Is it possible that Lizzie invented the note story?

[Franz]

Smudgeman, I don't understand well. I was discussing the possibility of the intruder theories (generally speaking). I don't understand why this is non sens?

[Allen]

Who instinctively thinks that someone they know is a murderer whether it's true or not?

Allen, I don't understand well your meaning. Do you mean that, no matter wether it's true or not (without considering true or not), the people usually don't instinctively think someone they know is a murderer, right?

What I mean is who would instinctively think that someone they know had murdered someone? Even if this person was the murderer, someone that knows them isn't usually going to be thinking about this and look at them as a suspect unless proof surfaced. Sometimes not even then because of denial. Nobody wants to believe someone they know could murder anyone.

[Yooper]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

[Franz]

Who instinctively thinks that someone they know is a murderer whether it's true or not?

Allen, I don't understand well your meaning. Do you mean that, no matter wether it's true or not (without considering true or not), the people usually don't instinctively think someone they know is a murderer, right?

What I mean is who would instinctively think that someone they know had murdered someone? Even if this person was the murderer, someone that knows them isn't usually going to be thinking about this and look at them as a suspect unless proof surfaced. Sometimes not even then because of denial. Nobody wants to believe someone they know could murder anyone.

(The underline is mine)

After finging her father's body, Lizzie instinctively thought that Bridget was not the killer. According to what you said here, this is not suspicious at all, because Lzzie knew Bridget, right?

If so, why do many people think that Lizzie's reaction is suspicious? (They asked: why didn't Lizzie suspect Bridget? and then, they answered to themselves: Oh I understand: Lizzie didn't suspect Bridget because she herself was the killer.) Why? So, Allen, according to what you said, you should think that these people are wrong in reasoning in this manner, right? Do I understand well?

[Franz]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

Certainly, we can talk about the possibility of the intruder theory in itself, without correlating nothing with it.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

2.You said: "he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half". Yes, but it did exist such a place (I am certainly telling a theory): the guest room. During that period of time, neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered there.

3. "He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others". Yes, he would have to avoided two other people. In my theory the note story is about it. With the note Morse and his conspirators wanted to prevent Lizzie from searching Abby (the note would have been searchedd and taken away by the killer, that's why no note was found, no author or messenger came forward). Here they had been very lucky, because they couldn't be sure if Abby would tell Lizzie (or Bridget) the note before or after she went to the guest romm to search Morse's watch. But they had been lucky: the false information had been given by Abby to Lizzie, so Lizzie and Bridget thought that Abby had gone out. Then, Abby went to the guest room, and was killed there in her house clothes that she had no time to change. The authors of the murders were very very lucky.

Certainly, I am thing about my theory. Now I have some idea about the hiding place of the killer before he killed Abby, but I prefer to talk about it when I could fell more prepared.

Yooper, and others, please accept a sincere "Thank you" from me. We are so different in thinking about so many things, but it is just your opposite opinions that make me think, I never think about a criminal case (or any other case) so intensely. Many thinks!

[snokkums]

From Franz:

"O.K., I can agree that Lizzie could have invented such a lie to tell her father but why did she let Bridget hear intentionally, the note as well? She didn't want to kill Bridget and Bridget wasn't killed, so Lizzie knew well one day Bridget would testify that she (Lizzie) mentioned to her father a note that didn't exist?"


That's a good point. But on the other end of that, maybe Lizzie was thinking that if Bridget heard about the note that was the only thing she could testify too because she didn't see Lizzie kill anyone. Bridget was out cleaning at the time of Abbeys' murder and lying down in her room for Andrews murder. so, she could honestly say that even though she didn't see the note, she didn't see either of the parents killed, so maybe one of them did go out because of the note. Or they went out to see the person in the note, they weren't home, came to the Borden house, and that person was the murderer. Assuming that there was a person mentioned in the note. And let's face it, Andy wasn't one of the most well liked person in the town. And if the person in the note came to the house before Andy got home, the person would have had to have known that he would have had to kill Abby because she could be a witness. That's if (1) there was a said note with a person mentioned in it and (2) if Andrew was the intented victim.

[Yooper]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

Certainly, we can talk about the possibility of the intruder theory in itself, without correlating nothing with it.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

2.You said: "he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half". Yes, but it did exist such a place (I am certainly telling a theory): the guest room. During that period of time, neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered there.

3. "He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others". Yes, he would have to avoided two other people. In my theory the note story is about it. With the note Morse and his conspirators wanted to prevent Lizzie from searching Abby (the note would have been searchedd and taken away by the killer, that's why no note was found, no author or messenger came forward). Here they had been very lucky, because they couldn't be sure if Abby would tell Lizzie (or Bridget) the note before or after she went to the guest romm to search Morse's watch. But they had been lucky: the false information had been given by Abby to Lizzie, so Lizzie and Bridget thought that Abby had gone out. Then, Abby went to the guest room, and was killed there in her house clothes that she had no time to change. The authors of the murders were very very lucky.

Certainly, I am thing about my theory. Now I have some idea about the hiding place of the killer before he killed Abby, but I prefer to talk about it when I could fell more prepared.

Yooper, and others, please accept a sincere "Thank you" from me. We are so different in thinking about so many things, but it is just your opposite opinions that make me think, I never think about a criminal case (or any other case) so intensely. Many thinks!

