About uncle John’s behaviours (part 1)

[Franz]

... Suspicious as heck, he didn't have reason to kill them or have them killed...

PossumPie, how are you so sure that "he didn't have reason to kill them"? I think that he could haven't reason to kill them, but meanwhile, I think as well that he could have the reson that we ignore.

The Borden case was not a common murder case, but one of the most extraordiny cases in the history. One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that the killer, whoever he / she was, was very lucky. If the killer was not Lizzie but an intruder, he could have hidden himself in the guest room, where neither Lizzie nor Bridget went into. In my theory, Morse and his conspirators planned to kill Abby in the guest room with the watch plot, and to prevent Lizzie and Bridget from looking for Abby with the note plot. They were lucky: the things happened just as they wished.

[PossumPie]

... Suspicious as heck, he didn't have reason to kill them or have them killed...

PossumPie, how are you so sure that "he didn't have reason to kill them"? I think that he could haven't reason to kill them, but meanwhile, I think as well that he could have the reson that we ignore.

The Borden case was not a common murder case, but one of the most extraordiny cases in the history. One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that the killer, whoever he / she was, was very lucky. If the killer was not Lizzie but an intruder, he could have hidden himself in the guest room, where neither Lizzie nor Bridget went into. In my theory, Morse and his conspirators planned to kill Abby in the guest room with the watch plot, and to prevent Lizzie and Bridget from looking for Abby with the note plot. They were lucky: the things happened just as they wished.

Franz, I don't have to prove he had no motive. LOGIC states you MUST PROVE he had a motive.
It is like saying "I have no proof the moon is green cheese". This is a factual statement.
And you saying
"I believe the moon is green cheese" There is NO factual basis in that, it is an opinion.

[Franz]

... Suspicious as heck, he didn't have reason to kill them or have them killed...

PossumPie, how are you so sure that "he didn't have reason to kill them"? I think that he could haven't reason to kill them, but meanwhile, I think as well that he could have the reson that we ignore.

The Borden case was not a common murder case, but one of the most extraordiny cases in the history. One of the reasons, in my opinion, is that the killer, whoever he / she was, was very lucky. If the killer was not Lizzie but an intruder, he could have hidden himself in the guest room, where neither Lizzie nor Bridget went into. In my theory, Morse and his conspirators planned to kill Abby in the guest room with the watch plot, and to prevent Lizzie and Bridget from looking for Abby with the note plot. They were lucky: the things happened just as they wished.

Franz, I don't have to prove he had no motive. LOGIC states you MUST PROVE he had a motive.
It is like saying "I have no proof the moon is green cheese". This is a factual statement.
And you saying
"I believe the moon is green cheese" There is NO factual basis in that, it is an opinion.

You are right PossumPie, since I am accusing (at least suspecting) Morse for the murders, I must prove he had a motive.

Those who accuse Lizzie for the murders, they should prove as well that she had a motive, right? But has her assumed motive been proved? Did a will exist? Where is the proof? Did Lizzie overhear any secret? Where is the proof? All is nothing else but speculation, in my opinion.

[PossumPie]

Since Lizzie was found not guilty, we (they) didn't prove her guilt. A Motive???? Money, more money, and more money. She lived a very simple life in the bad part of town in a small house with a RICH father. She was in love with money, he sent her to Europe to appease her lavish desires. She ended up with the money...that is definitely a motive. Guilty? no proof. Motive? OH YES.

[NancyDrew]

PossumPie: It could have been only an hour between the deaths. The room upstairs was hotter, Mrs. Borden's blood would have clotted sooner. The food in the stomach reasoning has always given me pause. Mr. Borden was out taking a long walk that morning...the exercise would have hastened his digestion and emptied his stomach sooner. How I wish we knew more about the condition of the bodies when found.

