What if Andrew didn't take a nap?

[leitskev]

Was it ever asked to Bridget or Lizzie if taking a noon nap was customary for Andrew? It seems an important question. If Lizzie had good reason to expect he would lie down, then her plan made sense. But if he didn't lie down, what was the plan?

While I'm on the subject...Andrew was killed between 10:55 and 11:00...and 11:00 seems more reasonable considering what time Andrew left downtown, and the things he did upon getting home: struggling with the lock, taking the key from the mantle and going to his bed room.

And considering what time the police logged in the request for help, and all that happened before that(calling Bridget from the 3rd floor, Bridget running to Dr. Bowen's, returning, and going out again...

...considering all that, we're being generous in saying Lizzie called Bridget no later than 11:10.

Now the big mystery, of course, has been how she committed the crime and cleaned up in at the most 15 minutes, and more likely between 5 and 10 minutes...

...but my question is this: why not take MORE time to clean up? Bridget had just gone up to nap. She would be up there a while one presumes. Maybe 15 minutes, a half hour. If you were Lizzy, wouldn't you use some of that time to make sure any evidence was destroyed? Why hurry to call Bridget?

[Darrowfan]

Was it ever asked to Bridget or Lizzie if taking a noon nap was customary for Andrew? It seems an important question. If Lizzie had good reason to expect he would lie down, then her plan made sense. But if he didn't lie down, what was the plan?

While I'm on the subject...Andrew was killed between 10:55 and 11:00...and 11:00 seems more reasonable considering what time Andrew left downtown, and the things he did upon getting home: struggling with the lock, taking the key from the mantle and going to his bed room.

And considering what time the police logged in the request for help, and all that happened before that(calling Bridget from the 3rd floor, Bridget running to Dr. Bowen's, returning, and going out again...

...considering all that, we're being generous in saying Lizzie called Bridget no later than 11:10.

Now the big mystery, of course, has been how she committed the crime and cleaned up in at the most 15 minutes, and more likely between 5 and 10 minutes...

...but my question is this: why not take MORE time to clean up? Bridget had just gone up to nap. She would be up there a while one presumes. Maybe 15 minutes, a half hour. If you were Lizzy, wouldn't you use some of that time to make sure any evidence was destroyed? Why hurry to call Bridget?

Those are all very interesting questions, leitskev. As far as Andrew lying down goes, I get the impression that this was not his usual practice, but he had been feeling ill in the 24-48 hours before the murder. As far as your question about Lizzie's plan if Andrew had not laid down, I don't think that would have changed his fate. Lizzie would probably have struck anyway, maybe from behind. Also, I have lately been considering the possibility that Lizzie at first only wanted to kill Abby, and let Andrew discover the body. But in the hour or so that she had to think about it (after killing Abby, and waiting for Andrew to come home), she may have reasoned that Andrew would suspect her, so she decided to kill him as well.

Now that is only rank speculation on my part, but it does answer another question you raised: why was there such a short time span between the killing of Andrew and her calling to Bridget? (I thank you for raising that issue. It has always bothered me too.) I can only think that if, as I suggest, Abby's murder was planned, and Andrew's was "spontaneous", maybe that accounts for it.

In any event, you raise an important point. With Bridget upstairs lying down, and Lizzie the only other living person in the house, Lizzie could have taken all the time she needed to clean up, dispose of the weapon, and possibly stage the crime scene. As for cleaning up, it is possible that Lizzie got very little blood on her (if any), and cleaning up would only take a minute or so. But I have often wondered why Lizzie didn't stage the crime scene. The perpetrators of homicides often do so, in order to mislead investigators. If Lizzie had been thinking clearly, she would have perhaps damaged the front door lock to simulate a breaking in, or taken some valuables and hidden them, to simulate robbery as the motive.

Of course, homicide investigators are not stupid, and they can usually tell when a crime scene has been staged, but the fact that Lizzie didn't do these things, and that she called Bridget almost immediately after killing Andrew may give some weight to my theory that Andrew's murder wasn't planned.

[leitskev]

Thanks, Darrow

Glad you appreciate the problems I raised, and you articulated them better than I did.

I don't see the murder of Andrew as being more likely to be spontaneous. If either of the murders was spontaneous, it seems more likely to be Abby's. That seems to have been a more passionate act. It's hard to imagine that once that passion had been expunged and given an hour and half to cool down it would flare up again. It seems more like the killing of Andrew would have been cool calculation, as she would have reasoned he would have fingered her for Abby's murder.

As far as the nap problem, Andrew was an older man, but still a man. It would have been risky for Lizzy to try to confront him face to face. In fact, this brings up the question: why didn't she kill Bridget? One might speculate that she wanted Bridget to be seen as a suspect, but her actions don't suggest that. I mean if she wanted that, she should have just left the house.

While I do believe that most of the circumstantial evidence points to Lizzie, there are many troubling things. In many ways, her actions are consistent with someone that is innocent, or at least believes she is.