1. No, that isn't what I said.

2. The guest room was a particularly bad place to hide prior to killing Andrew, we've already covered that.
John Fleet, Witness Statements, p.2:
Lizzie said that she had not seen Mrs. Borden since about nine o’clock. She then saw her in the
bedroom when she was coming down stairs.

3. Back to that conjecture? You really didn't come here to learn anything, did you?

[Allen]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

I don't believe it's possible the killer could stay hidden overnight in the guestroom without being found before he killed Abby. Abby had went upstairs to the guest room once that morning and had come back down sometime before nine o'clock. So how did she enter the room without seeing the killer there? And if by some miracle she did not see him why did he not kill her the first time she went up there? And why would the note be delivered around nine o'clock while Andrew was still at the house?


The Witness Statements page 38:

Joseph Hyde

August 4, 1892.

In talking to Bridget Sullivan on the above date I asked her what time Mrs. Borden went upstairs. She said she thought it was a little before nine o'clock in the morning; and sometime after she came down for some pillow shams. And she said to me, "have you anything particular to do?" Bridget answered, "No mam." Mrs. Borden said "I would like you to wash those windows." I went out and washed the windows, and never saw Mrs. Borden alive again....."

[Yooper]

Since I'm sure there will be some "confusion" over which bedroom and which stairway as there was in a previous post:

John Fleet, Trial, p.470:
I then asked her when was the last time that she saw her stepmother---when and where.
She said that the last time she saw her step-mother was about nine o'clock and she was
then in the room where she was found dead and was making the bed. That is to say, she
was making the bed in the room where she was found dead, at 9 o'clock.

[Aamartin]

This whole intruder hidden in the house all night theory--- did he/she go to the bathroom in his pants? Even if they came in and killed Abby and hid in a closet until Andrew---

[Franz]

This whole intruder hidden in the house all night theory--- did he/she go to the bathroom in his pants? Even if they came in and killed Abby and hid in a closet until Andrew---

Very good point, Aamartin!

[Franz]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

Certainly, we can talk about the possibility of the intruder theory in itself, without correlating nothing with it.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

2.You said: "he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half". Yes, but it did exist such a place (I am certainly telling a theory): the guest room. During that period of time, neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered there.

3. "He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others". Yes, he would have to avoided two other people. In my theory the note story is about it. With the note Morse and his conspirators wanted to prevent Lizzie from searching Abby (the note would have been searchedd and taken away by the killer, that's why no note was found, no author or messenger came forward). Here they had been very lucky, because they couldn't be sure if Abby would tell Lizzie (or Bridget) the note before or after she went to the guest romm to search Morse's watch. But they had been lucky: the false information had been given by Abby to Lizzie, so Lizzie and Bridget thought that Abby had gone out. Then, Abby went to the guest room, and was killed there in her house clothes that she had no time to change. The authors of the murders were very very lucky.

Certainly, I am thing about my theory. Now I have some idea about the hiding place of the killer before he killed Abby, but I prefer to talk about it when I could fell more prepared.

Yooper, and others, please accept a sincere "Thank you" from me. We are so different in thinking about so many things, but it is just your opposite opinions that make me think, I never think about a criminal case (or any other case) so intensely. Many thinks!

1. No, that isn't what I said.

2. The guest room was a particularly bad place to hide prior to killing Andrew, we've already covered that.
John Fleet, Witness Statements, p.2:
Lizzie said that she had not seen Mrs. Borden since about nine o’clock. She then saw her in the
bedroom when she was coming down stairs.

3. Back to that conjecture? You really didn't come here to learn anything, did you?

Yooper, 1. I was referring to your phrase: "Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie" (in another topic). We have exchanged our ideas about their different luck.

2. Yes, I am thingking about that (the hiding place), I said this in the precedent tread also. This thinking could change many things in my theory, or could make me abandon my theory at all, I don't know for the moment. give some time, Yooper.

3. It means that I haven't learnt enough.

[Franz]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

I don't believe it's possible the killer could stay hidden overnight in the guestroom without being found before he killed Abby. Abby had went upstairs to the guest room once that morning and had come back down sometime before nine o'clock. So how did she enter the room without seeing the killer there? And if by some miracle she did not see him why did he not kill her the first time she went up there? And why would the note be delivered around nine o'clock while Andrew was still at the house?


The Witness Statements page 38:

Joseph Hyde

August 4, 1892.

In talking to Bridget Sullivan on the above date I asked her what time Mrs. Borden went upstairs. She said she thought it was a little before nine o'clock in the morning; and sometime after she came down for some pillow shams. And she said to me, "have you anything particular to do?" Bridget answered, "No mam." Mrs. Borden said "I would like you to wash those windows." I went out and washed the windows, and never saw Mrs. Borden alive again....."

Allen, I said in the precedent I am rethinking about this.

[Yooper]

There is no correlation between the likelihood of blood on Lizzie's dress and the likelihood of an intruder. An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed, in addition, he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half. He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others. An attempt to correlate one with the other based upon powers of observation makes no sense at all, common or otherwise.

Certainly, we can talk about the possibility of the intruder theory in itself, without correlating nothing with it.

