of those facts? I think I never said something absolutely impossible in my posts, something like: “Lizzie was innocent, because that morning she was not in Fall River, she was in New York City, I saw her in the Central Park with my own eyes!” I think for an extremely complicated case like the Borden case, any possibility is worth to consider.

For me the discussion is still open, I have no a definitive conclusion, meanwhile I am more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence.

[Franz]

/quote]

Fortunate how so? Lizzie is dead and was acquitted, so your belief in her innocence is fortunate for who?

I was wondering the same thing. [/quote]

Yes, Lizzie was dead, and was acquitted. But she was only acquitted in the court. Many people in their mind didn't acquit her. If Lizzie was innocent, she would feel fortunate there is one person more, whose name is Franz in that forum, who is more convinced for her innocence.

I know well that my thought could seem childish for some one, but I don't think it is laughable.

Yooper, I have said that we are two very different persons and I appreciate this difference. I respect your manners of being and thinking.

[Franz]

But we have no other testimony or facts other than that Lizzie reported Abby received a note and had gone out...

I beg your pardon, aamartin, but I think your phrase is not totally exact. If I am not mistaken (correct me if I am), the fact is that Lizzie said Abby told her she had received a note, and then Lizzie thought that Abby had gone out. Lizzie never said she had seen Abby receive a note and never said she had seen Abby go out.

Generally speaking, when we have no proof to support a speculation, we can say: there is no proof, so we can't consider it as a fact. But meanwhile, even though there is no proof, we can not deny the possibility that the thing did happen in that way. When I hear a new theory of others, in the discussion of Borden case, the first question I aske would not be: "Do you have any proof?", I would say:"Let's see if this theory is possible." If it's found absolutely impossible, the thing stops there. If it's possible, we will see if it is probable, and then, to try to find the proof. If no proof is found, we could only say: "The theory is possible, or probable, or plausible, but no proof to support it." I will never refuse to consider a theory just because there is no proof.

[Aamartin]

I suppose it is a matter of semantics. In her Inquest testimony Lizzie did indeed say that Abby told her she had a note and would be going out.

Lizzie reported that Abby told her she received a note.

Abby was not available for comment/rebuttal.

[Yooper]

I'll try this just once more and that's it. My point is that it is incorrect to state the outcome or conclusion of an argument as a part of the premise for the argument. The habit of "If Lizzie was innocent and..." is incorrect because it only colors what should be another premise as the conclusion. The proper way to frame the argument is to begin with the facts as the premise and reach the conclusion or outcome of the argument for guilt or innocence.

The facts are that Lizzie told everyone who questioned Abby's whereabouts that Abby had received a note and had gone out. Lizzie did not acknowledge Abby independently, she had to be prompted before she thought of Abby. A few days later, at the inquest, the note story was apparently forgotten (this may be overly kind, it could have been suppressed) until she was very pointedly prompted by Knowlton to recall it. Lizzie missed five or six opportunities where the note story would have been the best or only good answer for Knowlton's questions.

The question is whether the note story was an invention or fabrication, ostensibly to support Lizzie's guilt or innocence. My point is that Lizzie's behavior is consistent with guilt because an innocent person would not forget (or suppress) the truth. If the note story was the truth, Lizzie would have expressed early and often. There is nothing suggesting that Lizzie was impaired in any way at the inquest. Lies must be kept track of, the truth does not need this maintenance.

The only argument offered in opposition was that Lizzie was embarrassed or somehow confused. While that point is pure conjecture and there is no proof that Lizzie was disoriented in any way, the simple fact is that even if Lizzie was disoriented, it would make her more reliant on the truth because lies require greater presence of mind than she would have if she were confused. If the note story was the truth, she would have told it either way, confused or not, and most importantly, without prompting.

[twinsrwe]

...I will never refuse to consider a theory just because there is no proof.

Apparently, Arnold Brown must have felt the same way!!! He expected his readers to believe every word of his theory without any proof whatsoever. He published his book as non-fiction, when in fact he couldn’t prove the one thing that his book was centered on – William Borden being Andrew’s son. Therefore, it is nothing but fiction.

[Allen]

Allen, while checking old posts I read one of yours in which you said that you think Lizzie should have deceived Abby to go into the guest room and killed her intentionally there. I apologize if my memory was wrong (because I read a lot of posts these days). In any case I would like to talk about this issue here. If Lizzie was the murderess, I think it is more likely that she killed Abby in the guest room occasionally, not intentionally.

