Time estimates

[Darrowfan]

I was re-reading Bridget's trial testimony, and something suddenly occurred to me. Bridget was testifying about the morning of the crime, and she was explaining that she felt sick and went into the yard to throw up. When she was asked how long she was in the yard throwing up, she said:

"I may be ten minutes, I may be 15; I can't tell exactly the time."

It struck me that 10 or 15 minutes is an incredibly long time to spend vomiting. As unpleasant as it is to talk about, we have all thrown up at one time or another in our lives. I'm sure that it seemed like 10 or 15 minutes to Bridget, but I suspect it was probably closer to 3 or 4 minutes.

The point I'm making is that all of the witnesses, including Bridget, were probably not very accurate when they related how much time it took for certain things to occur. For example, Lizzie claimed to be outside the house, in the barn for "20 minutes" or, at one point, she said "30 minutes". Note that when giving time estimates, people generally use a number that is in multiples of 5 or 10. That is why Bridget didn't estimate that she vomited in the yard for "8 minutes" or "11 minutes" and Lizzie didn't say she was in the barn for "about 18 minutes" or "about 27 minutes".

I think that when Lizzie was accounting for her whereabouts at the time her father was killed, even though she was lying about where she was, she was probably trying to estimate the actual amount of time between the killing of Andrew and her calling up the stairs to Bridget. She finally settled on "about 20 minutes". (I think the actual time that elapsed between Andrew's murder and Lizzie's calling up stairs to Bridget was between 5 and 10 minutes, at the most.)

I apologize for rambling a bit, but here is what I'm wondering: Did any investigators back then, or subsequently, ever try to re-enact specific events to try to establish time sequences, or how long certain things took to occur? Does anyone know of any efforts made in that line?

[PattiG157]

I've often wondered that myself. There are even computer programs that generate "scenarios" that may help them, too. I've also wondered if any DNA tests have ever been done on the hatchets found. The police may not feel it's worth their time, but these ARE unsolved crimes, officially, so it may behoove them to do the tests.

[PossumPie]

I was re-reading Bridget's trial testimony, and something suddenly occurred to me. Bridget was testifying about the morning of the crime, and she was explaining that she felt sick and went into the yard to throw up. When she was asked how long she was in the yard throwing up, she said:

"I may be ten minutes, I may be 15; I can't tell exactly the time."

It struck me that 10 or 15 minutes is an incredibly long time to spend vomiting. As unpleasant as it is to talk about, we have all thrown up at one time or another in our lives. I'm sure that it seemed like 10 or 15 minutes to Bridget, but I suspect it was probably closer to 3 or 4 minutes.

The point I'm making is that all of the witnesses, including Bridget, were probably not very accurate when they related how much time it took for certain things to occur. For example, Lizzie claimed to be outside the house, in the barn for "20 minutes" or, at one point, she said "30 minutes". Note that when giving time estimates, people generally use a number that is in multiples of 5 or 10. That is why Bridget didn't estimate that she vomited in the yard for "8 minutes" or "11 minutes" and Lizzie didn't say she was in the barn for "about 18 minutes" or "about 27 minutes".

I think that when Lizzie was accounting for her whereabouts at the time her father was killed, even though she was lying about where she was, she was probably trying to estimate the actual amount of time between the killing of Andrew and her calling up the stairs to Bridget. She finally settled on "about 20 minutes". (I think the actual time that elapsed between Andrew's murder and Lizzie's calling up stairs to Bridget was between 5 and 10 minutes, at the most.)

I apologize for rambling a bit, but here is what I'm wondering: Did any investigators back then, or subsequently, ever try to re-enact specific events to try to establish time sequences, or how long certain things took to occur? Does anyone know of any efforts made in that line?

ABSOLUTELY!!! That is a key observation Darrowfan. People CANNOT estimate time. Sometimes I would have my students estimate how much time elapsed in class between two things, and got answers ranging from 3 min. to a half an hour. If we are intently concentrating, time flies by as in being engrossed in a good movie/book. If we are sitting in a boring sermon, lecture, or line at the motor vehicles dept., 5 min. seems like an hour. All of these times stated by witnesses are gross approximations UNLESS there is an independent confirmation (The now famous clock striking 11am, discussed in the trial, or someone glancing at a clock specifically) It goes back to the now old and tired song I keep singing...DON'T take any one piece of evidence and build a whole theory on it. It could be wrong.

[Darrowfan]

I was re-reading Bridget's trial testimony, and something suddenly occurred to me. Bridget was testifying about the morning of the crime, and she was explaining that she felt sick and went into the yard to throw up. When she was asked how long she was in the yard throwing up, she said:

"I may be ten minutes, I may be 15; I can't tell exactly the time."

It struck me that 10 or 15 minutes is an incredibly long time to spend vomiting. As unpleasant as it is to talk about, we have all thrown up at one time or another in our lives. I'm sure that it seemed like 10 or 15 minutes to Bridget, but I suspect it was probably closer to 3 or 4 minutes.

The point I'm making is that all of the witnesses, including Bridget, were probably not very accurate when they related how much time it took for certain things to occur. For example, Lizzie claimed to be outside the house, in the barn for "20 minutes" or, at one point, she said "30 minutes". Note that when giving time estimates, people generally use a number that is in multiples of 5 or 10. That is why Bridget didn't estimate that she vomited in the yard for "8 minutes" or "11 minutes" and Lizzie didn't say she was in the barn for "about 18 minutes" or "about 27 minutes".

I think that when Lizzie was accounting for her whereabouts at the time her father was killed, even though she was lying about where she was, she was probably trying to estimate the actual amount of time between the killing of Andrew and her calling up the stairs to Bridget. She finally settled on "about 20 minutes". (I think the actual time that elapsed between Andrew's murder and Lizzie's calling up stairs to Bridget was between 5 and 10 minutes, at the most.)

I apologize for rambling a bit, but here is what I'm wondering: Did any investigators back then, or subsequently, ever try to re-enact specific events to try to establish time sequences, or how long certain things took to occur? Does anyone know of any efforts made in that line?

ABSOLUTELY!!! That is a key observation Darrowfan. People CANNOT estimate time. Sometimes I would have my students estimate how much time elapsed in class between two things, and got answers ranging from 3 min. to a half an hour. If we are intently concentrating, time flies by as in being engrossed in a good movie/book. If we are sitting in a boring sermon, lecture, or line at the motor vehicles dept., 5 min. seems like an hour. All of these times stated by witnesses are gross approximations UNLESS there is an independent confirmation (The now famous clock striking 11am, discussed in the trial, or someone glancing at a clock specifically) It goes back to the now old and tired song I keep singing...DON'T take any one piece of evidence and build a whole theory on it. It could be wrong.