1. "An intruder had to enter and leave the Borden house unnoticed". You yourself said that the same luck should apply to another hypothetic killer other then Lizzie. Whoevere was the real killer, he (she) was very lucky, right? In my theory, the intruder entered during the night (Morse let him entered), so it should be easly to be not noticed.

2.You said: "he would have to go unnoticed inside the house for an hour and a half". Yes, but it did exist such a place (I am certainly telling a theory): the guest room. During that period of time, neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered there.

3. "He would have to selectively murder two people while avoiding two others". Yes, he would have to avoided two other people. In my theory the note story is about it. With the note Morse and his conspirators wanted to prevent Lizzie from searching Abby (the note would have been searchedd and taken away by the killer, that's why no note was found, no author or messenger came forward). Here they had been very lucky, because they couldn't be sure if Abby would tell Lizzie (or Bridget) the note before or after she went to the guest romm to search Morse's watch. But they had been lucky: the false information had been given by Abby to Lizzie, so Lizzie and Bridget thought that Abby had gone out. Then, Abby went to the guest room, and was killed there in her house clothes that she had no time to change. The authors of the murders were very very lucky.

Certainly, I am thing about my theory. Now I have some idea about the hiding place of the killer before he killed Abby, but I prefer to talk about it when I could fell more prepared.

Yooper, and others, please accept a sincere "Thank you" from me. We are so different in thinking about so many things, but it is just your opposite opinions that make me think, I never think about a criminal case (or any other case) so intensely. Many thinks!

Franz quote:
Yooper, 1. I was referring to your phrase: "Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie" (in another topic). We have exchanged our ideas about their different luck.

2. Yes, I am thingking about that (the hiding place), I said this in the precedent tread also. This thinking could change many things in my theory, or could make me abandon my theory at all, I don't know for the moment. give some time, Yooper.

3. It means that I haven't learnt enough.[/quote]



1. Any luck in the form of logistics means anything that proved to be lucky for one or the other, not necessarily both. Some of the movements were lucky for Lizzie being a member of the household and not in hiding. Perhaps not for an intruder hiding in the broom closet like a perpsicle. I also said the intruder needed to go completely undetected entering and leaving, something unnecessary for Lizzie. There is really no point to arguing luck, it can't be quantified, it is a judgment.

[Yooper]

This whole intruder hidden in the house all night theory--- did he/she go to the bathroom in his pants? Even if they came in and killed Abby and hid in a closet until Andrew---

Nah! He just used the window, like Uncle John!

[PossumPie]

I am researching a book and part of it explains why people believe unbelievable things. First, To only believe what you can see feel touch is illogical and will keep us from discovery. No one could see atoms or molecules, but they indeed exist. We can prove somethings existence by indirect means. The planet Pluto was postulated to be there, and accepted as fact long before it was ever seen b/c of indirect evidence. People who believe in God have no direct evidence but BELIEVE they have indirect evidence (answered prayer, miracles, etc.) Obviously these can also be explained away by non believers so they hold no real weight in the search to prove God.
Philosophically, we really can not 'prove' anything, so we don't know if anything exists...but that is impractical. "The simplest answer is usually correct" doesn't always work, but "given 2 equally plausible explanations the simpler one is probably right" is a better way of stating it. I don't have to "prove" astrology is a load of bunk, b/c the burden of proof isn't on me, but on the uninformed who believe huge burning balls of gas millions of light years away influence their small lives here on earth.

[PossumPie]

Franz.... A word of advice from my own years of experience studying this case.

Don't allow your desire that Lizzie be innocent drive your theories and reactions to evidence, or lack thereof.

Read the trial documents. Cover to cover. Make notes. Try to be objective.

This is the wisest post I have seen here in awhile. We can't help but have an opinion, but don't judge everything by your own opinion. I would say everyone here should agree to read the trial transcript completely before posting. Some of the 'facts' I see here are incorrect- gleaned from tabloids who made up the facts. The closest things we have to facts are contained in the trial and interview with her atty. Which will probably never be available.

[Allen]

I know it might sound illogical to some people to say you don't believe in something because you can't prove it. But for most things that we cannot see there is still undeniable proof that it exists. Whether we can see it or not. Proof exists because it can be scientifically proven. There are some things that there is just no proof for. I can't see DNA but I know it exists. In the case of God he would have to materialize in the town square and say here I am. You're right Possumpie that the answering of prayers holds no weight and could be explained away. I could, as George Carlin said, pray to Joe Pesci and my prayers would be answered with about the same accuracy. Does this mean Joe Pesci is a God? George Carlin may have been a comedian but he was also a pretty wise man when it came to religion, government, and people in general. Some of the things he said were funny because they were absolutely true.

I'm wouldn't say there is no possibility that things exist that we cannot see, feel, touch. Or that maybe have not been discovered yet. I'm sure the voyage made by Columbus was terrifying because most people believed the Earth was flat. But they proved it was not. There came a time when there was proof. There came a time when an apple fell on Newton's head. I know there is gravity because there is no chance I will ever fall off of the Earth. Things exist that we cannot see. But after repeated attempts to find proof for something and there is nothing you can point to I would not devote any argument to the fact that they could in fact exist. Bigfoot hunters use that logic. We just haven't found the proof yet but it's out there. Because there is an equal chance that they do not exist. So any argument for or against something that can't be proven is a waste of time because it will never be proven either way. And in the instance of God thousands of years have passed and there still is no indisputable proof. There is actually proof to the contrary if you believe in science. The moon exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth which causes the high and low tides of the ocean. So a planet that is 238, 900 miles out in space does exert an influence in our lives here on Earth. Not saying I believe in astrology but there is one well known instance that another planet exerts influence on our lives even in a small way. I also know that the sun provides my light, heat, and makes my plants grow. So the belief of astrology might hold just as much weight as any other unfounded unproven belief.

