To poison or not to poison...

[PossumPie]

Do any of you think poison was involved somehow? Allen has a great point that back then they probably knew very well what food poisoning was, but some poisons mimic food poisoning symptoms. What are your thoughts? Was poison used? Why did Mrs. Borden think it was a poison? It seems to be Lizzie who kept talking about poison before the murders.

[Aamartin]

I think there might very well have been an attempt.

[Allen]

I agree. I think Lizzie may have attempted to poison them.

[Aamartin]

I agree. I think Lizzie may have attempted to poison them.

Or-- and I have considered this a few time over the years... Maybe it was just summer complaint, but Lizzie taunted Abby that she may be being poisoned.

However, Lizzie really thought she was above reproach -- or was just plain ignorant. Her visit with Alice, where she declares she feels the house might be burned over their heads and also mentions poison, seems to me to be her way of setting up some sort of plausible reason for the older folks murder-- like she knew it was happening.

Personally-- I think Lizzie had it all planned-- poison to begin with. When that didn't work-- she resorted to the hatchet. She wanted it done while Emma was away. She wanted to lock the side door so Bridget didn't wander in-- and she REALLY never thought she would be suspected.

[PossumPie]

I agree. I think Lizzie may have attempted to poison them.

Or-- and I have considered this a few time over the years... Maybe it was just summer complaint, but Lizzie taunted Abby that she may be being poisoned.

However, Lizzie really thought she was above reproach -- or was just plain ignorant. Her visit with Alice, where she declares she feels the house might be burned over their heads and also mentions poison, seems to me to be her way of setting up some sort of plausible reason for the older folks murder-- like she knew it was happening.

Personally-- I think Lizzie had it all planned-- poison to begin with. When that didn't work-- she resorted to the hatchet. She wanted it done while Emma was away. She wanted to lock the side door so Bridget didn't wander in-- and she REALLY never thought she would be suspected.

Good thoughts. I always found it rather transparent that Lizzie went around saying "Father has enemies" "I wouldn't doubt someone would burn our house down around us" "I think we are being poisoned." It's like she wants to put those ideas in people's minds, then WHAM! they die, and Lizzie had warned everyone. They checked the milk for poison, but heck- there was alot more food items that could have been poisoned than just the milk. Also, they knew that certain common plants were poisonous, perhaps she soaked the leaves of some plant and attempted to kill them. Women usually choose pills/poison to kill others or themselves.

By the way, it takes about 60mg of Nicotine to kill an adult. Each cigarette in a pack contains about 8mg SO if you ingested the nicotine from just one pack of cigarettes orally it would kill you. (Smoking them only delivers about 1mg/cigarette so even chain-smoking an entire pack at once would make you sick but wouldn't kill.)

[NancyDrew]

This is an interesting point.

The stomachs of Abby and Andrew were removed, tied off and sent to, I believe, Harvard Medical school for testing. No poison was found...but that doesn't meant that:

1. They didn't test for the right substance
2. A poison was used, but it was broken down into normal organic components and therefore untraceable.

There is controversy over whether or not there exists a poison that is totally undetectable by laboratory tests.

This was 1892 however. Medical science was inchoate..it was only 2 years earlier that Dr. Robert Koch published his paper on the the Germ Theory of Disease, showing a causal link between microbial pathogens and diseases such as tuberculosis. (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve ... lates.html). This was revolutionary; illness wasn't the result of "bad air" (miasma) as previously thought, but by incredibly tiny organisms, undetectable except under a microscope, and not even then in some cases. Who knows how sophisticated laboratory testing was back then? (I will try and do more research when I'm back home tonight.)

The science of finger prints had been developed, but was not used by the Fall River police in the Borden murders---I've often wondered--if it HAD been employed, would finger prints have yielded any useful information?

But I digress. The subject is poisons. They were definitely on the minds of Abby Borden, Lizzie Borden, and possibly Emma Borden?

