If Lizzie were the murderess…

[Yooper]

Most people can be remarkably accurate with an axe or hatchet, it isn't as difficult as the newspapers wanted people to believe. Splitting wood for a fireplace or woodstove often comes down to a target about four inches across struck with an axe somewhere near 2 1/2 feet long. Most people could hit within an inch of center with very little practice. Splitting kindling with a hatchet is sometimes a one inch target and that can be struck with remarkable accuracy. Anyone who has played baseball has hit a three inch target with a bat. The principle is much the same.

[NancyDrew]

I've heard opinions on both sides...that the blows were delivered by a "practiced hand" and then again, that they seemed to be the work of someone who didn't have a lot of upper body strength, and that there were some blows that were near misses.. We can look at the number of whacks as either overkill, blind rage, passion, or follow-through. Whoever committed the murders knew they weren't very strong, and so they wanted to make sure the job was done. Sort of like the Italian mafia, emptying the entire clip during a 'hit'

I'd like to know...when is the most recent analysis of the autopsy reports by person who would be expert enough to give en opinion of such things? And what type of expert would that be? Certainly not a doctor, who might conceivably go his/her entire life and never see brutal slayings such as these. The Behavioral Sciences Unit at Quantico must have people who study this. Does anyone know, before I commence to googling?

[Yooper]

I don't know if anyone has gotten a recent opinion on the forensics, behavioral sciences would be the place to start. My best guess is that rage or any other distraction would detract from accuracy when using a hatchet.

[NancyDrew]

Question: Do we know how much of a sweeping arc the killer made when hacking up Andrew and Abby? In Abby's case, I thought it was concluded the killer sat on her, straddling her body.. It wouldn't, imo, be that hard to make good aim...being that close to her head. With Andrew, I've always pictured the killer (Lizzie) standing over him...making big sweeping arcs with her arms, as she brought down each blow. Does it have to be so? Could she have knelt behind him, and simply brought the knife blade down from a short distance? That would improve accuracy of each blow, no?

[PossumPie]

It's tough not having the original skulls to go from, but the blows appear NOT to be sweeping arcs, but forearm swings from the elbow. The apparent angle changes with many of the blows shows more directional changes. A long steady arc would, even with a hatchet, have cleaved the skull virtually in half with so many blows. My scientific, but not expert opinion is many blows, from the elbow, with not much force, but done quickly and with passion. The first blows rendered each victim stuporous at the lest, or unconscious at best because there were no cries of pain/alarm. 4 or 5 blows would have definitely killed each so the total number of blows shows rage not thoroughness.

[Darrowfan]

I've speculated before that Lizzie could have planned the murders using the knowledge of the daily routine of the members household. Uncle John showing up would add a little extra risk,because he was more unpredictable, but he generally went out visiting people around town when he was there. His testimony bares this out because he had done it on his previous visits as well. She could not know any of their movements would stick to routine with one hundred percent certainty, but no murder could ever be planned with one hundred percent certainty that everything will go according to the plan. If she waited for that perfect moment when she had control of all of the variables Andrew and Abby would never have been murdered.

What you say makes a lot of sense, Allen. I have always thought that Lizzie probably planned the crime, but she had no way of knowing exactly when she would strike, or perhaps even how she would strike. As you suggest, the crime was probably half premeditation and half crime of opportunity. I have never agreed with the theory that Lizzie "suddenly lost it" or that she exploded in a sudden, unforeseen rage, because she obviously had the murder weapon with her. It seems unlikely that she would fly into a sudden, unexpected murderous rage at the same moment that she just happened to be holding a hatchet in her hand.

[PossumPie]

I've speculated before that Lizzie could have planned the murders using the knowledge of the daily routine of the members household. Uncle John showing up would add a little extra risk,because he was more unpredictable, but he generally went out visiting people around town when he was there. His testimony bares this out because he had done it on his previous visits as well. She could not know any of their movements would stick to routine with one hundred percent certainty, but no murder could ever be planned with one hundred percent certainty that everything will go according to the plan. If she waited for that perfect moment when she had control of all of the variables Andrew and Abby would never have been murdered.