Let’s conjecture now that Lizzie acted alone, without the help of Morse. If Morse didn’t arrive (and therefore didn’t pass the night in the guest room), in Lizzie’s premeditation the guest room could have been a choice for Abby’s murder place. But since uncle John arrived unexpectedly, Lizzie should have changed her idea. Because, if I am not mistaken, Lizzie and Morse met each other only after the murders had happened. Lizzie couldn’t know what Morse would do in the morning of August 4th. Even though Lizzie could do some speculation according to uncle John’s routine of his precedent visits, there were always possibilities (risks for Lizzie) that Morse returned earlier than Andrew. A small and apparently insignificant thing could change all, for example, if Morse did forget his watch and therefore returned unexpectedly to the house? What would Lizzie do? I think if Lizzie wanted to kill Abby intentionally in a relatively safer place, then, Emma’s room, in my opinion, should be the best choice. Emma had been absent from the house for some days, her room should be the least place that Bridget, uncle John or Andrew would go in by any chance or for any reason.

Certainly, it would be totally another thing if Lizzie acted with the help of Morse.

On the other hand, if uncle John planned the murders, in my opinion, the guest room would be the best place either to kill Abby, or for the real killer to hide himself while waiting Andrew’s return.

What do you think about?

If she wanted to throw suspicion directly on herself from the start she would have killed Abby in Emma's room. You could not get to Emma's room without going through Lizzie's room. There was no separate doorway to Emma's room. You had to go through Lizzie's room. And Lizzie's room was always kept locked and the key was kept by...Lizzie. You could not get into Lizzie's room without her key. See how many times you keep coming back to Lizzie in this scenario?

[Allen]

Franz, speculation and conjecture are nice enough sometimes. We are never going to solve this case that's true. But a theory that has absolutely no proof simply does not hold water. I don't like theories that invent facts, ignore facts, contradict facts, and speculate wildly. That change when presented with evidence that contradicts the story originally given. If you study the known facts and show me one actual fact that supports this theory I'd take it seriously. We may never solve this case but that doesn't matter to me. These were real people. People that suffered a terrible demise. I don't think it does any justice to promote new speculations and wild myths surrounding the case. Just like I get disgusted with the theory that Andrew molested Lizzie. Is it possible? Yes. I've pondered the possibility myself. Is it probable? I don't know that. Is there any proof? NO. And if it never happened this man who was murdered could also have his memory tarnished and go down in history as a child molester as well. And why? These were real people folks. Lots of people read these forums and take what they read here very seriously. Why wouldn't they, this is a forum dedicated to the case. The information gets passed on just like it does in those terrible television specials that don't even bother to get the basic facts of the case right. The ghost hunters who go in with a conclusion already drawn and run with it. So do I think it's ok to take liberties with the facts just because we will never solve the case? No.

[Aamartin]

Franz, speculation and conjecture are nice enough sometimes. We are never going to solve this case that's true. But a theory that has absolutely no proof simply does not hold water. I don't like theories that invent facts, ignore facts, contradict facts, and speculate wildly. That change when presented with evidence that contradicts the story originally given. If you study the known facts and show me one actual fact that supports this theory I'd take it seriously. We may never solve this case but that doesn't matter to me. These were real people. People that suffered a terrible demise. I don't think it does any justice to promote new speculations and wild myths surrounding the case. Just like I get disgusted with the theory that Andrew molested Lizzie. Is it possible? Yes. I've pondered the possibility myself. Is it probably? I don't know that. Is there any proof? NO. And if it never happened this man who was murdered could also have his memory tarnished and go down in history as a child molester as well. And why? These were real people folks. Lots of people read these forums and take what they read here very seriously. Why wouldn't they, this is a forum dedicated to the case. The information gets passed on just like it does in those terrible television specials that don't even bother to get the basic facts of the case right. The ghost hunters who go in with a conclusion already drawn and run with it. So do I think it's ok to take liberties with the facts just because we will never solve the case? No.

Allen makes some very good points.

I have read other forums and posts regarding this case on other websites. Especially ones devoted to discussing the paranormal investigations that occur at the house. MANY of the posters there accept the incest theory outright. Others read these posts and then come to agree. The one that really sticks in my mind was the discussion of the investigation 'The Dead Files' did at the house and the wild accusations made-- and accepted by many of those reading the thread. This program heavily edited a recently unearthed photo of Lizzie to support their 'findings'. In other words, they fabricated something and more or less presented it as almost a sort of evidence-- and people then believed fully in crude sexual behavior between the family members and Lizzie's guilt--yet they also maligned Andrew horribly.