What stands out as unusual to me is this: Abby Borden was in her sixties, and had been a housewife for several decades. She surely knew about "summer complaint" and was familiar with its symptoms. And she had lived with her wealthy but very frugal husband for a long time. She was probably used to eating leftovers, and also the ensuing tummy troubles that sometimes happen when consuming food with questionable refrigeration.

In other words, she would have known the difference between illness caused by spoiled food and, well....something else. Unless she was a hypochondriac, running to the doctor for every little thing, real or imagined. Was she? If not, then I think her suspicions need to be taken seriously. I certainly wouldn't tell a doctor that I thought I was being poisoned unless I was very concerned...AND being sick might not have been the only reason. She was getting on in years...is it possible she was genuinely frightened by Lizzie and thought her capable of doing harm? I wonder if Lizzie ever put her hands on Abby...I'm sure there were arguments. Was there also shoving, pushing, slapping? There is plenty of evidence that townspeople knew this wasn't a happy home. On what was this gossip based?

Another thing: she knew her husband had a reputation for being a tough businessman, had probably witnessed or at the very least, overheard arguments, loud discussions, disagreements between Andrew and other individuals (residential and commercial tenants complaining about rent increases for example.) After all the years she spent with him, all of sudden she is concerned that someone he might have pissed off is exacting revenge by putting something in their milk? Why now?

I've always thought that wasn't enough attention spent on Abby Borden. She lived in close quarters with Lizzie for 30 years. For all intents and purposes, she WAS Lizzie's mother...and a mother knows when something is wrong with her child.

I've written a whole lot more than I meant to...off to work, but back tonight!!

[PossumPie]

Great information Nancy Drew! I wish we could discover some lost testimony from a close friend of Abby whom she confided in. It seems she was very polite and didn't speak ill of her step-daughters.

[Aamartin]

This is an interesting point.

The stomachs of Abby and Andrew were removed, tied off and sent to, I believe, Harvard Medical school for testing. No poison was found...but that doesn't meant that:

1. They didn't test for the right substance
2. A poison was used, but it was broken down into normal organic components and therefore untraceable.

There is controversy over whether or not there exists a poison that is totally undetectable by laboratory tests.

This was 1892 however. Medical science was inchoate..it was only 2 years earlier that Dr. Robert Koch published his paper on the the Germ Theory of Disease, showing a causal link between microbial pathogens and diseases such as tuberculosis. (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve ... lates.html). This was revolutionary; illness wasn't the result of "bad air" (miasma) as previously thought, but by incredibly tiny organisms, undetectable except under a microscope, and not even then in some cases. Who knows how sophisticated laboratory testing was back then? (I will try and do more research when I'm back home tonight.)

The science of finger prints had been developed, but was not used by the Fall River police in the Borden murders---I've often wondered--if it HAD been employed, would finger prints have yielded any useful information?

But I digress. The subject is poisons. They were definitely on the minds of Abby Borden, Lizzie Borden, and possibly Emma Borden?

What stands out as unusual to me is this: Abby Borden was in her sixties, and had been a housewife for several decades. She surely knew about "summer complaint" and was familiar with its symptoms. And she had lived with her wealthy but very frugal husband for a long time. She was probably used to eating leftovers, and also the ensuing tummy troubles that sometimes happen when consuming food with questionable refrigeration.

In other words, she would have known the difference between illness caused by spoiled food and, well....something else. Unless she was a hypochondriac, running to the doctor for every little thing, real or imagined. Was she? If not, then I think her suspicions need to be taken seriously. I certainly wouldn't tell a doctor that I thought I was being poisoned unless I was very concerned...AND being sick might not have been the only reason. She was getting on in years...is it possible she was genuinely frightened by Lizzie and thought her capable of doing harm? I wonder if Lizzie ever put her hands on Abby...I'm sure there were arguments. Was there also shoving, pushing, slapping? There is plenty of evidence that townspeople knew this wasn't a happy home. On what was this gossip based?