[Allen]

I agree with reading the trial transcripts, witness statements, inquest, and preliminary hearing also if you can get your hands on it. I always check my facts before posting any information. I've read over these documents many times over the years and the information is invaluable. If you want the facts don't rely on books written about the case. Most authors have an agenda of some sort. They have been known to paint the facts to fit their agenda. Newspaper accounts are also important but should be taken with a grain of salt. They contains some facts and are important because they are contemporary accounts from people who were actually there. But they didn't always fact check their stories.

[snokkums]

I think she might have made the story of the note up because she wanted throw sucipion off of herself.

[Franz]

I am researching a book and part of it explains why people believe unbelievable things. First, To only believe what you can see feel touch is illogical and will keep us from discovery. No one could see atoms or molecules, but they indeed exist. We can prove somethings existence by indirect means. The planet Pluto was postulated to be there, and accepted as fact long before it was ever seen b/c of indirect evidence. People who believe in God have no direct evidence but BELIEVE they have indirect evidence (answered prayer, miracles, etc.) Obviously these can also be explained away by non believers so they hold no real weight in the search to prove God.
Philosophically, we really can not 'prove' anything, so we don't know if anything exists...but that is impractical. "The simplest answer is usually correct" doesn't always work, but "given 2 equally plausible explanations the simpler one is probably right" is a better way of stating it. I don't have to "prove" astrology is a load of bunk, b/c the burden of proof isn't on me, but on the uninformed who believe huge burning balls of gas millions of light years away influence their small lives here on earth.

1. Generally speaking, I can agree that "the simplest answer is usually correct", but I keep always in mind that the Borden case is just an unusual case, an extremely mysterious one. For me every answer could be the unique truth. I have a philological training. Among different readings of a manuscript, the students usually give more credibility to that "difficilior lectio", because a talented author (more talented than the scribes who committed errors when transcribing his original text), usually chose the unusual solutions in his literary expressions, So the more "difficult" reading, generally speaking, has more chance to be the correct one.

And the Borden case, isn't it a murder case committed by a extremely talented killer?

2. You said: "I don't have to "prove" astrology is a load of bunk, b/c the burden of proof isn't on me, but on the uninformed who believe huge burning balls of gas millions of light years away influence their small lives here on earth". Right. I come here to participate to discussion about the Borden case, regardless Lizzie's guilt or innocence. Being more convinced for her innocence, I can post a topic assuming that Lizzie was guilty. No problem. But from a narrow point of view, I could say: I don't have to prove Lizzie's innocence, because the burden of proof isn't on me, but on those who believe Lizzie's guilt, they have to prove her guilt with proof. But it seems to me a little "politcally" incorrect by saying so in a forum where members are here for discussing the case, not for judging Lizzie as in a court.

[Franz]

I agree with reading the trial transcripts, witness statements, inquest, and preliminary hearing also if you can get your hands on it. I always check my facts before posting any information. I've read over these documents many times over the years and the information is invaluable. If you want the facts don't rely on books written about the case. Most authors have an agenda of some sort. They have been known to paint the facts to fit their agenda. Newspaper accounts are also important but should be taken with a grain of salt. They contains some facts and are important because they are contemporary accounts from people who were actually there. But they didn't always fact check their stories.

I certainly agree with you and PossumPie. I would like to add that the known facts of the case derive all from inquest testimony, trial testimony, etc. These documents were all made by people. They could contain as well, and undoubtedly contain indeed, inaccuracy, omissions, errors of all kinds. Sould be always attentive.

[Franz]

I know it might sound illogical to some people to say you don't believe in something because you can't prove it. But for most things that we cannot see there is still undeniable proof that it exists. Whether we can see it or not. Proof exists because it can be scientifically proven. There are some things that there is just no proof for. I can't see DNA but I know it exists. In the case of God he would have to materialize in the town square and say here I am. You're right Possumpie that the answering of prayers holds no weight and could be explained away. I could, as George Carlin said, pray to Joe Pesci and my prayers would be answered with about the same accuracy. Does this mean Joe Pesci is a God? George Carlin may have been a comedian but he was also a pretty wise man when it came to religion, government, and people in general. Some of the things he said were funny because they were absolutely true.