Interesting point you made about your students. Human beings are not clocks, and our estimates of how much time passed are based on nothing more that guesswork in most cases. I notice also in the transcripts, some witnesses flatly refuse to speculate about time sequences, giving replies like, "I could not say", "I have no way of knowing", etc. At first, I thought they were being evasive, but now I realize that they were just being frank, which is to their credit.

[snokkums]

I was re-reading Bridget's trial testimony, and something suddenly occurred to me. Bridget was testifying about the morning of the crime, and she was explaining that she felt sick and went into the yard to throw up. When she was asked how long she was in the yard throwing up, she said:

"I may be ten minutes, I may be 15; I can't tell exactly the time."

It struck me that 10 or 15 minutes is an incredibly long time to spend vomiting. As unpleasant as it is to talk about, we have all thrown up at one time or another in our lives. I'm sure that it seemed like 10 or 15 minutes to Bridget, but I suspect it was probably closer to 3 or 4 minutes.

The point I'm making is that all of the witnesses, including Bridget, were probably not very accurate when they related how much time it took for certain things to occur. For example, Lizzie claimed to be outside the house, in the barn for "20 minutes" or, at one point, she said "30 minutes". Note that when giving time estimates, people generally use a number that is in multiples of 5 or 10. That is why Bridget didn't estimate that she vomited in the yard for "8 minutes" or "11 minutes" and Lizzie didn't say she was in the barn for "about 18 minutes" or "about 27 minutes".

I think that when Lizzie was accounting for her whereabouts at the time her father was killed, even though she was lying about where she was, she was probably trying to estimate the actual amount of time between the killing of Andrew and her calling up the stairs to Bridget. She finally settled on "about 20 minutes". (I think the actual time that elapsed between Andrew's murder and Lizzie's calling up stairs to Bridget was between 5 and 10 minutes, at the most.)

I apologize for rambling a bit, but here is what I'm wondering: Did any investigators back then, or subsequently, ever try to re-enact specific events to try to establish time sequences, or how long certain things took to occur? Does anyone know of any efforts made in that line?

ABSOLUTELY!!! That is a key observation Darrowfan. People CANNOT estimate time. Sometimes I would have my students estimate how much time elapsed in class between two things, and got answers ranging from 3 min. to a half an hour. If we are intently concentrating, time flies by as in being engrossed in a good movie/book. If we are sitting in a boring sermon, lecture, or line at the motor vehicles dept., 5 min. seems like an hour. All of these times stated by witnesses are gross approximations UNLESS there is an independent confirmation (The now famous clock striking 11am, discussed in the trial, or someone glancing at a clock specifically) It goes back to the now old and tired song I keep singing...DON'T take any one piece of evidence and build a whole theory on it. It could be wrong.

I can relate to all of what both of you said. I think neither one of them were correct on the time. Lizzie was out in a hot barn looking for sinkers, Bridget was not feeling well, and outside on hot weather cleaning windows. It might have seen longer than it really was.

[PossumPie]

When we try to untangle the mystery of the two homicides, we should put highest emphasis on intersections of events. For example: When the clock struck 11am who was where? The intersection of Bridget being in her bedroom, and the clock striking 11am is accurate. "I was in the barn about 20 min." is not accurate b/c there is no intersecting event.

Bridget was upstairs in her bedroom at 11am and heard the clock chiming. Officer Allen officially noted the time of 11:15am when they received the alarm. 11:32am is the exact time Dr. Bowen sent the telegram to Emma telling her.

We can extrapolate only a FEW minutes before or after 11am...Bridget was in the dining room with Lizzie, Lizzie told her about the yard-goods sale, Bridget left Lizzie, went upstairs to her attic room, lay down and almost immediately heard the clock strike 11. The time they were together in the dining room was no earlier than 10:50 am. The official time the alarm came in was 11:15 am, SO given the time it took to discover the body, and alert the police, The murder took place closer to 11am than 11:15 am.

ONE of the two women had to be lying. Bridget swears under oath that She was talking to Lizzie in the dining room then immediately went up to her attic room and heard 11 o'clock chime. Lizzie swears that for "about" 20 min. before the murder was discovered she was in the barn. Both can't be right.

[Allen]

Rough estimates of time are all we are going to glean from testimony. We can say it was roughly sometime before 11:30 that this happened or that happened. But no person without some sort of time piece to check is going to estimate the time exactly. And minutes tick by far more slowly when you have no clock to look at. Three minutes may seem like five. Try waiting it out and see. Try estimating what time you did something during the day down to the minute without looking at a clock. It's tough.

[Aamartin]

IMO the only thing that goes (much) faster than you think it does-- is sleep time!

[Aamartin]

I just put something in my microwave for 5 minutes. In that time I:

Emptied the trash from my computer room and master bathroom into the main trash. Re bagged both trash cans. Took the large kitchen trash bag out, re bagged that can and added that bag to the large green main trash bag from my back room-- took it out to the trash can near the alley-- AND took the bag of redeemable soda cans to the garage.

When I was finished with all of this-- I had to wait 19 seconds for my scalloped potatoes and ham to be finished in the microwave.

[PossumPie]

I just put something in my microwave for 5 minutes. In that time I:

Emptied the trash from my computer room and master bathroom into the main trash. Re bagged both trash cans. Took the large kitchen trash bag out, re bagged that can and added that bag to the large green main trash bag from my back room-- took it out to the trash can near the alley-- AND took the bag of redeemable soda cans to the garage.

When I was finished with all of this-- I had to wait 19 seconds for my scalloped potatoes and ham to be finished in the microwave.

LOL I do that to, see what I can get done while the microwave timer ticks down. NOW...think about sitting in a guest room with a dead body NOT for 5min, but for 90min. Not happening. Nope. No one would sit there waiting to get caught for 90 minutes.

[Darrowfan]

I just put something in my microwave for 5 minutes. In that time I:

Emptied the trash from my computer room and master bathroom into the main trash. Re bagged both trash cans. Took the large kitchen trash bag out, re bagged that can and added that bag to the large green main trash bag from my back room-- took it out to the trash can near the alley-- AND took the bag of redeemable soda cans to the garage.

When I was finished with all of this-- I had to wait 19 seconds for my scalloped potatoes and ham to be finished in the microwave.

And if you had not been using the microwave timer, if you had simply performed all those tasks without paying attention to the time elapsed, you might well have said later, when asked how long those tasks took, "Oh, I don't know, maybe 10 or 15 minutes."

[Aamartin]

I just put something in my microwave for 5 minutes. In that time I:

Emptied the trash from my computer room and master bathroom into the main trash. Re bagged both trash cans. Took the large kitchen trash bag out, re bagged that can and added that bag to the large green main trash bag from my back room-- took it out to the trash can near the alley-- AND took the bag of redeemable soda cans to the garage.