Another thing: she knew her husband had a reputation for being a tough businessman, had probably witnessed or at the very least, overheard arguments, loud discussions, disagreements between Andrew and other individuals (residential and commercial tenants complaining about rent increases for example.) After all the years she spent with him, all of sudden she is concerned that someone he might have pissed off is exacting revenge by putting something in their milk? Why now?

I've always thought that wasn't enough attention spent on Abby Borden. She lived in close quarters with Lizzie for 30 years. For all intents and purposes, she WAS Lizzie's mother...and a mother knows when something is wrong with her child.

I've written a whole lot more than I meant to...off to work, but back tonight!!

Good points--- I think Abby was pretty hardy and hale most of the time!

[Franz]

I agree. I think Lizzie may have attempted to poison them.

Since you all think that Lizzie killed for money, so, by using the poison, how could Lizzie be certain that Abby would die first and Andrew second? Did she planned to put the poison separately?

[PossumPie]

I agree. I think Lizzie may have attempted to poison them.

Since you all think that Lizzie killed for money, so, by using the poison, how could Lizzie be certain that Abby would die first and Andrew second? Did she planned to put the poison separately?

Great question Franz...I have no idea- but she would have had to make it obvious that Mrs. Borden died first...maybe that is exactly why she went ahead and killed Mrs. Borden at 9:30.

[Aamartin]

Do we know for sure that Lizzie even knew the laws regarding dying intestate? I think the hatchet was her last resort.

[NancyDrew]

Not only that, Aamartin, but how did Lizzie KNOW that her father didn't have a will? I'm sure Andrew didn't feel obligated to divulge his personal financial matters to his 2 female offspring. For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else. Wouldn't have mattered who died first, or second in that case.

This is a very key point, in my opinion. Just imagine, after the murders, an attorney producing a duly notarized last will & testament that failed to give Lizzie even a fraction of the money she felt she deserved. And further, imagine what Lizzie's reaction would have been upon finding out that her father didn't trust her with a large amount of wealth...that he set up a irrevocable trust agreement (perhaps overseen by the president of one his banks or of John Morse) that doled out money in discrete amounts every month or year, and nothing more.

If this had been the case, do you think she would have stayed in the house on 92nd street?

[Darrowfan]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

[Franz]

Do we know for sure that Lizzie even knew the laws regarding dying intestate? ...

I don't understand well. To whom your question is particularly addressed? To those who believe that Lizzie was guilty? It is them who speculated that Lizzie killed for money and therefore killed Abby first and Andrew second, right? For those who believe that Lizzie was probably innoncent (like me), your question doesn't exist, because according to them, Lizzie didn't kill none of them.

[Franz]

Not only that, Aamartin, but how did Lizzie KNOW that her father didn't have a will? I'm sure Andrew didn't feel obligated to divulge his personal financial matters to his 2 female offspring. For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else. Wouldn't have mattered who died first, or second in that case.

...

1. Nancy Drew, I think that your question doesn't exist neither to whoever believes that Lizzie was innocent.

2. You said "For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else." By saying so, do you mean that Lizzie believed wrongly that "Andrew had a will, and left all his money to someone else"? Because no such a will was found afterwords, if I recall correctly. Do we have any evidence proving that there was something that made Lizzie think wrongly that her father had a will? If there were no such evidence, all we could say, in my opinion, is this: Lizzie didn't know if his father had or not a will.

[PossumPie]

Not only that, Aamartin, but how did Lizzie KNOW that her father didn't have a will? I'm sure Andrew didn't feel obligated to divulge his personal financial matters to his 2 female offspring. For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else. Wouldn't have mattered who died first, or second in that case.

...

1. Nancy Drew, I think that your question doesn't exist neither to whoever believes that Lizzie was innocent.

2. You said "For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else." By saying so, do you mean that Lizzie believed wrongly that "Andrew had a will, and left all his money to someone else"? Because no such a will was found afterwords, if I recall correctly. Do we have any evidence proving that there was something that made Lizzie think wrongly that her father had a will? If there were no such evidence, all we could say, in my opinion, is this: Lizzie didn't know if his father had or not a will.