New posters here always bring a fresh perspective and renew the posts from some of the 'old timers' who have been in this forum for years. This forum is totally Lizzie-- and we enjoy a wide variety of near and outright experts at the case.

When theorizing, expect them to cite testimony and evidence. And expect to be able to respond in kind. It happened to most of us when we showed up here!

I wanted Lizzie to be innocent so badly for so long it clouded my judgement. As I have grown in my knowledge of the case, I question it more and more. For me, the breakthrough came when I realized and accepted that Lizzie could have committed the murders and then gone on to live a quiet, violence free life. That she might not have been a complete sociopath. That even a cold blooded murderer could be kind to animals and to those who worked for them and stood by them.

In my opinion Lizzie showed her affection and appreciation towards others in a financial and material manner, which leads me to believe this was something that was important to her and furthers draws me towards her guilt.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while we may be 'amateur sleuths' in the Borden case, in order to be taken seriously here by a good many of the posters, one has to suggest serious theories and case testimony, etc to back it up.

[NancyDrew]

I think I understand what is going on here...John Douglas, in his book "The Cases That Haunt Us" talks about it. People often have a theory of a crime..the guilt or innocence of a person, or how something happened...and they then "retro-fit" the facts to fit that theory. Douglas claims this is a common mistake, even made by those in law enforcement. Its' backwards...he cautions instead that we must start with the facts---undisputed, hard-core reality, and then use THAT as a springboard for logical conclusions.

There are so many unsupported claims about Lizzie floating around out there that it is easy to forget what is KNOWN to be true, and what is someone's opinion or speculation. On the IMDB (Internet movie data-base) site, there is a forum about Lizzie (actually about the 1975 movie). Someone posted "Lizzie was a lesbian" and I went nuts on them...there is no proof anywhere that this is or was true, but because of her association with Nance O'Neil, someone decided they must have had a sexual relationship, and from there, the rumor blossomed until NOW people who only have a cursory knowledge of the case are stating things as FACT.

The inquest, trial testimonies, witness statements, subsequent interviews (in newspapers) and public records, are all we have to go by.

[Yooper]

I think I understand what is going on here...John Douglas, in his book "The Cases That Haunt Us" talks about it. People often have a theory of a crime..the guilt or innocence of a person, or how something happened...and they then "retro-fit" the facts to fit that theory. Douglas claims this is a common mistake, even made by those in law enforcement. Its' backwards...he cautions instead that we must start with the facts---undisputed, hard-core reality, and then use THAT as a springboard for logical conclusions.

There are so many unsupported claims about Lizzie floating around out there that it is easy to forget what is KNOWN to be true, and what is someone's opinion or speculation. On the IMDB (Internet movie data-base) site, there is a forum about Lizzie (actually about the 1975 movie). Someone posted "Lizzie was a lesbian" and I went nuts on them...there is no proof anywhere that this is or was true, but because of her association with Nance O'Neil, someone decided they must have had a sexual relationship, and from there, the rumor blossomed until NOW people who only have a cursory knowledge of the case are stating things as FACT.

The inquest, trial testimonies, witness statements, subsequent interviews (in newspapers) and public records, are all we have to go by.

Bingo! A+

[Yooper]

Generally speaking, when we have no proof to support a speculation, we can say: there is no proof, so we can't consider it as a fact. But meanwhile, even though there is no proof, we can not deny the possibility that the thing did happen in that way.

We could simply say that there is unreasonable doubt.

[Allen]

I own a copy of the Cases That Haunt Us. John Douglas is without doubt a brilliant FBI profiler. I also agree with what NancyDrew had to say. But it is another example of how easily the facts can be misrepresented that even John Douglas's account of the crime contains some inaccuracies.

[Allen]

I thought I would give an example of the way information can become distorted through the retelling of incorrect facts. Even people who are used to researching facts of criminal cases for a living sometimes can no longer tell the difference between fact and fiction because of all the misinformation floating around. And since some of the information provided concerns the infamous note that is the subject of this thread I thought it was fitting for that reason as well.

This passage is from 'The Cases That Haunt Us' - by John Douglas page 101.

"Mrs Adelaide Churchill had been returning home after buying groceries when she saw Bridget Sullivan darting back in vain from Dr. Seabury Bowen's house across the street. She set her parcels down, then rushed over to the Bordens', fearing from Bridget's actions that someone was gravely ill. Lizzie was standing just inside the screen door on the side of the house, looking dazed. Mrs. Churchill called out to her, "Lizzie, what is the matter?"

"Oh, Mrs. Churchill," Lizzie responded, "do come over! Someone has killed Father!"