When I was finished with all of this-- I had to wait 19 seconds for my scalloped potatoes and ham to be finished in the microwave.

And if you had not been using the microwave timer, if you had simply performed all those tasks without paying attention to the time elapsed, you might well have said later, when asked how long those tasks took, "Oh, I don't know, maybe 10 or 15 minutes."

Exactly!!!!

[mspitstop]

The time frame is absolutely critical for the death of Andrew. There are a couple of objective things that, to me, give a shape to the time frame of Andrew arriving home and when the police log in the phone call reporting the disturbance at the Borden house.
Mrs. Dr. Kelly testifies that she sees Andrew coming around from the side of the house to the front door at approximately 10:40. She was late for a dentist appointment which is why she noticed the time. She looks up at the City Hall clock.I always thought it was so interesting (and usually an ignored piece of evidence) that Andrew was coming around from the side of the house. Could this mean that he found the side door locked, as Lizzie testified it was when she went out??? Then Bridget says laid down just after hearing the City Hall clock chime 11. Then we have Mrs. Chruchill come home from shopping, go into her house, into the kitchen, put her groceries down and look out the kitchen window where she sees Lizzie standing in the doorway. They speak and she comes out her front door and walks around the sidewalk to the side yard of the Borden house. She looks in and sees Andrew. Comes out and goes in search of her handyman, Thomas who is down the block. She tells him to find a phone and call the police. A newspaper man overhears them and calls in to the police and the police log the call in by the city hall clock at 11:15.

This is the crux of the crime. The time frame for the crime really boils down to about 6-8 minutes max! How it was done is even more interesting, in some ways, than who.

Bridget, in being sick, takes herself outside at just about the time that Mrs. Borden was killed. Ineresting.

[Darrowfan]

The time frame is absolutely critical for the death of Andrew. There are a couple of objective things that, to me, give a shape to the time frame of Andrew arriving home and when the police log in the phone call reporting the disturbance at the Borden house.
Mrs. Dr. Kelly testifies that she sees Andrew coming around from the side of the house to the front door at approximately 10:40. She was late for a dentist appointment which is why she noticed the time. She looks up at the City Hall clock.I always thought it was so interesting (and usually an ignored piece of evidence) that Andrew was coming around from the side of the house. Could this mean that he found the side door locked, as Lizzie testified it was when she went out??? Then Bridget says laid down just after hearing the City Hall clock chime 11. Then we have Mrs. Chruchill come home from shopping, go into her house, into the kitchen, put her groceries down and look out the kitchen window where she sees Lizzie standing in the doorway. They speak and she comes out her front door and walks around the sidewalk to the side yard of the Borden house. She looks in and sees Andrew. Comes out and goes in search of her handyman, Thomas who is down the block. She tells him to find a phone and call the police. A newspaper man overhears them and calls in to the police and the police log the call in by the city hall clock at 11:15.

This is the crux of the crime. The time frame for the crime really boils down to about 6-8 minutes max! How it was done is even more interesting, in some ways, than who.

Bridget, in being sick, takes herself outside at just about the time that Mrs. Borden was killed. Ineresting.

That is one of the most interesting points of the case, mspitstop. It seems as it Andrew was killed almost immediately after arriving home. He comes into the house, has a quick conversation with Lizzie about the mail, and suddenly, he's dead.

[PossumPie]

To put a slightly sharper point on it...He arrived home 10:40, Lizzie was upstairs, came down 5 min. later, Bridget overheard whispered words between them at about 10:45. Lizzie talked to Bridget in the dining room about a "sale" on fabric at about 10:50. Bridget went up to her attic room at about 10:55...Lizzie says she discovered her flat irons were not hot enough, went out to the barn for "20 min" BUT discovered her father dead at about 11:05. Impossible...She leaves Bridget at 10:55, discovers the body 10 min. later, yet wandered around the upper barn for 20 minutes?

[Darrowfan]

To put a slightly sharper point on it...He arrived home 10:40, Lizzie was upstairs, came down 5 min. later, Bridget overheard whispered words between them at about 10:45. Lizzie talked to Bridget in the dining room about a "sale" on fabric at about 10:50. Bridget went up to her attic room at about 10:55...Lizzie says she discovered her flat irons were not hot enough, went out to the barn for "20 min" BUT discovered her father dead at about 11:05. Impossible...She leaves Bridget at 10:55, discovers the body 10 min. later, yet wandered around the upper barn for 20 minutes?

You did indeed "put a sharper point on it", Possumpie. The paragraph you wrote above is all anyone needs to read in order to understand why Lizzie was indicted and brought to trial.

[mspitstop]

The point I am trying to make is that there is an objective source for a time frame and that is the City Hall clock. This topic is about how people frequently misjudge how much time is spent doing what and that is a very good question. My point is within the 35 minute time frame starting with Mrs Kelly and ending with the police log, an awful lot happened. And, if you assume Bridget is telling the truth about what she did and where she was, Lizzie or whoever, had a very narrow time frame in which to commit the crime and, if it was Lizzie, clean up and hide the weapon so thoroughly it was never found. And after she calls to Mrs. Churchill until the time of her arrest, she is never, ever alone in the house again.

[leitskev]

MSPIT, I believe it was learned that Mrs. Kelly's clock was 10 minutes slow. And there were several sources that testified that Andrew left downtown around 10:45. I'm pretty sure there were several quick stops Andrew made downtown and could not have started his walk home until 10:45. And I believe it was estimated to be a five minute walk. So the time frame is even narrower.

So I think 10:50 as the time when Andrew got home, and 11:15 when the police logged the call are the firm starting points.

What happens in between is based on less reliable testimony. For example, Bridgett's testimony about being in bed for the 11:00 bells is only reliable if she is innocent, and we can't assume.

Peoples sense of time was very different in this age. They had no cell phones or wrist watches. There were clocks, but checking time was not how it is today.

Mrs. Churchill saw Bridgett run across to Dr. Bowen's. Then saw Lizzie in the doorway, went over, then ran for help. The newsman over heard her asking her stable boy to get the police, so he went for a phone and called. From the time Mrs. C saw Bridget to the time the newsman called the police must have been at least 5 minutes, and that seems generous. If Bridget was complicit, then Andrew perhaps could have been killed as late as 11:10...but why would they not take time to clean up?

If Lizzie did it, she must have called to Bridgett say no later than 11: 07 I would think. So Lizzie would have had 7 minutes to kill, clean up, dispose of the evidence.

It leaves the question of why Lizzie wouldn't take more time before calling Bridgett. Why not stage a crime scene? Break a window, unlock the front door?