What you say makes a lot of sense, Allen. I have always thought that Lizzie probably planned the crime, but she had no way of knowing exactly when she would strike, or perhaps even how she would strike. As you suggest, the crime was probably half premeditation and half crime of opportunity. I have never agreed with the theory that Lizzie "suddenly lost it" or that she exploded in a sudden, unforeseen rage, because she obviously had the murder weapon with her. It seems unlikely that she would fly into a sudden, unexpected murderous rage at the same moment that she just happened to be holding a hatchet in her hand.

True, it does seem unlikely that it was not premeditated to some degree. Talking to a neighbor the night before the murder about mysterious people who want to kill Mr. Borden seems to show at least half-a-day's premeditation.

[Darrowfan]

True, it does seem unlikely that it was not premeditated to some degree. Talking to a neighbor the night before the murder about mysterious people who want to kill Mr. Borden seems to show at least half-a-day's premeditation.

Absolutely, Possum. I suspect that Lizzie wrestled with her decision to kill Abby and Andrew. And when I say she wrestled with the decision, I don't mean whether to kill, but more as to when and how.

[PattiG157]

I feel fairly certain Lizzie committed the crimes, but that leaves me in a dilemma ... since I've read so many books and articles on her, I feel like I know her. And, I like her ... so I don't WANT her to be the murderer. But I believe she did it because:

(1) I don't believe there was ever a note; I believe Lizzie made this up so that her father would not, upon his return home, go upstairs to look for her stepmother;

(2) I believe she mentioned the fabric sale to Bridget to get her out of the house so she could commit the crime;

(3) Even though they did not allow it in the trial, I believe the story about her trying to buy prussic acid the day before the murders was true.

Also, most forensic psychologists who have "examined" Lizzie agree that she was probably a victim of incest. I don't believe she "snapped" the day of the murder, but I do believe she'd had enough of her stepmother, her alleged incest and of not living in a nicer neighborhood, which she felt she was entitled to.

Even though Uncle John was peculiar to say the least, and it sounds like his alibi was planned out in advance, I don't know how he figures into the equation. He didn't see Lizzie during this trip until after the murders, because Lizzie didn't eat supper with the family the night before the murders, nor did she eat breakfast with them the next morning.

Okay, that's enough babbling for now. I'm new to the boards, but I wanted to chip in ... also, HELLO and HAVE A GREAT DAY to everyone!!!

[Darrowfan]

(1) I don't believe there was ever a note; I believe Lizzie made this up so that her father would not, upon his return home, go upstairs to look for her stepmother;

(2) I believe she mentioned the fabric sale to Bridget to get her out of the house so she could commit the crime;

(3) Even though they did not allow it in the trial, I believe the story about her trying to buy prussic acid the day before the murders was true.

Also, most forensic psychologists who have "examined" Lizzie agree that she was probably a victim of incest. I don't believe she "snapped" the day of the murder, but I do believe she'd had enough of her stepmother, her alleged incest and of not living in a nicer neighborhood, which she felt she was entitled to.

Even though Uncle John was peculiar to say the least, and it sounds like his alibi was planned out in advance, I don't know how he figures into the equation. He didn't see Lizzie during this trip until after the murders, because Lizzie didn't eat supper with the family the night before the murders, nor did she eat breakfast with them the next morning.

Okay, that's enough babbling for now. I'm new to the boards, but I wanted to chip in ... also, HELLO and HAVE A GREAT DAY to everyone!!!

I agree with the 3 points you brought up, Patti. And to me, those 3 points are only the tip of the "circumstantial iceberg", so to speak. Many people think that circumstantial evidence is somehow weak, or invalid. I once read a homocide detective's view of circumstantial evidence. He said that circumstanial evidence is still "real evidence" and that it is very important in solving crimes.

[PossumPie]

I feel fairly certain Lizzie committed the crimes, but that leaves me in a dilemma ... since I've read so many books and articles on her, I feel like I know her. And, I like her ... so I don't WANT her to be the murderer. But I believe she did it because:



Also, most forensic psychologists who have "examined" Lizzie agree that she was probably a victim of incest. I don't believe she "snapped" the day of the murder, but I do believe she'd had enough of her stepmother, her alleged incest and of not living in a nicer neighborhood, which she felt she was entitled to.