The neighbor went around the fence and up to Lizzie. "Where is your father?" She had to ask several times before Lizzie finally responded:

"In the sitting room."

Mrs. Churchill went into the sitting room and beheld the carnage for herself. When she emerged moments later, she asked Lizzie where she had been when this happened.

Lizzie replied that she had been in the barn behind the house, where she'd gone to find some lead to use as fishing weights for an upcoming trip. When she'd heard a noise, she had come out and noticed that the screen door was open. "


Inquest testimony of Adelaide B. Churchill page 128-129:

Q. What was the first thing you did?
A. I went into the house, stepped through to the kitchen, laid my parcels on a bench which runs right across one of the south windows that looks into Mr. Borden's back yard. At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.

Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance. I opened one of the south windows, one had a screen in and the other did not, I says "what is the matter Lizzie?" She said "O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed Father. " I went right through the house and went out the front door and went over. When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back stairs.

Q. Crying?
A. No sir. I put my hand on her arm, this way, and said, "Lizzie, where is your father? She says "in the sitting room." I said "where was you when it happened?" She said "I went to the barn to get a piece of iron. " I said "where is your mother?" She says "I don't know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I don't know but they have killed her too." She said "father must have an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned." Then she said "Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must have a Doctor." I says "shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor?"

Q. What was that?
A. She said "Dr. Bowen was not at home, and I must have a Doctor." I says "shall I go, Lizzie, and try to find someone to go and get one?" She said yes. I went out and ran across the street, because I knew the young man that worked for us had gone in a yard where they sell horses, Mr. Hall's yard, with a carriage he had been washing in our yard. He was going out of the yard that day when I went in with my bundles. I went across and called for Thomas Bowles. I says "somebody has killed Mr. Borden; go and get a Doctor." I don't know where he went. I went back. Soon after I got back she says "I shall have to go to the Cemetary myself" . "O, No." I says, "Lizzie, the undertaker will attend to all such things as that for you; they generally do." Very soon Dr. Bowen came in, and I said to him "he is in the sitting room." Dr. Bowen went directly to the door that opens from the kitchen into the dining room,at the right of the door as you come in the back entry, just beyond it, and Lizzie and Bridget and I, Bridget had come back, she had been for Alice Russell, a friend of Lizzie's, and had got back, and Lizzie and Bridget and I went as far as the dining room. Lizzie sat down on the lounge, Bridget and I stood there. Dr. Bowen went into the sitting room, came out and shook his head and says "that is awful". He said to me, he was very much confused, "Addie", he says, "won't you go in and look at Mr. Borden?" I says "O, no Doctor, I don't want to see him. I looked at him out in the yard this morning, he looked nice to me, I don't want to see him. " He says, "perhaps it is best you should not" or "it is just as well." .....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 130:

Q. Nobody went into the sitting room to see the body before Dr. Bowen went in?
A. No sir, not that I know of.

Q. When you looked and saw Lizzie in great distress, the first time, was she standing inside the screen door?
A. That was before I went over, I was in my own house, and she stood by the screen door.

Q. Outside the door or inside?
A. No sir, inside, the door was closed.

Q. Then you ran out the front door, around through the yard, and right over to where she was?
A. Yes, sir, from my house.

[Franz]

Allen, while checking old posts I read one of yours in which you said that you think Lizzie should have deceived Abby to go into the guest room and killed her intentionally there. I apologize if my memory was wrong (because I read a lot of posts these days). In any case I would like to talk about this issue here. If Lizzie was the murderess, I think it is more likely that she killed Abby in the guest room occasionally, not intentionally.

Let’s conjecture now that Lizzie acted alone, without the help of Morse. If Morse didn’t arrive (and therefore didn’t pass the night in the guest room), in Lizzie’s premeditation the guest room could have been a choice for Abby’s murder place. But since uncle John arrived unexpectedly, Lizzie should have changed her idea. Because, if I am not mistaken, Lizzie and Morse met each other only after the murders had happened. Lizzie couldn’t know what Morse would do in the morning of August 4th. Even though Lizzie could do some speculation according to uncle John’s routine of his precedent visits, there were always possibilities (risks for Lizzie) that Morse returned earlier than Andrew. A small and apparently insignificant thing could change all, for example, if Morse did forget his watch and therefore returned unexpectedly to the house? What would Lizzie do? I think if Lizzie wanted to kill Abby intentionally in a relatively safer place, then, Emma’s room, in my opinion, should be the best choice. Emma had been absent from the house for some days, her room should be the least place that Bridget, uncle John or Andrew would go in by any chance or for any reason.