[Allen]

The killer staying in the room for 90 minutes with the dead body has never been the thing that bothered me. I've heard stranger true life stories. The Manson family stayed around to eat and shower in the Labianca home after their murders. No hurry to leave the house of two dead strangers they had just murdered. Not just one person but a whole group of people hung around eating, showering, and playing with the family dog. If it had been an intruder who got caught by any of the Borden household members in the guest room most likely it would not have alarmed them all that much. They had already killed Abby. Murder was obviously not out of their scope of capabilities. I don't think murdering anyone else to get away would have been out of the question. But I don't think it was an intruder. And I do not think that anyone sat in that room for 90 minutes with any dead body because there was no way for them to get to the guest room undetected in the first place.

[PossumPie]

The killer staying in the room for 90 minutes with the dead body has never been the thing that bothered me. I've heard stranger true life stories. The Manson family stayed around to eat and shower in the Labianca home after their murders. No hurry to leave the house of two dead strangers they had just murdered. Not just one person but a whole group of people hung around eating, showering, and playing with the family dog. If it had been an intruder who got caught by any of the Borden household members in the guest room most likely it would not have alarmed them all that much. They had already killed Abby. Murder was obviously not out of their scope of capabilities. I don't think murdering anyone else to get away would have been out of the question. But I don't think it was an intruder. And I do not think that anyone sat in that room for 90 minutes with any dead body because there was no way for them to get to the guest room undetected in the first place.

The sitting for 90 min with a body doesn't bother me that someone wouldn't do it...You are right about the La Bianca murders, but they were so stoned, and indoctrinated by Charlie, that they didn't care. If we concede that the Borden murders were an committed by someone outside, it would be a 'passion' killing. Someone fought with Mr. Borden, or some other emotional reason. In those cases the perpetrator is furious, kills, the anger leaves, they feel fear, and try to cover their tracks. I'm sure people would sit for 90 min. with a body, BUT I don't think someone would spend emotional energy killing Mrs. Borden, sit and reflect on their deeds for 90 min, and then ramp themselves back up to kill Mr. Borden if it were just a dispute over office space or something.

[Miranda]

I believe Lizzie did the crimes, nothing else really makes sense, but I disagree that IF an intruder did it, that it was a crime of "passion ". Sometimes revenge can be very cold blooded and calculated. Waiting in a room with a dead body for 90 minutes would just be part of the calculation.

[Allen]

While the sitting with the body for 90 minutes for me is a moot argument, because I don't think there was an intruder, the killing of Mrs. Borden could have fueled the rage even more. The killer would have had plenty of time to image killing their intended target the same way. And a reference point of one body to work from. There are cases where the killer waited in the home with the bodies for far longer than 90 minutes. And if the killer took the risk of going all the way through the house and up the front stairs, in a house full of people, to get to the guest room my opinion would also be he wasn't very worried about risking detection in the first place. And I agree that revenge can be a very cold blooded motive. People have killed entire families over revenge. Money, which I believe was Lizzie's motive, can be an even colder motivation. Everyone who could stop them from getting it must be killed.

[Aamartin]

I have often wondered if the killer suffered from coming down from an adrenalin rush

[NancyDrew]

This is a bit off topic, but I'd like to respond to Aamartin's remark.

The killer HAD to experience a rush of adrenaline during, while, and after killing Abby. Then the 60-90 minute wait. What happened? Martin mentions a 'comedown.' I agree with him. Whomever hacked poor Abby's head EIGHTEEN times (I put it in all caps, because still, to this day, after having gone over the details of these murders hundreds of times, the overkill here still impresses me. ) that person would then experience some very physical changes.

The amount of energy it would have taken to swing that axe 18 times had to have been a LOT. And adrenaline would be surging through the killer's body. So before I discuss the "comedown' I'd like to take moment to ponder what the killer (Lizzie, imo) would have felt like WHILE they were in the throes of that adrenaline rush. A simple google search revealed some of the other effects:

Time Distortion -- Time slows or speeds up. This is the proverbial 'slow motion' effect. This is a result of your entire consciousness laser focusing on the danger.
Depth perception/Visual Distortion -- Things appear closer or larger than they are. For example the person waving a knife at you from across the room looks like he's inches away, suddenly grown 10 feet and waving a machete in your face. The reason for this distortion is you are entirely focused on the 'threat.'
Tunnel Vision -- Closely related to visual distortion, your peripheral vision can drop away and ALL you see is the threat.
Auditory Exclusion -- Your hearing can just go away, to the point of you often won't hear gunshots going of within just a few feet.
Pain Tolerance -- You don't feel things that would normally cause you to squeal in pain. The damage is still done to you, but you don't necessarily feel the same level of pain. Some people don't feel it at all.
Speed and Strength Increase -- Under adrenaline you can do amazing feats of strength and speed. Unfortunately, this doesn't make you invincible. While stories of mothers lifting cars off their children are true, what you don't hear about is the fact that they tore muscles, tendons and ruined their backs doing it.
Fine Motor Movement Decay -- while you will be able to run faster than you ever have before, forget twirling a quarter in your fingers. Trembling is also common. This is why reloading a revolver while under fire is harder than the larger, less precise actions of reloading an automatic pistol.
Changes in blood flow/heartbeat - Not only will your heartbeat and blood pressure shoot up, but inside your body veins will constrict and expand to divert blood to where it is most needed to oxygenate your body.
Changes in respiratory rate -- Your breathing will change. Anything from a fast, sharp inhale to hyperventilating is possible.
Unconscious Muscle Tension -- some muscles will clinch up, some will relax. And you'll ache in places you weren't even hit.
Mono-emotion/Emotional Detachment -- Usually there will be one overwhelming emotion blocking every other emotion out (e.g. fear or anger). However, the reverse can also be true. There can be a sense of emotional detachment as the body functions to achieve an end. This is more common among individuals experienced operating in crisis.
Bladder/Bowel Release -- Although not exactly an 'adrenal response,' your body jettisoning extra weight (feces and urine) IS common while facing danger and when adrenalized. This is part of the 'fight or flight' response that adrenaline influences.

2 of these jumped out at me: Speed/Strength Increase and Mono-emotion/Emotional Detachment. The latter one speaks for itself. Lizzie acted strangely unemotional right after the bodies were discovered. So much so that police officers noticed it as odd. She didn't cry, wasn't hysterical...going so far as to tell the women fanning her "I am not faint." An after affect of all that adrenaline?

The former though is a bit troublesome. I can see the adrenaline pumping during Abby's murder...the sheer brutality, the overkill. This was an overweight, elderly woman, and here someone was basically SITTING on her (I choose to believe that is how it happened) grabbing her hair, and hacking away at her head so many times. I've said this many times before, but to anyone who hasn't tried it, as you're reading my words, pick up anything, any small object near you--a stapler, a pencil, your glasses. Now pretend you're holding an ax and swing that small object 18 times IN A ROW. It's pretty incredible how long it takes, and immediately obvious that 18 times is more than was needed to accomplish the job. The hand wielding that ax was attached to a body coursing with adrenaline...pumped up wtih energy.