[PossumPie]

PossumPie: It could have been only an hour between the deaths. The room upstairs was hotter, Mrs. Borden's blood would have clotted sooner. The food in the stomach reasoning has always given me pause. Mr. Borden was out taking a long walk that morning...the exercise would have hastened his digestion and emptied his stomach sooner. How I wish we knew more about the condition of the bodies when found.

True, as a nurse I too am interested. While medicine back then was simplistic compared to today, they could estimate T.O.D. fairly accurately by coagulation of blood on body, in large veins/arteries, and in the chambers of the heart. Also digestion is fairly accurate. While fright triggers the Sympathetic nervous system to stop digestion, we have no reason to think she was frightened much before her actual death. I will concur 1hr.earlier because it doesn't change my idea that a stranger/hired killer would hang around even for 60min. knowing they may be discovered at any time. I go back to Motive. Lizzie had an obvious motive, money. I have heard speculations on incest, etc, but sticking only to facts, money is motive. Uncle Morse? No one has given me any factual information that could be construed as a motive. Sure, you could speculate on any number of wild theories of why he wanted him dead, but give me facts...

[Franz]

Sure, you could speculate on any number of wild theories of why he wanted him dead, but give me facts...

PossumPie, you are right. We must, certainly, give facts and evidence to prove a theory. In that fatal morning of August 4th 1892 in the Borden house in Fall River, many things happened, these things are all facts. But unfortunately, we know only very few of these facts. For the Borden case, it's difficult, even almost impossible to prove a theory with those very few known facts, even for the theory that Lizzie was guilty, right? After 120 years, her guilt has been never proved.

I have given my theory, for the moment I can't, and very probably I will never, prove it. But if I had not the ambition to prove my theory, if I just satisfy myself to give a possible theory, would I be accused for unseriousness? would I lose my right of speach in this forum? I come here to know ideas and opinions of other members, and to express my ideas and opinions, I don't want to convince anyone, so why must I prove my theory? I will certainly do my best, but I am not obliged to prove nothing. In all these 120 years, has anyone proved any theory?

The forum is a place for exchanging our ideas, opinions, theoris (even though improvable). Is an improvable (but possible) theory a dangerous thing? I don't think so. In this forum I have read many other possible but improvable theories (included, I repeat, that Lizzie was guilty, a theory not proved), but in my opinion many of them are very constructive for my thinking.

[Yooper]

As far as motive is concerned, Lizzie could expect to inherit her father's wealth with Abby and Andrew both dead, as she clearly did. John Morse could expect to gain absolutely nothing through the deaths of the Bordens, and he clearly did not. There is nothing speculative about it. Why is this being questioned?

[Yooper]

Sure, you could speculate on any number of wild theories of why he wanted him dead, but give me facts...

PossumPie, you are right. We must, certainly, give facts and evidence to prove a theory. In that fatal morning of August 4th 1892 in the Borden house in Fall River, many things happened, these things are all facts. But unfortunately, we know only very few of these facts. For the Borden case, it's difficult, even almost impossible to prove a theory with those very few known facts, even for the theory that Lizzie was guilty, right? After 120 years, her guilt has been never proved.

I have given my theory, for the moment I can't, and very probably I will never, prove it. But if I had not the ambition to prove my theory, if I just satisfy myself to give a possible theory, would I be accused for unseriousness? would I lose my right of speach in this forum? I come here to know ideas and opinions of other members, and to express my ideas and opinions, I don't want to convince anyone, so why must I prove my theory? I will certainly do my best, but I am not obliged to prove nothing. In all these 120 years, has anyone proved any theory?

The forum is a place for exchanging our ideas, opinions, theoris (even though improvable). Is an improvable (but possible) theory a dangerous thing? I don't think so. In this forum I have read many other possible but improvable theories (included, I repeat, that Lizzie was guilty, a theory not proved), but in my opinion many of them are very constructive for my thinking.

A "theory" becomes a theory when it is based upon proof. Until then it is a fairy tale.