Certainly, it would be totally another thing if Lizzie acted with the help of Morse.

On the other hand, if uncle John planned the murders, in my opinion, the guest room would be the best place either to kill Abby, or for the real killer to hide himself while waiting Andrew’s return.

What do you think about?

If she wanted to throw suspicion directly on herself from the start she would have killed Abby in Emma's room. You could not get to Emma's room without going through Lizzie's room. There was no separate doorway to Emma's room. You had to go through Lizzie's room. And Lizzie's room was always kept locked and the key was kept by...Lizzie. You could not get into Lizzie's room without her key. See how many times you keep coming back to Lizzie in this scenario?

Yes Allen, you are right. But I think wherever Lizzie killed Abby (if Lizzie was guilty), Morse’s presence at the house should be considered as a big problem. Lizzie didn’t meet him and didn’t talk with him, she knew nothing about Morse’s doing that morning. Even if Lizzie had asked her father or Abby and then speculated Morse’s timetable, she could not be sure who of the two men: Morse and Andrew, would return first. I think in this case, the safer solution could be postponing her murder plan and killing Andrew and Abby when Morse would have left.

Certainly, Lizzie could have decided to act as well that day, knowing well the risk she was running. I said that all murderers run risk to some extent. However, I have some perplexity about this issue.

[Franz]

I'll try this just once more and that's it. My point is that it is incorrect to state the outcome or conclusion of an argument as a part of the premise for the argument. The habit of "If Lizzie was innocent and..." is incorrect because it only colors what should be another premise as the conclusion. The proper way to frame the argument is to begin with the facts as the premise and reach the conclusion or outcome of the argument for guilt or innocence.

The facts are that Lizzie told everyone who questioned Abby's whereabouts that Abby had received a note and had gone out. Lizzie did not acknowledge Abby independently, she had to be prompted before she thought of Abby. A few days later, at the inquest, the note story was apparently forgotten (this may be overly kind, it could have been suppressed) until she was very pointedly prompted by Knowlton to recall it. Lizzie missed five or six opportunities where the note story would have been the best or only good answer for Knowlton's questions.

The question is whether the note story was an invention or fabrication, ostensibly to support Lizzie's guilt or innocence. My point is that Lizzie's behavior is consistent with guilt because an innocent person would not forget (or suppress) the truth. If the note story was the truth, Lizzie would have expressed early and often. There is nothing suggesting that Lizzie was impaired in any way at the inquest. Lies must be kept track of, the truth does not need this maintenance.

The only argument offered in opposition was that Lizzie was embarrassed or somehow confused. While that point is pure conjecture and there is no proof that Lizzie was disoriented in any way, the simple fact is that even if Lizzie was disoriented, it would make her more reliant on the truth because lies require greater presence of mind than she would have if she were confused. If the note story was the truth, she would have told it either way, confused or not, and most importantly, without prompting.

Hey Yooper. 1. You said “(On August 4th) Lizzie did not acknowledge Abby independently, she had to be prompted before she thought of Abby.” My reply: she could have believed that Abby had gone out.

2. You said: “My point is that Lizzie's behavior is consistent with guilt because an innocent person would not forget (or suppress) the truth.” You mean, reading that part of Lizzie’s testimony, you think Lizzie forgot or wanted to suppress the truth (the note story), therefore, you concluded Lizzie invented the note story and was the killer. You could be right, Yooper. But you said “my point”, good, this is your personal point, (and is the point of many, I think), derived from your interpretation. But I think there could be other interpretations. My own is that Lizzie could be confused by the contradiction between the note story (told her by Abby) and the facts known afterwards. Her hesitation could be not a matter of forgetting or suppressing the truth, it could be possible that Lizzie didn’t know how to approach this truth, because of her confusion (I think we could do a linguistic analyse on that paragraph, forgetting for a moment Lizzie’s guilt or innocence, to see if this interpretation is possible.)

3. You said: “that point (Lizzie’s confusion) is pure conjecture and there is no proof that Lizzie was disoriented in any way.” I have already admitted before you that about Lizzie’s psychological reactions (assuming she was innocent) I have no proof. But I think my conjecture is possible. That contradiction confused everyone, so why not Lizzie? She should have been the most confused person, indeed.

4. You said: “the simple fact is that even if Lizzie was disoriented, it would make her more reliant on the truth because lies require greater presence of mind than she would have if she were confused.” I don’t understand why you call what you stated here a fact. Do you really think it is a fact?