From the list above, we can assume that the killer felt no pain, was focused on the task (to the point of perhaps having tunnel vision) felt energized and strong, emotionally detached, and breathing rapidly. Okay, all of that tracks.

And here is where I get really confused. I'll ask again: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FIRST KILL? Lizzie would have felt exhausted, drained, detached. Slowly the adrenaline that was just minutes before surging through her bloodstream would return to normal levels.

How then, did she summon it up AGAIN to kill again?

This has always bothered me. Is it even physically possible for a body to ratchet up the adrenaline so soon after the first big event?

1. She has been brooding about Abby for days, months, years. Simmering with rage and resentment, she seizes upon an opportunity when they are both alone in the house, retrieves an ax from some hiding place, and while Abby is finishing her household chores in the guestroom (putting on pillow slips, tidying up, etc) raises up the ax and brings it down on Abby's head. The first blow is a glancing one, and from the front. Abby spins around, or stumbles and falls, ends up face down on the floor. Lizzie then grabs a bunch of hair for leverage and starts flailing away, over and over and over. I actually wonder why she decided to stop at 18. She HAD to be a full blown frenzy, unaware of time, space, noise, pain. But something made her stop at 18.

So to keep going, what happens next? She sees what she has done, and quickly steps away. Where does she go? Her room is right next door; does she clean up in there? Change her clothes? Put a dress over the one she is already wearing?

It is THIS time---the one between the two murders,---that I find most intriguing. She had time to clean up, definitely. She had time to dispose of any of her own clothes that got blood or gore on them. And she had time to think: now what? Father will be home soon. He will ask for Mrs. Borden, want to know where she is. What shoold I tell him? Lizzie needed to not only make sure she looked normal, she needed to ACT normal, so that Andrew's suspicions weren't aroused, so that no one would find Abby's body.

Did she say to herself "I will tell him about the note; that Mrs. Borden went out. He will probably be tired, and want to lay down. That's when I'll kill him. After he lays down on the couch in the sitting room. "

She HAD to have been physically exhausted at this point. Or was she still pumped up from the first kill? Everyone's physiology is different, so I guess it could go either way. Did she act peculiar? Did Andrew notice? ("Lizzie are you alright? You don't seem to be yourself."). I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have been trembling...noticeably shaking from the over-production of her adrenal glands.

And yet, Andrew WAS killed soon after he came home, so somehow, some way, Lizzie DID summon up all that energy a second time. Retrieved the ax once again from its hiding place, brought it down upon her fathers' head 10 times, ignored the horrible mutilation, the eyeball sliced in half, the gray matter oozing out of the gashes in his skull.

A SECOND adrenaline rush. In this state, she would have been able to move quickly (see above "Speed and Strength Increased), run upstairs and wash herself of any blood with what she later would call her menstrual pail, or perhaps ran downstairs to the WC and washed up there. Then a quick pat down, a peek in a mirror (do you all agree that she most probably looked at herself in a mirror to check for anything out of place, no?.).....this is AFTER she took off Andrew's cardigan (which she donned backwards, surgeon-style) balled it up and shoved it under his mangled head. Hands clean, face clean, hair in place. Right! Now: Yell for Bridgette.

Okay...I have to go to work, so I'll leave off for now. But I'll repeat: it is the time BETWEEN the murders that I find most interesting...what was going thru Lizzie's head...was she making decisions up as she went along, or was this all carefully planned out in advance? Did she rest in between? Have second thoughts? Mostly though, I can't even fathom how she managed to act NORMALLY when Andrew came home. She had just committed a brutal, disgusting, violent act of murder. And yet there she was, casually asking her father if he wanted the blinds opened or closed...wondering if there was any mail for her, fetching an afghan.

It defies my understanding...

[PossumPie]

Fine post Nancy Drew! Adrenaline (Epinephrine) is secreted by the Adrenal Glands on the kidneys during Sympathetic Nervous System stimulation. "Fight or Flight" response. Heart rate, breathing, blood pressure all increase. Pupils enlarge, digestion stops, blood rushes to the center of the body (cold/clammy hands/feet)
Your take on it is right on. She would have needed more clean-up time after Mrs. Borden, But I LOVE your idea that she donned Mr. Borden's coat backwards right before she whacked him. The only blood cleanup would be hands, done in a jiffy, and then yell for Bridget. Be sure to see the picture I posted in the Blood under our noses thread. Not much blood except lower legs and dominant hand.

[Allen]

I think it would not have taken any more strength or adrenaline to swing the hatchet to kill Andrew and Abby than it would have to chop wood. There is no adrenaline rush involved in chopping wood for firewood that I've heard of and I don't know many people who have to psych themselves up to do it. There is no adrenaline rush in butchering an animal. But people do this every day, often more than once in a single day. In my opinion, all it took was determination.

[Aamartin]

Another thing that has caught my attention... In some of the reenactments I have seen they showed the killer (generally a woman) swinging the hatchet one handed.....

[PossumPie]

An ax is designed to be swung with both hands, but a hatchet's handle is much smaller and is designed to be swung with only one hand.
Allen, I think the talk about Epinephrine (Adrenaline) wasn't meant to show increased strength- it takes VERY little strength to crack a skull with a sharp hatchet. It was meant to show the physiological/psychological responses of the killer, (no matter who it was), at the time. "Adrenaline rush" doesn't come from physical activity, it comes from the Anterior Pituitary gland which signals the adrenal glands to pump adrenaline into the bloodstream. The initial release would be as a RESULT of the decision to chop someone up. THAT emotion would have caused the adrenaline. Fight or Flight is a response of survival.
If you are on the plains of Africa with a buddy digging for roots to eat, and a saber tooth tiger comes over the hill, Fight or Flight gives you the adrenaline to either grab a piece of wood and fight it, OR run to the nearest tree. After all, you don't have to out-run the tiger, JUST your buddy. Your adrenaline is higher, you run faster, the tiger catches your buddy. Your genetic code for a more advanced Adrenaline release is passed on to your children, his are not...that is the core of "Survival of the fittest" and Natural Selection. Your complex Fight or Flight mechanism is the result of 6 million years worth of your ancestors having a better adrenaline secretion than those who got eaten.
Only the most cold-hearted sociopaths would have no adrenal response to chopping up a person's head. You can't turn it off and on. A great example was Sept. 11th. Most people "fled" you see them running away from the World Trade Centers. BUT police and fire personnel "fought" they ran INTO the buildings.

[Allen]

Yes, I am aware of what causes fight or flight. I know what an adrenaline rush is. I had one the night my husband almost died in a head on collision. I don't need to be on the plains of Africa to know that. Would you not call someone who murders two people, shows no emotion at their death, and then goes on with the rest of their lives spending the money of the deceased a cold hearted sociopath?