[PossumPie]

To clarify my frustration: Theories are welcome. We all have theories. BUT we must base them on something. I could say I believe aliens from Alpha Centauri killed the Bordens to extract parts of their brains. It is a theory, but without some kind of fact to back it up, it holds little weight. The theory that Lizzie did it holds more weight b/c she had the motive, opportunity, and means of doing it. Emma- maybe motive, and means but NO opportunity. Uncle Morse- no motive, no opportunity, and possibly a means. As we more further into the unlikely, they theories become less able to prove. I enjoy reading peoples 'theories' but more so if there is a solid basis behind them.

[Yooper]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

[PossumPie]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

Agreed. Theories with no basis in fact, or twisted fact, hold no more weight than the "aliens from Venus did it" theory. I remember a book written years ago speculating wildly that John Lennon was secretly gay, and had a physical relationship with Brian Epstein, his manager. By pulling things out of context, and making other things up out of whole cloth, you can speculate about anything. Even today, Googling "John Lennon Gay" shows people still believe unsubstantiated rumors. The ones closest to him have said, "sure Lennon was wild, and drunk enough probably would have tried anything once, but rest assured, he was not gay." Conspiracy theories get their energy from taking many tiny details about something, and interpreting them to fit your theory. A shadow under one of the hijacked planes that hit the WTC becomes a drone plane. They work b/c denial of something becomes example of 'cover-up'. Sure you can argue any wild theory by interpreting vague facts how you want to, but in the end, in life, it is usually the most straight-forward, simplest most boring explanation that is true.

[annmarz]

i have enjoyed this Board for several years. Obviously I do not post often but I love reading the ideas and lively discussions about this case. Having said that, I don' t think I can stand anymore of the debate over Franz's "theory" on the crime. It is pure speculation, not based on any facts. We can all use our imaginations to devise wild and unsubstantiated ideas. They belong in the realm of fiction, not a serious discussion. Far too much time and effort has gone into rebutting and defending his ridiculous hypothesis. Can we please return to a serious discussion? Maybe he can write a fiction book about this case and leave the forum.

[Franz]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

In the history of all the countries how many innocents have been arrested and tried, and even convicted, and even executed, being believed to have means, motives and opportunity?

[Allen]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

In the history of all the countries how many innocents have been arrested and tried, and even convicted, and even executed, being believed to have means, motives and opportunity?

Franz, I cannot believe you would have the nerve to mention anything about innocent people being accused of a crime, while proposing a theory that has absolutely no proof other than what you have twisted inside your own mind. And you then talk about innocent people being accused.

[Yooper]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

In the history of all the countries how many innocents have been arrested and tried, and even convicted, and even executed, being believed to have means, motives and opportunity?

Exactly how does this drivel correlate to the Borden case? The lack of capacity for reason and logic are once again abundantly apparent.

[Franz]

i have enjoyed this Board for several years. Obviously I do not post often but I love reading the ideas and lively discussions about this case. Having said that, I don' t think I can stand anymore of the debate over Franz's "theory" on the crime. It is pure speculation, not based on any facts. We can all use our imaginations to devise wild and unsubstantiated ideas. They belong in the realm of fiction, not a serious discussion. Far too much time and effort has gone into rebutting and defending his ridiculous hypothesis. Can we please return to a serious discussion? Maybe he can write a fiction book about this case and leave the forum.

annmarz, in a topic posted by yourself, entitled "What do you think about John Morse" (Aug. 06, 2010), you questioned the behaviours of Morse, and concluded: "He HAD to be involved in some way."

Would you like to tell me in a more detailed and clear manner in which way, in your opinion, was Morse involved in the case? Thanks!

[Franz]

Lizzie had means, motive, and opportunity, and she was arrested and tried for the crime! A whole lot of other people thought she was guilty, and to the exclusion of anyone else. This qualifies as a theory. I agree, theories are welcome, but fairy tales are not well received.

In the history of all the countries how many innocents have been arrested and tried, and even convicted, and even executed, being believed to have means, motives and opportunity?