[Yooper]

1. If Lizzie thought Abby had gone out at the time she was telling the note story, why did she send Bridget and Mrs. Churchill upstairs to look for Abby? Why did she forestall Bridget's suggestion to look for Abby outside the house?
2. She's confused about the truth? Are you suggesting she was going to lie her way through the inquest? If she wasn't going to tell the truth, she certainly intended to.
3. What psychological reactions are those? What testimony suggests Lizzie's psychological reactions?
4. Why not ask the forum in general if they think it is correct, or incorrect? In my experience, it is correct. While we're at it, show some proof that Lizzie was disoriented during the inquest.

[Franz]

1. If Lizzie thought Abby had gone out at the time she was telling the note story, why did she send Bridget and Mrs. Churchill upstairs to look for Abby? Why did she forestall Bridget's suggestion to look for Abby outside the house?
2. She's confused about the truth? Are you suggesting she was going to lie her way through the inquest? If she wasn't going to tell the truth, she certainly intended to.
3. What psychological reactions are those? What testimony suggests Lizzie's psychological reactions?
4. Why not ask the forum in general if they think it is correct, or incorrect? In my experience, it is correct. While we're at it, show some proof that Lizzie was disoriented during the inquest.

1. Lizzie thought that she heard Abby return. This issue I would like to talk about separately, because extremely complicated.

2. I didn't say she is confused about the truth, I mean she could have been confused by the contradiction of two truthes (if I can say so): the note story told her by Abby and the discovery of Abby's body in the house. I am not suggesting at all she was going to lie.

3.Let's forget for a moment our ideas about Lizzie's innocence or guilt, let's return to zero, and consider only this fact. In your opinion, what should be Lizzie's psychological reactions if she is guilty, and if she is innocent?

4. You said the "simple fact". If I understand well the meaning of the word, a fact is a fact, there is no question about "correct" or "incorrect" for a fact. The fact is correct by itself, it isn't correct "in your experience" or in the expericen of anyone. So I don't think what you said is a fact, but only your personal opinion.

[Yooper]

1. Why did Lizzie tell others that Abby had gone out if she thought Abby had returned? This is your contention now, discuss it now.
2. Show the proof for your contention. Prove that there was a note and that Abby had told her about it. At that point we'll discuss the possibilities for confusion over how a proven note story is inconsistent with Abby's death in the guest room. Until then, we will not pile conjecture about confusion on top of conjecture about the note.
3. Show the proof for your contention for Lizzie's "psychological reactions". Prove that there was a "contradiction that confused everyone" as you claim.
4. Show some proof that Lizzie was disoriented. If you are certain my experiences are incorrect, prove it.

[Franz]

1. Why did Lizzie tell others that Abby had gone out if she thought Abby had returned? This is your contention now, discuss it now.
2. Show the proof for your contention. Prove that there was a note and that Abby had told her about it. At that point we'll discuss the possibilities for confusion over how a proven note story is inconsistent with Abby's death in the guest room. Until then, we will not pile conjecture about confusion on top of conjecture about the note.
3. Show the proof for your contention for Lizzie's "psychological reactions". Prove that there was a "contradiction that confused everyone" as you claim.
4. Show some proof that Lizzie was disoriented. If you are certain my experiences are incorrect, prove it.

1. Yooper, in my precedent tread I said explicitly that the issue is very complicated, so I would like to talk about it in another occasion. Why could you insist on obliging me to “discuss it now”? I think we are all free here to decide when approach an issue, how to approach an issue, and so on, (and assume his / her responsability of what he / her does and says), right? I will never permit myself to oblige other members to do such a thing.

2. I certainly can’t prove that the note did exist. Let’s have a look about the known facts: 1) Lizzie said Abby told her a note and (therefore Lizzie thought that) Abby had gone out; 2) Abby was killed in the guest room (most probably (we can almost sure that) she never left the house); 3) No such a note was never found; 4) No author or messenger of the note came forward. From these four facts we can deduce three interpretations:1) The note story is a pure fabrication of Lizzie (I agree that this is the most probable one); 2) Abby lied; 3) The note did exist but for some unknown reason it was not found. Right? Ok. I said that the first interpretation is most probable, but an interpretation (so, a conjecture) can’t become automatically a fact only because it is more probable than others. What I did was to consider the facts and the three interpretations and the possibility of the two others. Yes, I can’t prove the note did exist (all the world in 120 years didn’t prove it, how can I?), but this doesn't mean that it is forbidden to consider this possibility. If I understand well the meaning of “prove” in your language, I would like to ask you (because you asked me first), if on my part I can't prove the note did exist, you, on your part, can you prove that the note didn’t exist? Can we prove in a definitive and absolute manner the impossibility of other two interpretations? I agree that the facts are strongly in favour to the first interpretation (that the note didn’t exist), but can we prove it?