[PossumPie]

Yes, I am aware of what causes fight or flight. I know what an adrenaline rush is. I had one the night my husband almost died in a head on collision. I don't need to be on the plains of Africa to know that. Would you not call someone who murders two people, shows no emotion at their death, and then goes on with the rest of their lives spending the money of the deceased a cold hearted sociopath?

Absolutely not. We throw around words like "crazy" "sociopath/psychopath" without really understanding them. Many MANY people react in different ways to a trauma. I have witnessed people staring at the WTC collapse. No emotion shown...what does that mean? sociopath? How about the fact that we are all humans, some people wail, scream, and tear at their hair when their child gets shot on their front porch, and other people stand and stare without emotion. A sociopath means that they have no capacity to feel guilt. They steal, kill, hurt, etc. with no ability to regret or put themselves in someone else's shoes. YES, Lizzie SEEMS to fit that on the surface, but she mourned the death of her pigeons, and was involved in church activities helping people, so I highly doubt she was a sociopath. If she was the killer, it was planned, and any guilt or regret she felt was more than compensated for by the money.

[Allen]

There is no evidence she mourned the death of 'her' pigeons. There is no evidence they were even her pets. That is a myth. All we have evidence of is Andrew killed some pigeons in the barn loft. And if she did allegedly mourn them that doesn't impress me. Many killers value the lives of animals more than those of humans. Neither does her work with the church impress me. Since Dennis Rader was also involved in his church. Priests who molest children are part of the church. Hitler had a dog he loved dearly. Seeing a tragedy where you have lost hundreds of people for no reason at all would tend to put you in shock. Actually killing the people with your own bare hands is another matter. I don't see that the two have anything to do with one another. I don't have to witness a national tragedy to know that people react differently to death and tragedy. I've had plenty of my own personal tragedies. But seeing someone die and not expecting it, and intentionally committing the act yourself are two different things.

[Franz]

Lizzie's emotion after the discovery of her father's body, and then, of that of her stepmother, was testified by Mrs. Churchill, Alice, Mr. Sawyer and Dr. Bowen. Whoever thinks she was playing should prove it, before concluding that Lizzie was guilty, not in the contrary way.

I don't think the excessif number of the blows in the two murders was due to a rush of adrenaline. The killer, in my opinion, orchestered by Morse, overkilled the two victims just to make the murder scene as horrible as possible, so that the police would not suspect the two women (especially Lizzie) in the house.

[PossumPie]

There is no evidence she mourned the death of 'her' pigeons. There is no evidence they were even her pets. That is a myth. All we have evidence of is Andrew killed some pigeons in the barn loft. And if she did allegedly mourn them that doesn't impress me. Many killers value the lives of animals more than those of humans. Neither does her work with the church impress me. Since Dennis Rader was also involved in his church. Priests who molest children are part of the church. Hitler had a dog he loved dearly. Seeing a tragedy where you have lost hundreds of people for no reason at all would tend to put you in shock. Actually killing the people with your own bare hands is another matter. I don't see that the two have anything to do with one another. I don't have to witness a national tragedy to know that people react differently to death and tragedy. I've had plenty of my own personal tragedies. But seeing someone die and not expecting it, and intentionally committing the act yourself are two different things.

Allen, we'll have to agree to disagree...I have a Bachelor's in Nursing, and a master's degree in counseling psychology, specializing for 26 years in forensic psyc. and PTSD. I KNOW sociopaths and the media over uses them in their fictional accounts. Yes, there are true sociopaths, I've met 1 or 2...but killing your parents and not crying is NOT enough proof for me.

[twinsrwe]

… The killer, in my opinion, orchestered by Morse, overkilled the two victims just to make the murder scene as horrible as possible, so that the police would not suspect the two women (especially Lizzie) in the house.

Really??? Well, Morse’s plan certainly backfired on him, didn’t it? Lizzie was the prime suspect!!!

[Allen]

I don't base my information on fictional accounts of anything. When I wanted to know more about the mind of Charlie Manson I didn't stick with books. I corresponded with Charlie. I also corresponded with Richard Ramirez before he died, and a few others. But I don't listen to fictional accounts. Especially not books about Lizzie. And I don't base my thoughts on her simply on the fact that she didn't cry. I never said that was my only reason. But we will agree to disagree.

[Aamartin]

We really don't know and can't say what Lizzie was feeling. She may have been horribly remorseful. We just don't know. I don't like to refer to the possible abuse in the home-- it's unfair to do so to Andrew as he was never able to answer the accusations. But look at kids who were in abusive homes or foster homes, etc. They can be good hearted kids who need to be loved or understood-- and believe me, I know this is a HUGE cliche! But we do know that Lizzie WAS kind to those who were kind to her.

Different things mean different things to different people. I doubt there is a parent here who wouldn't do anything to protect their children.

When a person feels that the most important thing to them is in danger or being destroyed or taken away from them, they can act in ways they never would dream of normally.

Money seemed to be the measure of pretty much everything in that house. I believe that if she truly felt that her future and security were threatened, Lizzie could have hatched a plan to kill the folks to ensure she wouldn't be broke, or out on the streets. Or dependent on Abby's largess. Even is nothing was afoot-- if Lizzie knew Andrew didn't have a will-- the man was old and would die eventually of natural causes.

That all said-- was Lizzie in any way kind to Abby? No. Were her charity works altruistic? I doubt it.

Lizzie was so young when Abby came on the scene that something or someone had to fuel the hate she felt towards her. I have always suspected Emma hated Abby far more than Lizzie did.

For years I clung to Lizzie's possible innocence because I could not reconcile her behavior after the murders with that of a cold blooded, calculated killer. And I know being kind to animals is NOT the hallmark of a caring, decent person. But, she was kind to her staff, her friends, etc. Cupboard love? Maybe.

Could Lizzie have been able to so completely compartmentalize her emotions as to not to feel lifelong guilt and remorse? Did she try to surround herself with luxuries and material possessions in order to make up for how she may (or may not) have felt about herself? Maybe.

My mother was deathly afraid of snakes. Hence--her children are as well! It has only been in the past 10 years that I have been able to 'dispense' of one with a lawnmower or hoe, etc. Afterwards, I have to lie down.

Since I think Lizzie is the killer-- I wonder if she had a similar experience and that is what prevented her from leaving the house to establish an alibi, making Andrew's death inevitable.

And after all this-- I still don't accept that Lizzie had to be a sociopath or a monster. Whether we can relate to her or not, humans are capable of great violence under the right circumstances. The difference is the circumstances are widely varied!!!