Franz, I cannot believe you would have the nerve to mention anything about innocent people being accused of a crime, while proposing a theory that has absolutely no proof other than what you have twisted inside your own mind. And you then talk about innocent people being accused.

Allen, that Morse remained for a few minutes outside the house after being told the tragic news is not in my mind, but in the testimony of Mr. Sawyer.

That Morse, having been told the news, when entered in the house, said "what" to Mrs. Churchill who told him for the third time the tragic news, this is not in my mind, but in the testimony of Mrs. Churchill.

That Morse saw a number of people and was told the news (outside the house) is not in my mind, but in the witness statement of Morse himself.

That Morse, while being outside for a few minutes, didn't ask nothing about Lizzie's safety and how the Borden couple had been killed is not in my mind, but a fact.

Allen, do you have a convincing answer for all these - in my opinion - suspicious behaviours of Morse?

There are still many other questions about Morse...

[Allen]

Franz, I have already explained what I think of these alleged "suspicious" behaviors over and over and over again. The fact that you keep asking if I can explain them, after I have explained them time and time again, only illustrates that you don't pay any attention to anything that is said unless it fits your theory. And yes to anyone wondering I am leaving the forum. I've had just about enough.

[Franz]

Franz, I have already explained what I think of these alleged "suspicious" behaviors over and over and over again. The fact that you keep asking if I can explain them, after I have explained them time and time again, only illustrates that you don't pay any attention to anything that is said unless it fits your theory. And yes to anyone wondering I am leaving the forum. I've had just about enough.

Allen, I have read all your posts. I will check them for another time. For the moment I take only two questions as example:

1. About Morse's remaining "a few minutes" outside, if I remember well, you think that he couldn't remain a few minutes, but only "a few seconds", right? So in my opinion, you didn't explain why Morse remained "a few minutes", what you did is changing "a few minutes" in "a few seconds".

2. About Morse's "what" pronounced to Mrs. Churchill. I don't recall you explained this. Please correct me if my memory is wrong.

It's not true that I don't pay any attention to anything that doesn't fits my theory. I corrected the first version of my theory just because I accepted your and other members' convincing objections. And more than one time I participated the discussions assuming that Lizzie was guilty. I am always ready to change my opinion about Lizzie's guilt or innocence, because I know that it could occure at any moment and I think this should be the experience of many members. Myself I have changed from "guilt" to "innocence", and I could change for another time, as many others did.

I would be very sorry if you decide to leave. Please ingore my posts if they bother you.

[Franz]

i have enjoyed this Board for several years. Obviously I do not post often but I love reading the ideas and lively discussions about this case. Having said that, I don' t think I can stand anymore of the debate over Franz's "theory" on the crime. It is pure speculation, not based on any facts. We can all use our imaginations to devise wild and unsubstantiated ideas. They belong in the realm of fiction, not a serious discussion. Far too much time and effort has gone into rebutting and defending his ridiculous hypothesis. Can we please return to a serious discussion? Maybe he can write a fiction book about this case and leave the forum.

annmarz, in a topic posted by yourself, entitled "What do you think about John Morse" (Aug. 06, 2010), you questioned the behaviours of Morse, and concluded: "He HAD to be involved in some way."

Would you like to tell me in a more detailed and clear manner in which way, in your opinion, was Morse involved in the case? Thanks!

Annmarz, I conjectured that Morse had organized the double murder. You consider my hypothesis ridiculous. Very well.

But meanwhile, You yourself think - or thought - that "He (Morse) HAD to be involved in some way." I invited you to tell me in what way you think Morse was involved in the case. Up to now I haven't received yet your answer.

Certainly, we are all free here and you have all your right to refuse to answer me.

But I think only the administration board has the right to intervene riguarding the censorship. No member has the right to give other memebrs the "advice" of "leave the forum". Such a polite "advice", or that rude shouting "shut up" of someone else, is just scandalous and unacceptable.