3. Lizzie’s psychological reactions, ok. I have already said at least twice and I repeat here: for a thing like psychological reactions we have no proof. It’s something invisible, but I think it’s acceptable to do some reasonable speculation about it. I quote here what I said, and invite other members to judge if my speculation is possible:

“if Lizzie was innocent, in my opinion (I think in the opinion of many), Lizzie herself should have been the most embarrassed, the most confused and the most disoriented person by the contradiction between those facts above mentioned and the note story told her by Abby.”

4. In my reply my point is, in my opinion, you called an personal opinion a fact (you said "the simple fact" at first and then you definited it as your "experience"), and I would like to indicate this confusion, that’s all. I didn’t judge at all your opinion. I didn’t say that you experience is correct or incorrect. I wanted only to point out that what you said is an opinion (or "experience", if you prefer this word), not a fact. An opinion doesn’t become a fact only because it is correct. An opinion remains always an opinion. But I didn't judge your "experience".

I would like to add some words here, Yooper, and all the members. Since I have registered in this forum, I have been discussing the case with great interest and exchanging and sharing my ideas with other members. It seems that among those who actively participate to the discussion these days, I am the only one who is more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence, many posters didn’t agree with me in many points and give me their criticism, and clarification of facts, and friendly encouragement, as well, I am grateful to everyone, thank you very much. I think during all these discussions, I always respect maximum all other members. My posts are there, everyone can read them and judge if what I state now is true or not. Some posters used “ridiculous”, “absurd”, “laughable” when commenting my posts. I don’t care, everyone has his / her manner of expression, I can tolerate very easily the use of these words, even though I never and will never use them in a forum like ours, in my vocabulary there are only “impossible”, “possible”, “probable”, “plausible”, “likely”, “unlikely”, etc. But it’s ok, I can “hold” very easily the criticism and I please other members to continue to give me frankly your opinions. Thank you very much.

But Yooper, I would like to be honest and frank with you. I just don’t understand some your behaviours. More than one time you put under my name – yes, implicitly but very clearly – something that I didn’t say. I didn’t say that the people of that time hesitated to call the police, but you asked me: why did the people hesitate to call, etc.; this time I didn’t judge at all your opinion, I wanted to point out that what your said in my opinion is not a fact, but a personal opinion, but you asked me: “If you are certain my experiences are incorrect”, etc., why?

But all this didn’t really trouble me, I can tolerate them very easily as well. But there are still two things I really couldn’t understand: one time you implied very clearly that I was throwing stones to other members, another time you implied but always very clearly that I was trying to refute the facts that you supplied (here is your phrase: “Some of us supply facts while others attempt to refute them with fantasy”. Since this is your reply in response directly to one of mines, the meaning of your words is very clear). As a reply I posted a résumé of what I did up to that moment: consider the facts and consider different interpretations. (I think “to refute a fact” and “to try to interpret a fact differently” are two things totally different.) And then I have already pleased you twice to indicate me what are those facts that, according to you, I tried to refute, but you didn’t answer me. Now I permit me to ask you for another and for the last time: what are those facts, as you said, I tried to refute? With your clarification I could correct me and I would be very grateful to you. But if by any chance I didn’t try to refute any fact in all my posts, I please you to not make any more such a statement (or something of this type) in the furtur on my account. I just don’t accept such a thing!

[Franz]

Allen, aamartin, thank your very much for your advices, I think I understand them well. Many thanks!

[PossumPie]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Quoted from Wikipedia 7/24/2013

[Yooper]

The fact is that Lizzie did not think of Abby immediately after the murders on her own. She required prompting from others. The reply was that Lizzie could have thought Abby had gone out. The truth is that Lizzie sent Bridget and Mrs. Churchill upstairs to find Abby, so Lizzie clearly did not think that Abby was out. This is an attempt to refute the fact that Lizzie did not acknowledge Abby independently, with conjecture about what Lizzie "might" have done.

A statement to the effect that the police were not the first thing thought of after a murder during Victorian times certainly implies that people hesitated to call the police. Do you suggest, having made the first statement, that the second does not follow? Since the police must be thought of before they are called, I suggest that the second indeed follows the first and is implicit in the first statement.

A continued reliance upon the statements about a person's belief in guilt or innocence as a premise for an argument prompted the response from me that the forum won't become divided according to belief in guilt or innocence and begin throwing stones at one another.