And while I am going to regret this-- (this means you Franz! ) I wonder a great deal about John's iron clad alibi-- and whether or not he knew what was going down and Lizzie was supposed to do the same thing-- and might not have been able to as I postulated above.

[Allen]

I'm sorry, but anyone who hacks two old people who raised them to death with a hatchet for their money is a monster in my book. I can't make any excuses for it other than she was a monster. A sense of entitlement to whatever they want, whenever they want it, is a sign of a sociopath. So is lying. So is being calm during situations that would make others have this adrenaline rush everyone is talking about. Or during times they are supposed to feel danger. Lack of emotion. Impulsiveness and not having any regard for personal responsibility. Breaking people down emotionally and mentally and pitting them against each other. It's easy for them to inflict emotional pain to others because they feel no emotion. They are extremely manipulative and will do whatever they need to do to get what they want, or make others do as they want them to do. What they want is the bottom line. Inflated ego. Lack of respect for societal norms and rules. Etc. etc. These are some of the signs I see in Lizzie's behavior.

[Aamartin]

Some of the most fundamental aspects of any discussion that entails so many different facts and participants is how (nearly?) impossible it is for someone to totally divorce themselves from their most basic personal convictions. It's fascinating.

I am a total bleeding heart liberal. VEHEMENTLY anti death penalty in ALL circumstances. (and yes-- I fall into the pro choice hypocrite loophole too). It's not that I like to believe that 99.9% of the bad things people do have reasons behind them-- legitimate or not. I DO believe it. It is a part of my most basic nature.

That .1%? Adolph Hitler. Josef Mengele. Caligula et al... I can't see as though anything explains their actions and the sickening things they did to people. Was there a shred of good in any one of these people?

What about Lizzie? I think there was (more than a mere) shred of decency in her. She had a kind side-- allowing boys to sneak pears from the yard-- Prior to the murders there are no reports of her being unkind or poorly thought of-- yet plenty of people had a lot to say about her father.

Andrew-- raising rents and evicting people? Did he feel a shred of emotion or regard to those tenants feelings? The truth is-- we don't know. Here is a man who won't even pay for his wife to see a doctor when she is in (real or perceived) distress. (Although it had to be very real to Abby!) What does that say about him? About the dynamics in that house? About how those girls were raised?

From what we know-- Abby didn't have a mean bone in her body. She was well regarded by Bridget and her family. How did Lizzie come to hate her so? Did Lizzie just grow up to be a total bitch or were there familial dynamics that contributed to that? Emma? How do we know Emma wasn't the psycho? Maybe she fled Maplecroft because she could no longer pull Lizzie's strings and control her? We don't and can't know the full depth of the family dynamics.

Just like no one knows the full dynamics on our own personal families.

Does any of it excuse the killings? No. Could it explain them? Certainly. The lack of respect for social norms and rules seemed to be the very rule in that house-- not the exception.

I absolutely refuse to allow guns in my home. Even hunting guns. Period-- no debate. There is nothing I own that is worth my life, the lives of my children or the life of an intruder. Am I taking the risk that someone might come in here and shoot me? I suppose. Do I know for a fact that if someone did break in here and attacked me and I clocked them over the head with a baseball bat that I would call 911 and then render first aid? You damn right I know it. It is my very nature, my core way of living.

I grew up and still live in the same small town. I was lucky. My family was well thought of-- I had one of the right 'last names'. I was unkind towards others when I was younger. Snobbish and even mean. Therein lie some of my greatest regrets.

I don't think I was capable of cold blooded murder back then-- but even so, I have changed as I have aged. Even in the last 10 years....

A lot of things have happened to me. Losing siblings at a young age, both parents dying relatively young. Good times, bad times, high times, low times. We all live like this. So did the Bordens.

I guess the long and short of my maudlin rant here is that none of us REALLY know what went on inside that house and inside the heads of those people. And for that fact-- I don't think Lizzie was a chronic sociopath. However, nor can I call the murder of her father and stepmother a momentary lapse. The truth is-- it's all conjecture based on our own personal sets of beliefs and mores.

As for me, I collect peace signs, love Patchouli and am never far from a set of door beads. (And I have never been a pot head! 2-3 times in my 20's was all!)

[Aamartin]

oops... double post

[PossumPie]

I guess my reply to Allen got lost in the internet void. Basically, 1. Monster is not a psychological term. 2. Sociopath is, but NO ONE can diagnose it from an armchair a hundred years after the person committed a crime. Did Lizzie do it? probably. Was she a sociopath? Not enough evidence. She loved animals and left the Humane Society a large amount in her will, that goes against sociopathic traits, but she may have been a kleptomaniac so that's a strike for it. AAMartin, I respect your beliefs, and only hope that if you wake up in the night and someone broke into your bedroom to kill you, that the police get there quicker than the Domino's Pizza delivery man could. As for me, A Glock in the hand is worth a hundred 911 operators on the phone. Maybe I'm a sociopath b/c I would lose no sleep whatsoever if I killed a guy who was attempting to rape and murder my wife/kids. None.

[Aamartin]

I guess my reply to Allen got lost in the internet void. Basically, 1. Monster is not a psychological term. 2. Sociopath is, but NO ONE can diagnose it from an armchair a hundred years after the person committed a crime. Did Lizzie do it? probably. Was she a sociopath? Not enough evidence. She loved animals and left the Humane Society a large amount in her will, that goes against sociopathic traits, but she may have been a kleptomaniac so that's a strike for it. AAMartin, I respect your beliefs, and only hope that if you wake up in the night and someone broke into your bedroom to kill you, that the police get there quicker than the Domino's Pizza delivery man could. As for me, A Glock in the hand is worth a hundred 911 operators on the phone. Maybe I'm a sociopath b/c I would lose no sleep whatsoever if I killed a guy who was attempting to rape and murder my wife/kids. None.

I have good locks-- and sleep with 4 loaded weapons... Filled with Kibbles and Bits!

[PossumPie]

I guess my reply to Allen got lost in the internet void. Basically, 1. Monster is not a psychological term. 2. Sociopath is, but NO ONE can diagnose it from an armchair a hundred years after the person committed a crime. Did Lizzie do it? probably. Was she a sociopath? Not enough evidence. She loved animals and left the Humane Society a large amount in her will, that goes against sociopathic traits, but she may have been a kleptomaniac so that's a strike for it. AAMartin, I respect your beliefs, and only hope that if you wake up in the night and someone broke into your bedroom to kill you, that the police get there quicker than the Domino's Pizza delivery man could. As for me, A Glock in the hand is worth a hundred 911 operators on the phone. Maybe I'm a sociopath b/c I would lose no sleep whatsoever if I killed a guy who was attempting to rape and murder my wife/kids. None.

I have good locks-- and sleep with 4 loaded weapons... Filled with Kibbles and Bits!