1) if she were guilty, she would have taken more time to dispose of the evidence, and as you say, stage a crime scene. Even if we allow that maybe the blood mess was easy to deal with, there is the hatchet. The hatchet was never found. If Lizzie was the killer, someone had to take it out for her. At the very least, an accomplice after the fact. But even if that's what happened, right after the murder she should have been thinking of getting off the property with the weapon. I mean that would have been the priority. Even if she was expecting someone to come back and help her get rid of it, it was risky to have it in the house once help was called for. Crazy risky.
2) if she acted alone, wouldn't it make more sense to run for help. By calling for Bridget, she helps make sure Bridget is not a suspect by establishing that Bridget was in her room. If Lizzie is evil enough to kill both parents in such a calculated way, why not try to set up the maid?
3) I've seen people say that Lizzie's actions after sending out Bridget suggest guilt...but I see it the other way around. She waited in the door. That makes perfect sense. From that spot, she could run if she heard someone in the house. Most people would not leave the house of where their parent had just been slain. And your house is still your fortress. If she saw a guy running around on the street with a hatchet, she could lock herself inside quickly. I think standing in the door is EXACTLY where an innocent person would stand. On the other hand, if she were guilty, I would expect her to remain more inside, perhaps looking for any more incriminating evidence.
4) Dr. Bowen's testimony, I believe, was that she told him her father had been stabbed. Based on the other statements she made, it doesn't seem that she was clever enough to have tried to redirect intentionally. This is what someone would say if they didn't know he had been hacked.

That's what's perplexing about the case. There are so many things that don't add up. There are strong signs of both guilty and innocent behavior with Lizzy. And it seems both that she is the only one that could have done it and it was also impossible that she could have pulled it off.

The bottom line is that Lizzie never left the yard, and the hatchet was never found on the property. That means either she had an accomplice help get rid of it...or she didn't do it. Am I missing something on that?

[Franz]

...

While I'm on the subject...Andrew was killed between 10:55 and 11:00...and 11:00 seems more reasonable

...

Me too I think that probably Andrew was killed at 11:00, while the bell was ringing. The bell’s noise could cover in some way the probable noise of the murder.

Certainly, I am not saying that the killer projected to kill him at that exact time (the killer could not have foreseen for the timetable), but by coincidence: it should be possible that when the killer realized that the time was very near to 11:00, he / she could have decided offhand to kill Andrew at that time.

(When the subject of a discussion doesn’t concern directly the identification of the killer, I prefer, personally, use the word “killer”. Some other members do in this manner, and I appreciate this. Your question, a very good one, is valid as well if the killer was not Lizzie but someone else. And the identification of the killer is just the biggest mystry still unsolved of the Borden case.)

[Darrowfan]

Me too I think that probably Andrew was killed at 11:00, while the bell was ringing. The bell’s noise could cover in some way the probable noise of the murder.

Or possibly even a few minutes prior to 11. (I have not been able to figure out exactly what time Bridget went upstairs to lie down, but Andrew must have been killed very shortly thereafter.)

The time sequence is one of the most interesting parts of the case. For example, the police got the call about trouble at the Borden house at 11:15am. That means that between 11 and 11:15, the following things happened: Lizzie shouts for Bridget. Bridget comes downstairs. Lizzie and Bridget have a brief conversation. Bridget goes to get Dr. Bowen. Bridget returns to the house. Mrs. Churchill goes into her own house, and calls to Lizzie through the window. Mrs. Churchill goes over to the Borden house. Mrs. Churchill and Lizzie have a brief conversation. Mrs. Churchill goes out in search of a doctor. Someone overhears Mrs. Churchill talk about Andrew being killed. That person finds a telephone, and calls the police.

It seems incredible that all those things could have happened within 15 minutes, but the evidence shows that they did.

[Franz]

Darrowfan, the time should have been even shorter, because Bridget testified that she heard Lizzie calling her shortly after the bell had rung, so, the time you mentioned should have been between (as early as) 11:02 or 11:03 to 11:15.

[Darrowfan]

Darrowfan, the time should have been even shorter, because Bridget testified that she heard Lizzie calling her shortly after the bell had rung, so, the time you mentioned should have been between (as early as) 11:02 or 11:03 to 11:15.

That's true, Franz, and that would make it an even shorter time period. Here is something that I also don't understand. I think Mrs. Churchill testified that she left her house to go to the store at 11am, and that she was coming back home when she saw Bridget running from Dr. Bowen's house back over to the Borden House. That had to be between 11:05 and 11:07, meaning that it only took Mrs. Churchill's 5 to 7 minutes to walk to the store, buy her goods, and get almost back home? She must be mistaken in her testimony about what time she left her house to go to the store. She must have left quite a bit before 11 am.

[leitskev]

The one thing that we can't seem to get rid of is this: what happened to the hatchet? There is no way Lizzy took it anywhere. So if she is the killer, someone had to dispose of it for her. And unless it was Bridget(and that really doesn't seem to fit the facts), then Lizzie had to keep that weapon on the property until her accomplice arrived. Very risky. Foolishly risky when she could have left the property after killing her father and gotten rid of it somewhere. That's why I say her actions seem to be those of an innocent person.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If Lizzie never left the property, and the murder weapon was never found...

There is something interesting that could possibly be used for a movie. Twenty years before, a Mrs. Borden killed her 2 children, tossing them down a well. She then slit her own throat. And she lived in the house right next to 92 Second Street. Her husband was a second uncle or something to Lizzy(the house is still there, BTW, though much altered).

If I were writing a script, I would have Lizzie run next door and toss the hatchet down the evil well...a well which seemed to thirst for blood!