Franz, what is your chronological age? The reliance on absolutes such as always and never, as in expressing what you will always or never do with respect to the Borden case, the juvenile fixation with legalistically nitpicking semantics, and the apparent inability to reason deductively, all remind me of someone about 12 years of age pretending to be an adult.

[Angel]

Looks like the forum is up and running again.

[Harry]

Looks like the forum is up and running again.

All we need is Ray and his Brown addiction.

Yoop, nothing personal but I think you were a little hard on Franz. I like to read all kinds of ideas as long as it's called theory and not fact.

After too many years of looking at this case I lean toward Lizzie having an accomplice. Is there any proof of it .... none that I know of.

[Yooper]

Looks like the forum is up and running again.

All we need is Ray and his Brown addiction.

Yoop, nothing personal but I think you were a little hard on Franz. I like to read all kinds of ideas as long as it's called theory and not fact.

After too many years of looking at this case I lean toward Lizzie having an acomplice. Is there any proof of it .... none that I know of.

Harry, my question about chronological age is serious, the posts speak to immaturity on a lot of levels. If we are dealing with a kid, I'll certainly temper my responses, and that's the reason for the question in the first place.

[Allen]

1. If Lizzie thought Abby had gone out at the time she was telling the note story, why did she send Bridget and Mrs. Churchill upstairs to look for Abby? Why did she forestall Bridget's suggestion to look for Abby outside the house?
2. She's confused about the truth? Are you suggesting she was going to lie her way through the inquest? If she wasn't going to tell the truth, she certainly intended to.
3. What psychological reactions are those? What testimony suggests Lizzie's psychological reactions?
4. Why not ask the forum in general if they think it is correct, or incorrect? In my experience, it is correct. While we're at it, show some proof that Lizzie was disoriented during the inquest.

1. Lizzie thought that she heard Abby return. This issue I would like to talk about separately, because extremely complicated.

2. I didn't say she is confused about the truth, I mean she could have been confused by the contradiction of two truthes (if I can say so): the note story told her by Abby and the discovery of Abby's body in the house. I am not suggesting at all she was going to lie.

3.Let's forget for a moment our ideas about Lizzie's innocence or guilt, let's return to zero, and consider only this fact. In your opinion, what should be Lizzie's psychological reactions if she is guilty, and if she is innocent?

4. You said the "simple fact". If I understand well the meaning of the word, a fact is a fact, there is no question about "correct" or "incorrect" for a fact. The fact is correct by itself, it isn't correct "in your experience" or in the expericen of anyone. So I don't think what you said is a fact, but only your personal opinion.

If Lizzie thought she heard Abby return, why would she be confused about the discovery of her body in the house? If Lizzie herself said she thought she heard Abby return, that means she thought she had been in the house. And she said this to Mrs. Churchill when she first got there. She said this before anyone else even got to the house. Dr. Bowen and Alice Russell were not even there yet. So she thought she heard Abby return before Dr. Bowen or anybody else got to the house. You do understand that for what Lizzie said to be true Abby would have to have either returned to see Andrew dead on the sofa, or returned before Andrew got home and Lizzie must have then thought she was in the house?

[Allen]

Either way it doesn't look good for Lizzie. Abby could not have returned after Andrew was murdered because she would have seen him and raised the alarm herself. If she returned before Andrew got home, why didn't Lizzie search out Abby after finding Andrew dead? And why did she still tell Andrew that Abby was out?

[Yooper]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Quoted from Wikipedia 7/24/2013

The burden of proof lies with the contention that there was a note, not with the contention for the absence of a note. The absence is self-evident and proof for the existence of a note is entirely reasonable if an author or messenger exists or with the note itself.

[PossumPie]

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false..[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Quoted from Wikipedia 7/24/2013

The burden of proof lies with the contention that there was a note, not with the contention for the absence of a note. The absence is self-evident and proof for the existence of a note is entirely reasonable if an author or messenger exists or with the note itself.

True. The argument from ignorance says that to believe something just b/c it hasn't been proven false is weak. I could say my theory is that they were killed by aliens from Alpha Centauri. This has not been proven false, therefore it is a strong hypothesis?....Of course not!! It excludes other options that are simpler. Occam's Razor states "The simplest explanation is generally the right one." Conspiracies, aliens, Chinese mafia, Illegitimate sons, etc. tend to be a more complex explanation therefore have much less credibility.

I know this is a fun forum, and I at times seem "Too scientific" BUT I have found that many arguments are unnecessary b/c they debaters are not using logic in their argument.