LOL, easier to get than ammo these days!

[Allen]

I read your post possumpie. That doesn't mean it changed my mind or opinion about anything. I never said monster was any kind of term other than Lizzie was one. And she was. Anyone who murders their family is a monster. I would use that term for anyone who committed murder. I'm sure most people would and they wouldn't be trying to diagnose anything. Agreeing to disagree usually means you keep your opinion, and I keep mine. You have a degree. I've also heard the term sociopath, and psychopath, defined by many others with a degree. I didn't google the information. And I cannot definitively say Lizzie was a sociopath one hundred years later. But I can say she fits many of the known traits and that it's my opinion she was either/or a sociopath or a psychopath. Sociopaths usually are anti social. That's the only trait I think she doesn't fit. Killing a person for money, with a hatchet, twice, would indicate a definite lean towards mental instability. Richard Ramirez was a psychopath. He wanted to talk about cars and animated children's movies like Monsters Inc. Sounds pretty mundane for someone who murders people doesn't it? Charlie Manson sent me money to get music lessons for my birthday because he liked my poetry. He said I should make them into songs. And he wanted to pay back a waitress from my area who used to lend him beer money. Since he couldn't pay her back he would pay me. Sounds like he cared about her doesn't it? All while telling me what a monster he was and that he didn't wish to make any friends. That I didn't need to try to be his friend.

I agreed to disagree with you. I did not agree to stop posting my thoughts on the subject. Just as I finally stopped asking Franz to stop posting about his theory. Because as crazy as I think it is, it's his theory. He can believe what he wants. The same as everyone else.

And I would not murder someone for any reason. Other than self defense.

[Allen]

And there are statements made about Lizzie being mean, strange, belligerent, outspoken, strong willed to get what she wants, and sharp tongued when she didn't get her way even before the murders. About her cutting Abby's family dead and not speaking to them. About her not raising a finger usually to help around the house. The maid, Emma, and Lizzie seemed to have done most of the chores. About her using the silent treatment to punish people when she didn't get what she wanted or was angry at them. And about her stealing. About her hatred for Abby. About her buying chloroform to kill a cat. But most people will probably brush that off as people talking about her after the murders simply because she was accused of murder. About what some people called her 'fits' where she exhibited strange behavior. She was lazy, selfish, mean, and mentally unstable. She was nice to animals and servants because they posed no threat to her. That's my opinion.

[Franz]

… The killer, in my opinion, orchestered by Morse, overkilled the two victims just to make the murder scene as horrible as possible, so that the police would not suspect the two women (especially Lizzie) in the house.

Really??? Well, Morse’s plan certainly backfired on him, didn’t it? Lizzie was the prime suspect!!!

In my opinion, yes. And the overkilling, always in my theory, is consistent with the invention of the note story by Morse.

Morse calculated carefully everything, including the overkilling, but here occured the unique thing that was not as he desired: Lizzie was indeed the prime suspect (you are right here), because of many coincidences and a numeber of Lizzie's (apparent) odd reactions.

[Franz]

... Anyone who murders their family is a monster...

We should consider the motive of the murder, I think.

I have an impression that some people believe that Lizzie was the killer and meanwhile they have a sympathy for her, therefore they speculate some special motives in order to minimize the horror of the crime. (But you know, Allen, I am not of this opinion.)

[twinsrwe]

… The killer, in my opinion, orchestered by Morse, overkilled the two victims just to make the murder scene as horrible as possible, so that the police would not suspect the two women (especially Lizzie) in the house.

Really??? Well, Morse’s plan certainly backfired on him, didn’t it? Lizzie was the prime suspect!!!

In my opinion, yes. And the overkilling, always in my theory, is consistent with the invention of the note story by Morse.

Morse calculated carefully everything, including the overkilling, but here occured the unique thing that was not as he desired: Lizzie was indeed the prime suspect (you are right here), because of many coincidences and a numeber of Lizzie's (apparent) odd reactions.

Well, Franz, Morse didn't do a very good job of carefully calculating everything, did he? If he had, Lizzie would never have been a suspect!!!

If Morse had wanted to draw suspicion away from Lizzie and Bridget, then he would have had the killer use only a couple of blows to kill the two victims. The number of blows Abby and Andrew received indicates an act of emotionally connected vengeance; which in turn indicates it was an inside job - a member of the household.

Morse would have to be dumber than a rock, to think the act of overkill would draw suspicion away from the women.

[Allen]

... Anyone who murders their family is a monster...

We should consider the motive of the murder, I think.

I have an impression that some people believe that Lizzie was the killer and meanwhile they have a sympathy for her, therefore they speculate some special motives in order to minimize the horror of the crime. (But you know, Allen, I am not of this opinion.)

What motive, besides extreme physical abuse with no other option for escape and self defense, justifies murdering two people in cold blood? Andrew was a miser so he deserved to die? Abby was a step mother who might get the money so she needed to die? How anyone could feel sympathy for a murderer I don't understand. She didn't live in a fine big house on the hill. But she did not have to lift a finger in her own house. Except to clean her own room. She didn't cook or clean. She was free to come and go as she pleased. She had her basic needs being met. She wasn't homeless. She wasn't one of those poor women in Fall River who was forced to work long hours in a factory to help support their family. Not everyone grows up in a demonstrative loving home where everyone sits down to dinner and talks about their day. And not everyone is showered with money to buy their every want and need. Not everyone gets along with their parents. It's not a motive to kill them. Nobody has the right to take the life of another person just because they want their money, or they don't get along, or they are just tired of putting up with them. If that is the case I have the motive to take out a few people I know at the moment.

[Franz]

Well, Franz, Morse didn't do a very good job of carefully calculating everything, did he? If he had, Lizzie would never have been a suspect!!!

If Morse had wanted to draw suspicion away from Lizzie and Bridget, then he would have had the killer use only a couple of blows to kill the two victims. The number of blows Abby and Andrew received indicates an act of emotionally connected vengeance; which in turn indicates it was an inside job - a member of the household.

Morse would have to be dumber than a rock, to think the act of overkill would draw suspicion away from the women.

Lizzie became the prime suspect, at least at the very first moment, not because of the number of the blows, but because of other things.

I remember that Dr. Bowen, when Lizzie told him that she was out of the house when her father was being killed (no matter if this was true or not), said somethng like: fortunately you were not in the house, if you were, you would have been killed as well. You see, Dr. Bowen, seeing the horrible crime scene, instinctly thought that the killer was an intruder (and a man), and I think he was not the unique people to think so at that moment. Morse succeeded by asking his conspirator to overkill. Lizzie was suspected for the things that Morse could not control at all.

[twinsrwe]

Whatever, Franz! You absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that puts a hole in your so called theory. Not only that, you feel the need to add tidbits of information, without posting a source for that information.