I'm wouldn't say there is no possibility that things exist that we cannot see, feel, touch. Or that maybe have not been discovered yet. I'm sure the voyage made by Columbus was terrifying because most people believed the Earth was flat. But they proved it was not. There came a time when there was proof. There came a time when an apple fell on Newton's head. I know there is gravity because there is no chance I will ever fall off of the Earth. Things exist that we cannot see. But after repeated attempts to find proof for something and there is nothing you can point to I would not devote any argument to the fact that they could in fact exist. Bigfoot hunters use that logic. We just haven't found the proof yet but it's out there. Because there is an equal chance that they do not exist. So any argument for or against something that can't be proven is a waste of time because it will never be proven either way. And in the instance of God thousands of years have passed and there still is no indisputable proof. There is actually proof to the contrary if you believe in science. The moon exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth which causes the high and low tides of the ocean. So a planet that is 238, 900 miles out in space does exert an influence in our lives here on Earth. Not saying I believe in astrology but there is one well known instance that another planet exerts influence on our lives even in a small way. I also know that the sun provides my light, heat, and makes my plants grow. So the belief of astrology might hold just as much weight as any other unfounded unproven belief.

Allen, since this topic is about the note story, I would like to return to the departure point.

You said: "So any argument for or against something that can't be proven is a waste of time because it will never be proven either way." I think the note is of this kind. Whoever thinks Lizzie was guilty thinks the note didn't exist, because of the absence of the note itself and its author and messenger, but he can't prove the note didn't exist; whoever thinks Lizzie was innocent thinks the notes did exist (or Abby did say so), because Lizzie said Abby told her so, but he can't prove the note did exist (or Abby did tell Lizzie so). So all we could do, in my opinion, is that we begin from the same fact, give different interpretations (possible, probable, plausible, no matter how), and reach different conclusions, and then, everyone chooses the conclusion which convinces him / her more. For the note story it's non sense to ask proof to each other, because no one has proof to give.

(If Lizzie gave the police a note, saying that was the note Abby had received, but afterwards, it was proved with certainty that Lizzie wrote herself the note. In this case we could be sure Lizzie's note story is a pure fabrication, therefore, her guilt. But for the Borden case, we can only speculate that Lizzie lied because the absence of all, but we just can't prove that the note didn't exist. If we could, there wouldn't have been the Borden case at all, it would have been solved 120 years ago.)

[Yooper]

There is the reasonable expectation for proof in the case of the note story. The answer is not unknowable as in a case where there is not reasonable expectation for proof for or against something. The absence of the note is self-evident, it does not require proof. The existence of a note has the burden of proof, because there is a reasonable expectation for it.

[Harry]

From Porter's Fall River Tragedy, p39-40

"The letter which was alleged to have been received by Mrs. Borden on the morning of
the tragedy, continued to excite public interest. “Once a Week,” the New York journal,
offered a reward of $500 for the writer of the note, and the Fall River News implored its
readers to unite in one effort in the cause of justice, and if possible, find the note and
deliver it into the editor's hands. The missive, however, was not found. Miss Lizzie A.
Borden seemingly put an end to that theory when she told Dr. Dolan that she had
attempted to find the note and being unsuccessful, she feared it had been burned in the
kitchen stove. Not one of the household seemed to be able to give more than a general
idea of the contents of the note. It was from a friend who was ill, but as neither the
friend nor the note could be found by the united efforts of the police and members of
the family, the matter was dropped early in the investigation."

$500 in 1892 was a large amount, roughly worth about $10,000 in today's purchasing
power. Surely a friend of Abby's would come forward if for nothing else than for the reward.

[Franz]

Thank you Harry for the information.

Yes, the absence of the note, author and messenger implies strongly that the note didn't exist (and Lizzie's guilt). But beside this, I think these are two possibilities: 1) Abby lied. If Abby lied, there would have been neither the note itself, nor the author or messenger. But I can't give me an explanation why she lied and why she was killed then in the guest room with her house clothes. 2) The note was one part of the plot of the authors of the murders, and the executive killer, after killing Abby, searched and found the note and then took it away. The killers would not come forward for the reward, so, no note was found, no author, no messenger of the note as well. Many might consider my conjecture as a fantasy, I know.

I have not any book about the Borden case. All the authors defending Lizzie's innocence must face, among all the evidence against Lizzie, the mysterious note story. I am curious to know how did they explain it.

[Allen]

You assume too much saying the killers searched for the note in Abby's pocket and got rid of it Franz. Nobody could know what Abby would do with a note if anyone ever delivered one. She could have left it in her room because she got ready to leave. The door was locked. She could have done anything with the note other than have it on her in her pocket. She could have put it in a drawer somewhere. Left it on the kitchen table. She could have said to hell with Morse he can wait and not have gone up to the guest room at all. Your reasoning is that these conspirators sent a note to Abby to get her up to the guest room so she could be killed, and the note said to come and see a sick friend so that nobody would look for Abby's body. And the killer could hide out in the guest room until he could kill Andrew. But you then have the killer looking all over the house for a note risking being seen after all of that trouble to get Abby to the guest room?

[Smudgeman]

Thank you Harry for the information.

Yes, the absence of the note, author and messenger implies strongly that the note didn't exist (and Lizzie's guilt). But beside this, I think these are two possibilities: 1) Abby lied. If Abby lied, there would have been neither the note itself, nor the author or messenger. But I can't give me an explanation why she lied and why she was killed then in the guest room with her house clothes. 2) The note was one part of the plot of the authors of the murders, and the executive killer, after killing Abby, searched and found the note and then took it away. The killers would not come forward for the reward, so, no note was found, no author, no messenger of the note as well. Many might consider my conjecture as a fantasy, I know.

I have not any book about the Borden case. All the authors defending Lizzie's innocence must face, among all the evidence against Lizzie, the mysterious note story. I am curious to know how did they explain it.