Franz, to you who believes Lizzie innocent, much of the postings on the forum are inconsequential. You never did comment on the picture of the front steps of the house, and how it would be almost impossible to lure Mrs. Borden so far from the door that she wouldn't see someone sneaking in. By the way, have you given any more thought as to why Morse hacked his two elderly friends to bits? Just asking...

[Franz]

Among those who live in Fall River, could someone be kind to tell me how high is (and probably was) the parapet of the front stairs? I estimated, accoring to the photo, it should be about 60-70 cm, but I have not a more pricise idea.

[Allen]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

I've always thought the stories she told Alice Russell the night before were used to set the stage. Father has enemies. Someone wants to harm us and burn the house down around us. But after the murders these enemies would be investigated and found not to exist. I don't remember that any real enemies were found for Andrew Borden. Many people said that Andrew was tight with his money. Yet even the man he evicted for not paying his rent admitted it was his fault for not paying rent. Many also said Andrew was tight with his money but that he was always a fair business man. After the murders even when directly asked during the inquest if she knew of anyone who might want to harm her father she could think of no one. Except the man who supposedly wanted to rent the store and Hiram Harrington. Who by the way didn't have very encouraging things to say about Lizzie either. Interesting since he lived at the Ferry Street house with the family for a time. But where did all these enemies go who were poisoning them and wanting to burn down the house?

[Franz]

Franz, to you who believes Lizzie innocent, much of the postings on the forum are inconsequential. You never did comment on the picture of the front steps of the house, and how it would be almost impossible to lure Mrs. Borden so far from the door that she wouldn't see someone sneaking in. By the way, have you given any more thought as to why Morse hacked his two elderly friends to bits? Just asking...

1. You are right, PossumPie, for whoever believes Lizzie was innocent, a number of questions don't exist, but he / she must face other questions. It's the same for those who believe the contrary. The Borden case is really fascinating.

2. My principal point in my reply to NancyDrew's post is this: since no such a will was found, I don't understand why she said: "For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else. Wouldn't have mattered who died first, or second in that case." It seems that Nancy Drew would like to say: ..., so it was possible that Lizzie had tired to kill with the poison. (If I were NancyDrew, I would say: "For all Lizzie believed,...".) For such a statement, I think we should have some evidence proving that there was something that made Lizzie believe wrongly that her father had a will. If we haven't such a evidence (I don't think there were), all we could say is only that Lizzie didn't know if her father had or not a will, in this case, her alleged motive for money, in my opinion, is nothing else but a speculation. If I am not wrong, there is just no evidence proving that Lizzie wrongly believed that her father had a will, just as I have no evidence that Morse, being apparently friendly with Andrew, hated him so much that he wanted his sudden and horribly death.

...

[Darrowfan]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

I've always thought the stories she told Alice Russell the night before were used to set the stage. Father has enemies. Someone wants to harm us and burn the house down around us. But after the murders these enemies would be investigated and found not to exist. I don't remember that any real enemies were found for Andrew Borden. Many people said that Andrew was tight with his money. Yet even the man he evicted for not paying his rent admitted it was his fault for not paying rent. Many also said Andrew was tight with his money but that he was always a fair business man. After the murders even when directly asked during the inquest if she knew of anyone who might want to harm her father she could think of no one. Except the man who supposedly wanted to rent the store and Hiram Harrington. Who by the way didn't have very encouraging things to say about Lizzie either. Interesting since he lived at the Ferry Street house with the family for a time. But where did all these enemies go who were poisoning them and wanting to burn down the house?

Very good point, Allen. I too have wondered what happened to all of Andrew's "enemies" after the killings. It's as if Lizzie thought Andrew had enemies prior to the murders, but not so much afterward. One of the many things that make no sense.