I'd be curious to see the rationale for believing she was an incest victim. I have a Master's in Counseling Psychology, and have done a fair amount of work with women who were incest victims. While there are some signs, they are not hard and fast. My experience has been the number one sign was poor hygiene and over-weight. It can be a defense mechanism to get very over-weight and not shower, it is thought by the victim that it may keep the perpetrator away. Lizzie seemed thin, attractive, and I haven't heard about poor hygiene issues.
She did display some sexual promiscuity (allegedly according to some sources) Which also can be a sign. Lesbian tendencies can sometimes point to a lack of trust in Males, but this is really controversial, although my PERSONAL experience in counseling was that there seemed alot of Lesbian tendencies in victims who were victims of incest. That DOES NOT mean the opposite is true, ie. Just because a woman is lesbian does NOT mean she was an incest victim.

[NancyDrew]

Welcome Patti!

There is no evidence Lizzie was sexually promiscuous, unless I'm missing something. She never dated, never had a boyfriend, never attended any event with a male even once, with the exception of going to church with Dr. Bowen, and boy, did that set tongues a-wagging!

The relationship with Nance O'Neill, the actress, has been hinted at as having sexual overtones, but, barring new evidence, we will never know.

Lizzie WAS a shoplifter...that much seems to be proven, and it is a compulsion. Compulsions bind anxieties. What was she so anxious about? Possibly incest? Her mother died at a young age; Andrew didn't stay single for long, and if he WERE abusing Lizzie sexually, I have a a hard time believing the entire household didn't know about it...it is a fairly small house with no hallways, like so many old homes (I have one; the rooms just open into each other.)

[Darrowfan]

I have heard many theories regarding Lizzie's sexuality. I don't think she was abused, because, as I said before, Andrew just doesn't seem the type, from what I've read about him. As far as her alleged lesbian tendencies go, I view that too with a great deal of skepticism. Not because it's impossible of course, but just because there is no real evidence of that. It seems to me that in many homicide cases where a female is the perpetrator, people are quick to look for some sort of psycho-sexual disturbance.

I tend to put a lot of stock in more obvious (and less convoluted) motives. In a word: greed. Whatever other tensions and anxieties Lizzie may have felt, I think her overriding concern was getting her father's money, so that should could live a truly "emancipated" life. I may be all wet. Perhaps Lizzie did have deeper, darker emotional disturbances, but I am not persuaded that they were sexual. In Lizzie's case, I can't help but feel that the answer lies elsewhere.

[Allen]

I am a survivor of incest. I'm not fat, do not have poor hygiene, never been promiscuous, and I'm definitely not a lesbian. Neither are any of the other survivors I know who suffered from the same perpetrator. Do I believe that Andrew molested Lizzie? No I do not. There is no proof what so ever.

[Darrowfan]

I am a survivor of incest. I'm not fat, do not have poor hygiene, never been promiscuous, and I'm definitely not a lesbian. Neither are any of the other survivors I know who suffered from the same perpetrator. Do I believe that Andrew molested Lizzie? No I do not. There is no proof what so ever.

I agree, Allen. The theory that Andrew molested Lizzie seems to have been plucked out of thin air. In Lizzie's inquest testimony, I do find one clue that shows Lizzie's general attitude for her father. If I remember correctly, Knowlton questioned Lizzie closely about why she stopped calling Abby "mother". The prosecutor beat that issue to death, and there was a moment when Lizzie hesitated when answering questions about her relationship with Abby.

But note that when Knowlton asked Lizzie if she addressed Andrew as "Father", Lizzie replied, without hesitation, "Always." I think that's very revealing. It indicates that Lizzie viewed her father with respect, and perhaps even some measure of affection. If he had ever molested her, that would probably not be the case.

[Franz]

Hey Allen, very happy to read you again.

[Harry]

Hey Allen, very happy to read you again.

Ditto to that! But I'm sorry to read what you were subject to.

[PattiG157]

Well, the incest theory I've only heard once, so maybe you guys are right -- it never occurred. I hate to think about that happening to anyone, including Lizzie. And of course, she did leave money in her will for the perpetual care of her father's grave -- not Abby's or even her own. Why would she do that if she was abused?

One of the books that hinted at the incest theory -- for those of you who are curious -- is a book called "The Cases That Haunt Us." A detective and a profiler wrote it, about some of the more infamous unsolved crimes, including this one. If you haven't read it, you should -- it's VERY interesting!