If Abby received the "so called" note that someone was sick, would she go about her normal day to day activities or rush out of the house to attend to the sick person? Also, she was in her house clothes because she was doing housework.

[Yooper]

I really thought we had beaten this conspiracy theory to death, apparently not. There was no intruder hiding in the guest room as of 9:00 the morning of the murders. A conspiracy theory involving three people with Abby as a wild card as Allen pointed out, is unnecessarily complex to explain the death of Abby. The guest room is a relatively poor choice as a place to hide if expecting to kill Andrew.

[Franz]

You assume too much saying the killers searched for the note in Abby's pocket and got rid of it Franz. Nobody could know what Abby would do with a note if anyone ever delivered one. She could have left it in her room because she got ready to leave. The door was locked. She could have done anything with the note other than have it on her in her pocket. She could have put it in a drawer somewhere. Left it on the kitchen table. She could have said to hell with Morse he can wait and not have gone up to the guest room at all. Your reasoning is that these conspirators sent a note to Abby to get her up to the guest room so she could be killed, and the note said to come and see a sick friend so that nobody would look for Abby's body. And the killer could hide out in the guest room until he could kill Andrew. But you then have the killer looking all over the house for a note risking being seen after all of that trouble to get Abby to the guest room?

I agree with you, Allen. The conspirators could not have known nothing. My point is: Morse and his conspirators presaw one of the possibilities is that Abby, after receiving the note, could put it in her pocket, and asked the executive killer to search it after the killing. He could have not found nothing. In this case, they could have to let the thing go as it happened (que sera sera.) I didn't imply at all the killer, if not found the note in the pocket of Abby, would look all over the house. I speculated that he could have searched only in the pocket, if he found it, he took it away; if not, the thing finished there, he simply waited in the guest room for Andrew's return. Am I more clear this time? (But I really think the pocket is one of the most probable places where the note was put in, and therefore, found by the executive killer afterwards.)

Not only the note's place, but also the transmission of the false information is a problem, too. You agree that every murderer runs the risk to some extent. If Lizzie did it, she ran the risk (among others) that Morse returned unexpectedly and earlier than Andrew. In my conjecutre, Morse and his conspirators ran the risk (among others) that the false information could have not been given by Abby to Lizzie (or Bridget), because they could not be sure if Abby, after receiving the note, could meet Lizzie or Bridget and tell her the note story first, or she went to the guest room first, thinking to tell Lizzie or Bridget afterwards that she would go out. If the second case actually occured, the executive killer (for the moment without discussing his hiding place) should not be able to know if the false information have been given or not to Lizzie (or Bridget), so he must act - to kill Abby. Que sera sera. Certainly, these must be many conincidences for that my conjecture could be possible, but it's my solution to explain the note story (because many other things make me think that Lizzie was more probably innocent). I dont' know, other persons convinced for Lizzie's innocence, how do they explain the note story. One convinced for Lizzie's innocence must face all evidence against Lizzie and try to explain them, right?

Allen, you said: "You assume too much". Yes, I permit me to assume too much, instead of accepting passively a conclusion that doesn't convince me at all.

[Franz]

Thank you Harry for the information.

Yes, the absence of the note, author and messenger implies strongly that the note didn't exist (and Lizzie's guilt). But beside this, I think these are two possibilities: 1) Abby lied. If Abby lied, there would have been neither the note itself, nor the author or messenger. But I can't give me an explanation why she lied and why she was killed then in the guest room with her house clothes. 2) The note was one part of the plot of the authors of the murders, and the executive killer, after killing Abby, searched and found the note and then took it away. The killers would not come forward for the reward, so, no note was found, no author, no messenger of the note as well. Many might consider my conjecture as a fantasy, I know.

I have not any book about the Borden case. All the authors defending Lizzie's innocence must face, among all the evidence against Lizzie, the mysterious note story. I am curious to know how did they explain it.

If Abby received the "so called" note that someone was sick, would she go about her normal day to day activities or rush out of the house to attend to the sick person? Also, she was in her house clothes because she was doing housework.

Abby could have thought to search that something (watch) requested by Morse (certainly a plot) in the guest room, and then, to change her clothes for visit, but she had no time to do so, because she would have been killed before being able to do anything else (changing clothes, giving Bridget indications for household work).

Let's imagine this: if Abby had changed her clothes, and then went to the guest room to search the watch and was killed there. In view of her clothes for visit, could people have given more credibility to the note story? If Lizzie were innocent and within my conjecture, the things could have occured in this way, right? But, unfortunately for Lizzie, the things occured as they actually occured.

[PossumPie]

The presence or absence of a note is being given TOO much weight. The real question would not be where is the note, but where is the note-writer? A note can be discarded easily. The publicity of the murders suggest that the note-writer, who would have lived certainly within a half-hour of Mrs. Borden, would have known that to be silent about a note could mean life or death for Lizzie. I don't buy the "She didn't want the publicity" angle...she played no part in the crime, just a person who was sick who needed a friend's help. Coming forward would not have hurt the note-writer, and could have saved an innocent girls life. BUT no one ever admitted to writing a note No one said "Now that I think of it, my granny was sick that day" No one said My neighbor told me afterwards that she had been the one to write the note. It can safely be assumed without much speculation, that for whatever reason there was no sick friend. NOW either Mrs. Borden lied about the note or Lizzie did, but I think it is evident that one of them did.