[Franz]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

I've always thought the stories she told Alice Russell the night before were used to set the stage. Father has enemies. Someone wants to harm us and burn the house down around us. But after the murders these enemies would be investigated and found not to exist. I don't remember that any real enemies were found for Andrew Borden. Many people said that Andrew was tight with his money. Yet even the man he evicted for not paying his rent admitted it was his fault for not paying rent. Many also said Andrew was tight with his money but that he was always a fair business man. After the murders even when directly asked during the inquest if she knew of anyone who might want to harm her father she could think of no one. Except the man who supposedly wanted to rent the store and Hiram Harrington. Who by the way didn't have very encouraging things to say about Lizzie either. Interesting since he lived at the Ferry Street house with the family for a time. But where did all these enemies go who were poisoning them and wanting to burn down the house?

Yes, Allen, what you said is possible. But something troubles me: if Lizzie had this intention to visit Alice the 3rd evening, as you (and many others) think, why, after the murder, didn't she put finger towards anyone? why didn't she intentionally drow suspicion of the police to some possible "candidates"? On the contrary, immediately after the murder, she was always saying to the people and the police that this person or that one could not be the killer. It was only with reluctance that Lizzie mentioned (not explicitely accused) that a stranger came and had a seemingly violent conversation with her father, a stranger that Lizzie even didn't see his face. It was generally thought that Andrew was not at all a beloved man, and it was reported that, after the murder, a gentleman said: oh someone did a good job. (Please excuse me for not checking out the source here.)

To be honset, I think that your speculation here is in contradiction with these facts.

[Franz]

.. Many also said Andrew was tight with his money but that he was always a fair business man...

Some people could become your ennemies just because that you are a fair, honest man. and these people should have more chance to become authors of a terrible crime.

[Allen]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

I've always thought the stories she told Alice Russell the night before were used to set the stage. Father has enemies. Someone wants to harm us and burn the house down around us. But after the murders these enemies would be investigated and found not to exist. I don't remember that any real enemies were found for Andrew Borden. Many people said that Andrew was tight with his money. Yet even the man he evicted for not paying his rent admitted it was his fault for not paying rent. Many also said Andrew was tight with his money but that he was always a fair business man. After the murders even when directly asked during the inquest if she knew of anyone who might want to harm her father she could think of no one. Except the man who supposedly wanted to rent the store and Hiram Harrington. Who by the way didn't have very encouraging things to say about Lizzie either. Interesting since he lived at the Ferry Street house with the family for a time. But where did all these enemies go who were poisoning them and wanting to burn down the house?

Yes, Allen, what you said is possible. But something troubles me: if Lizzie had this intention to visit Alice the 3rd evening, as you (and many others) think, why, after the murder, didn't she put finger towards anyone? why didn't she intentionally drow suspicion of the police to some possible "candidates"? On the contrary, immediately after the murder, she was always saying to the people and the police that this person or that one could not be the killer. It was only with reluctance that Lizzie mentioned (not explicitely accused) that a stranger came and had a seemingly violent conversation with her father, a stranger that Lizzie even didn't see his face. It was generally thought that Andrew was not at all a beloved man, and it was reported that, after the murder, a gentleman said: oh someone did a good job. (Please excuse me for not checking out the source here.)

To be honset, I think that your speculation here is in contradiction with these facts.

She couldn't point her finger at any other candidates because there weren't any to point at? She could have pointed to Bridget. But Bridget was outside washing windows when Abby was murdered. She could have pointed her finger at someone who worked at the farm in Swansea. If they had an alibi that would not have panned out. All it takes is, "No so and so was here all day working." And if she is just wildly pointing fingers at people without any proof that might seem a big suspicious to police. Was she supposed to pick someone out of a hat? Make up someone who didn't exist and have the police on a wild goose chase? All of this might seem pretty suspicious behavior in the long run. You cannot convict someone without evidence. You cannot convict someone just because Lizzie pointed her finger at them and said, "He hated my father." So why bother pointing fingers at anyone? In my opinion, Lizzie set the stage for the murders with her story about Andrew having enemies and poisoning and all the other theatrics. But when it came down to it all she could come up with for a suspect was a man she most probably made up who asked about a store.