[Franz]

PossumPie, in my conjecture the writer and messenger of the note were not anyone else but Morse and his conspirators themselves! They certainly would not come forward when the investigation began.

[Allen]

Franz, you offer no proof at all for your theory. By proof I mean there are no facts to support this theory. I have not seen you offer up any facts at all. Only opinions and speculation. You assume too many things and have no proof for backing up your assumptions. And in the cases where you have been presented with proof that contradicted your theory, you altered your story to fit the facts or ignored them all together. You are not offering a valid conclusion for this case. Because if it was valid it would have facts that back it up, and it would not change because there would be no contradictions to a valid theory.

[Allen]

I've been thinking about this $500 reward that Lizzie and the newspapers offered to find the author or sender of the note. It was a considerable sum of money at that time to be sure. I'm sure that it was enough that if there had been someone who actually sent the note, they would have come forward to collect the reward. What I also wondered is why nobody came forward to falsely try to collect the money if it indeed was that much. There were people who admitted to the murders themselves and were proven to be lying. If there were people who would make false confessions to the murder, why did no one try to claim the reward? I am positive that $500 bought a great deal more than it would today. However, I always wondered about the actual conversion rate. Harry said that it would be worth roughly $10,000 in today's money. Which I find interesting. I've seen a reward offered in an advertisement in my copy of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly, the August 25, 1892 issue. The reward was offered to anyone who could prove that a product called Derma Royale did not work for them. It was supposed to whiten skin, remove age spots, etc. Never mind the fact that it's main ingredient seems to have been bleach. The company offered a $500 reward to anyone who used the product and could prove it didn't work, that it caused them injury, or used the product and was not satisfied. That seems a rather large sum of money, if it was worth $10,000 of today's money, to dangle at the public to prove they didn't like your product.

[Franz]

Franz, you offer no proof at all for your theory. By proof I mean there are no facts to support this theory. I have not seen you offer up any facts at all. Only opinions and speculation. You assume too many things and have no proof for backing up your assumptions. And in the cases where you have been presented with proof that contradicted your theory, you altered your story to fit the facts or ignored them all together. You are not offering a valid conclusion for this case. Because if it was valid it would have facts that back it up, and it would not change because there would be no contradictions to a valid theory.

My dear Allen (could I call you so?), I am not suspecting Alice, I am not suspecting Mrs. Churchill, I am not suspecting even Bridget (someone thinks she was the killer because Abby asked her to wash the windows in a hot day. Highly highly unlikely, right?) But the case of Morse is different, very different. You certainly know much more better than me all the reasons for which many others have suspected and are suspecting him. While the reasonable conclusion (Lizzie was guilty) can’t convince me at all, I would like to study more profoundly the case in general and especially uncle John. I withdraw for the moment my theory and I hope I can return to it one day.

In my opinion, there are too many doubts for Lizzie’s guilt, too many. Always in my opinion, the explanations made for these doubts are weak, even too weak in some cases.

[Aamartin]

even today-- a $500 would be enough to at least bring some whack-jobs out of the woodwork!

[Harry]

Partial quote

I am positive that $500 bought a great deal more than it would today. However, I always wondered about the actual conversion rate. Harry said that it would be worth roughly $10,000 in today's money.

I used to be able to multiply by 20 to get a rough estimate of 1892 amounts adjusted for inflation but I found by running the numbers again through the Inflation Calculator the ratio is now 25 to one. IE, now $12,500 instead of $10,000. See:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

However, inflation rates for individual items can vary widely. For instance computers and TV's costs have declined since they first came out. My first desktop computer cost me over $1300. Today you can buy something far more powerful and faster for less than $750. No inflation there. At best it can only be a composite average rate. There are many things that existed in 1892 which no longer exist today and vice-versa.

[Allen]

Partial quote

I am positive that $500 bought a great deal more than it would today. However, I always wondered about the actual conversion rate. Harry said that it would be worth roughly $10,000 in today's money.

I used to be able to multiply by 20 to get a rough estimate of 1892 amounts adjusted for inflation but I found by running the numbers again through the Inflation Calculator the ratio is now 25 to one. IE, now $12,500 instead of $10,000. See:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

However, inflation rates for individual items can vary widely. For instance computers and TV's costs have declined since they first came out. My first desktop computer cost me over $1300. Today you can buy something far more powerful and faster for less than $750. No inflation there. At best it can only be a composite average rate. There are many things that existed in 1892 which no longer exist today and vice-versa.

That's very true Harry. I've tried to pin down exactly how much a $500 reward in 1892 would be worth today. Your estimate is closer than I have gotten to finding an answer. It is true that lots of things existed then that do not now. As Aamartin said even today $500 would bring people out of the woodwork trying to claim the reward. I'd just get a better understanding if I knew exactly how substantial the reward was considered in 1892. Thanks for your posts Harry. Glad to see you posting again.

[Harry]

Thank you, Allen. Hope I can hang around longer this time,

Not to beat the inflation amount to death but here's a real example. Bridget was given 5 cents to buy a loaf of bread. Using the ratio of 25 to one that would bring a loaf cost of $1.25. Try to buy a loaf for that today. And there's was fresh baked too!

[Yooper]

It would also be interesting to know how much time expired between the 20:1 and the 25:1 conversion factors. The way prices are going, it might have been a relatively short time for a large change.

I don't know if I could bake the bread myself at home for $1.25 per loaf! It sounds awfully good though......

[PossumPie]

Back on topic...I find it hard to believe Morse (or anyone) actually sent a note to get Mrs. Borden out of the house. First who was supposed to have written it? Mrs. Borden wouldn't have dropped all her work, gotten dressed up, and gone across town to someone she didn't know. The writer would have had to had pretended it was someone she knew. No one came forward and said Mrs. Borden came to their house believing they were ill. Next we have no proof or even a hint that Mrs. Borden actually left and went to anyone's house. No one saw her on the street, she still had on her 'house clothes' when she was killed. Lizzie may be guilty or innocent, BUT I deeply believe there was never a sick friend or a note.

[Franz]

Back on topic...I find it hard to believe Morse (or anyone) actually sent a note to get Mrs. Borden out of the house. First who was supposed to have written it? Mrs. Borden wouldn't have dropped all her work, gotten dressed up, and gone across town to someone she didn't know. The writer would have had to had pretended it was someone she knew. No one came forward and said Mrs. Borden came to their house believing they were ill. Next we have no proof or even a hint that Mrs. Borden actually left and went to anyone's house. No one saw her on the street, she still had on her 'house clothes' when she was killed. Lizzie may be guilty or innocent, BUT I deeply believe there was never a sick friend or a note.

Yes, PossumPie, you are right. It is generally thought that Abby never left the house. And I think so as well. In my opinion, if Lizzie was guilty, the note story could have been 1) her lie; 2) Abby’s lie. If Lizzie was innocent, the note 3) could have been Abby’s lie; 4) could have actually existed. Since I am more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence for many other reasons, and meanwhile it’s difficult to me to explain why Abby lied, so I have considered the forth possibility: the note could have actually existed.

I believe as well that there was never a sick friend. But I think it is possible that the note was invented by the murderers and was a part of the plot.

121 years ago, August 4th, a double murder occurred in a little city of USA, and today, many people of all the world still think about it, discuss it, fascinated by it. All this is really unbelievable! Most probably because some unbelievable thing occurred in that fatal day…

[Franz]

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.

Harry, with "Lizzie having an accomplice", do you mean she had hired a killer? Me too I have considered the theory that Lizzie had someone to help her, she hired a killer. But I have always some doubt...

Why didn’t Lizzie tell her father (and Bridget) that Abby had gone to the market?

When Andrew was lying on the sofa and Bridget had returned in her room to have a rest, Lizzie might have gone to meet her conspirator (in the guest room or in Lizzie’s room?), and told him: “Listen, he is sleeping on the sofa in the sitting room. Our maiden is in her room to have a rest. Go to kill him in five minutes, not before, because in five minutes I would have arrived to X market.” And then, Lizzie might have left quickly the house. In the X market, she might have feigned to search for Abby, and asked intentionally the market keeper: “What time is it?” “It’s 11:05.” “Oh my God, Mrs. Borden told me to go to the market almost one hour ago. But where did she go?” And she might have continued to feign to search for Abby in other markets, or even tried to engage a conversation with someone to kill the time, letting Bridget to discover Andrew’s body.

Wasn’t it a much better solution for Lizzie’s alibi, if she had someone to help her? And I think this is a solution very easy to think, more easier than that barn version, more easier than that stupid note story (if it were a lie).

[PossumPie]

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.

Harry, with "Lizzie having an accomplice", do you mean she had hired a killer? Me too I have considered the theory that Lizzie had someone to help her, she hired a killer. But I have always some doubt...

Why didn’t Lizzie tell her father (and Bridget) that Abby had gone to the market?

When Andrew was lying on the sofa and Bridget had returned in her room to have a rest, Lizzie might have gone to meet her conspirator (in the guest room or in Lizzie’s room?), and told him: “Listen, he is sleeping on the sofa in the sitting room. Our maiden is in her room to have a rest. Go to kill him in five minutes, not before, because in five minutes I would have arrived to X market.” And then, Lizzie might have left quickly the house. In the X market, she might have feigned to search for Abby, and asked intentionally the market keeper: “What time is it?” “It’s 11:05.” “Oh my God, Mrs. Borden told me to go to the market almost one hour ago. But where did she go?” And she might have continued to feign to search for Abby in other markets, or even tried to engage a conversation with someone to kill the time, letting Bridget to discover Andrew’s body.

Wasn’t it a much better solution for Lizzie’s alibi, if she had someone to help her? And I think this is a solution very easy to think, more easier than that barn version, more easier than that stupid note story (if it were a lie).

I think what you are trying to say is that if there were an accomplice, Lizzie would have formed a solid alibi away from the house, like at a public market place. I agree, but who is to say that everyone acts in a logical manner all the time? I played with the idea of an accomplice but dismissed it b/c I don't think another person could have kept silent all these years. Conspiracy theories fall apart mainly b/c the more people know about the conspiracy, the more chance someone lets something slip. Remember what I always remind you of Franz, "the simplest, most boring solution is usually the correct one"