[Franz]

She couldn't point her finger at any other candidates because there weren't any to point at? ...

Allen, "there weren't any to point at", this phrase, said by you, its real meaning should be that Lizzie herself was the killer (your opinion and that of many others). But this is only an opinion, not a proven fact. IF Lizzie was innocent, she could perfectly ignore, she could perfectly have not a more or less precise idea about who could be the author of the double murder (why must she have such an idea?). But if she really had no such an idea, this doesn't mean, in my opinion, that she, being innocent, could not make a general speaking to Alice about her worry, according to what she saw and heard in those days before the murder occured.

Reading your post, I have the impression that your thinking is this one: Lizzie said to Alice, just the previous day before the murder, that she thought father had many ennemies and she worried for the safety of the family, especially for that of her father. And then, the next day, her father (and her stepmother) were effectively murdered. (I agree that this was indeed one of many coincidences of the case). So Lizzie's thought (that Andrew had ennemies) must be proved by the arrestation and the conviction of the real killer. If no such a killer was identified and convicted, so Lizzie's speaking should be false, in other words: Andrew had indeed no ennemies. Since Andrew had no ennemies, why did Lizzie make (intentionally) such a talk? The only explanation should be this one: Andrew had no ennemies other than Lizzie herself. So she could have made a false declaration to Alice, and then, her herself should be the murderess. (I apologize if my impression is incorrect.)

For me I have no reason to speculate that Lizzie set a stage for the murders with her story told to Alice. She could be innocent, she could worried for father (and the whole family), and meanwhile, she could have no idea about who could do bad things to her father. If she was innocent, her worry could not be better justified: her father (and her stepmother) was effectively murdered, just as she worried.

[Allen]

Franz, if Lizzie had no idea of anyone who wanted to harm them, what gave her the idea that someone was? Who jumps from having an illness to an apparent poison attempt without a reason? Why would she believe because they had been sick someone was trying to poison them? And she is telling Alice Russell she thinks the milk was poisoned the night before. The day of the murders she is telling Mrs. Churchill that her father must have enemies because they had been sick and thought the milk had been poisoned. She didn't say she thought the milk had been poisoned, she used the word 'we'. Which evidence of Abby's doctor visit proves that she did in fact believe she had been poisoned. So why after the murders when being asked if anyone had any reason to want to hurt her father did she say as far as she knew her father had no enemies? That nobody would want to hurt them? Why is she spouting off her stories of enemies and poisoned milk to anyone but the police investigating the murder case??? According to her testimony the only man she has in mind allegedly came to the house and had words with her father over letting a store. A man who was never found. Just like the note was never found. And Hiram Harrington who she obliviously she held no love for. So why in the world is she believing they are being poisoned? Why is she making this leap with nobody in mind that wants to hurt them? No threats being made to them? Again she is pulling things out of a hat. Other than setting the stage for a murder?

[PossumPie]

Franz, I'm going to say this as clearly as I can, so you don't misunderstand.
Those of us who have theories that Lizzie was guilty list many small things from testimonies that were seen, done, and said, then we tie them together , and SPECULATE on her guilt.

What bothers me most about your theory is that you take a SPECULATION that Morse did it, but have NO things said, NO things done, NO testimony at all to support your theory AT ALL. You can't point to any testimony at all and say "This or that supports my theory" You just say Morse had them killed (nothing in the testimonies support this) Two strangers lured Mrs. Borden out of the house and one sneeked in the house (NOTHING in the testimony supports this).

I am open to other theories IF testimony supports it. I am even willing to say Lizzie Didn't do it, if something in the testimony supports it. Your theory has Zero/None/ No/Nothing supporting it from testimony. I feel like banging my head on the wall sometimes.

[Franz]

...
Those of us who have theories that Lizzie was guilty list many small things from testimonies that were seen, done, and said, then we tie them together , and SPECULATE on her guilt.

... and one sneeked in the house (NOTHING in the testimony supports this).

1. I don't think that I started with the speculation that Morse was guilty. I posted a series of threads (9 in total) to explain why I suspect him (instead of any other person). How many questions that I asked in my threads have you convincingly answered? It seems that all my 9 threads didn't exist at all in your eyes. To be honest I am a little upset by this. And you have been always saying that I have nothing against Morse. Other girls and guys of the forum, do I really have nothing against Morse? Do you all think so?

2. If some one testified that he / she saw a person sneek in the Borden house that morning, then, the Borden case might not exist at all, at least not as it is today. Just because there was no such a testimony, I could make such a speculation. (And I have all my right to do such a speculation in a forum like ours). No one testified Lizzie cleaned her up, you speculated so as well, no one saw Lizzie hide something that could be a murder weapon, but you speculate so as well. You speculated so because a number of other reasons make you believe that Lizzie was guilty, and then, starting from this opinion, you speculated that Lizzie cleaned her up, Lizzie hid the weapon, etc. But if for a number of reasons I think the killer was most probably an intruder, I don't understand why I couldn't speculate that the killer sneek into the house.

What you said seems to me that if there was not such a testimony that some one sneeked in the house, then I couldn't - it would be forbidden for me to - make such a speculation. What a strange thing!

(Please correct me if I wrongly understand you.)

[Allen]

Franz, my problem with your theory is that there is no evidence for it at all. Not in any of the testimony or anywhere I cannot even infer it from putting together other bits of evidence. There is no evidence Morse had something against Andrew and Abby. There is no evidence that it's possible anyone could sneak behind Abby at the door and run up the stairs and not be heard. There is no supporting evidence for any of it. There is no evidence that Morse was even wearing a watch. And if the killer wanted the murder to be so bloody and diabolical that it pointed away from members of the family why take the weapon away? Why hide it? Leave the weapon there, make it bloody, leave blood trails, bloody footprints. There is evidence that Lizzie probably lied. She changed her story several times about where she was and what she was doing during the murders. This is suspicious. Her relatively calm demeanor after discovering both of her parents dead. The fact that she is already planning their funeral before the day was out.

[PossumPie]

Franz, I give up. Go ahead and believe Morse did it. I can't change that. I will continue to read and respond to threads you post, but I refuse to be dragged again into an argument with you over Morse's guilt when you can't even give me a plausible reason why he did it. You have such a epic account of masturbation, watches, stolen notes, men sneaking behind Mrs. Borden's back in broad daylight, sitting in a room for 1 1/2 hrs. Murdering friends, envelopes and letters, I can't believe. My head spins. Good luck with your theory, but I'm done trying to find one shred of testimonial evidence which may support it.

[Aamartin]

Not only that, Aamartin, but how did Lizzie KNOW that her father didn't have a will? I'm sure Andrew didn't feel obligated to divulge his personal financial matters to his 2 female offspring. For all Lizzie knew, Andrew HAD a will, and left all his money to someone else. Wouldn't have mattered who died first, or second in that case.

This is a very key point, in my opinion. Just imagine, after the murders, an attorney producing a duly notarized last will & testament that failed to give Lizzie even a fraction of the money she felt she deserved. And further, imagine what Lizzie's reaction would have been upon finding out that her father didn't trust her with a large amount of wealth...that he set up a irrevocable trust agreement (perhaps overseen by the president of one his banks or of John Morse) that doled out money in discrete amounts every month or year, and nothing more.

If this had been the case, do you think she would have stayed in the house on 92nd street?

It has been speculated that the daylight robbery was a ruse to look for a will..... Correct me if I am wrong-- but the safe needed to opened by a professional. right? That is where he would have had it IMO.

[Aamartin]

Interesting points about Lizzie's "forewarnings", the way she talked about her father's enemies, about the house being burned down, about poison, etc. It seems strange to me that after the homicides, Lizzie didn't make any remarks along the lines of "I told you so". I think that if Lizzie were innocent, she would have pointed out that she had tried to alert people to the danger, and that her warnings were ignored.

I think of when I was a kid and did something I knew I was going to get in trouble for-- once it was discovered. I tried similar ploys with my parents! One time in particular. I HATED roast beef as a child-- and once, when I knew we were having it I mentioned to my mom that same day that the oven had been giving me trouble-- later, when the roast was in, I turned it up to 500.... (didn't work-- she was too smart for me)

[Aamartin]

Do we know for sure that Lizzie even knew the laws regarding dying intestate? ...

I don't understand well. To whom your question is particularly addressed? To those who believe that Lizzie was guilty? It is them who speculated that Lizzie killed for money and therefore killed Abby first and Andrew second, right? For those who believe that Lizzie was probably innoncent (like me), your question doesn't exist, because according to them, Lizzie didn't kill none of them.

In America, when one dies without a will, there are laws of how the estate is divided. I was pointing out that Lizzie may not have known the money would go directly to Abby if Andrew died first and if Abby died soon after-- to her heirs and not to Lizzie and Emma. This is why she may have tried poison.

[Aamartin]

Franz, if Lizzie had no idea of anyone who wanted to harm them, what gave her the idea that someone was? Who jumps from having an illness to an apparent poison attempt without a reason? Why would she believe because they had been sick someone was trying to poison them? And she is telling Alice Russell she thinks the milk was poisoned the night before. The day of the murders she is telling Mrs. Churchill that her father must have enemies because they had been sick and thought the milk had been poisoned. She didn't say she thought the milk had been poisoned, she used the word 'we'. Which evidence of Abby's doctor visit proves that she did in fact believe she had been poisoned. So why after the murders when being asked if anyone had any reason to want to hurt her father did she say as far as she knew her father had no enemies? That nobody would want to hurt them? Why is she spouting off her stories of enemies and poisoned milk to anyone but the police investigating the murder case??? According to her testimony the only man she has in mind allegedly came to the house and had words with her father over letting a store. A man who was never found. Just like the note was never found. And Hiram Harrington who she obliviously she held no love for. So why in the world is she believing they are being poisoned? Why is she making this leap with nobody in mind that wants to hurt them? No threats being made to them? Again she is pulling things out of a hat. Other than setting the stage for a murder?

If there was even a shred of merit to an outsider trying to poison them or 'enemies' lurking in the yard, etc-- Wouldn't Lizzie be filled with anger (and maybe fear) and do all she could to help police bring to justice those responsible for her beloved father and the stepmother she had a cordial (depending on one's idea of cordiality) with?

[Aamartin]

Franz, my problem with your theory is that there is no evidence for it at all. Not in any of the testimony or anywhere I cannot even infer it from putting together other bits of evidence. There is no evidence Morse had something against Andrew and Abby. There is no evidence that it's possible anyone could sneak behind Abby at the door and run up the stairs and not be heard. There is no supporting evidence for any of it. There is no evidence that Morse was even wearing a watch. And if the killer wanted the murder to be so bloody and diabolical that it pointed away from members of the family why take the weapon away? Why hide it? Leave the weapon there, make it bloody, leave blood trails, bloody footprints. There is evidence that Lizzie probably lied. She changed her story several times about where she was and what she was doing during the murders. This is suspicious. Her relatively calm demeanor after discovering both of her parents dead. The fact that she is already planning their funeral before the day was out.

John did not mention a watch in his will--- but did mention his table silver. So if he did have a watch-- he held his knives, forks and spoons in higher regard!

[Aamartin]

Franz...

I mean this with all respect and friendship.

Be very careful about fixating on a solution that has no factual evidence to suggest it, let alone back it up. Not only will it tarnish your view on actual evidence and testimony but it can, depending on how you approach the other members here, affect your experience here on the forum.

We used to have a member here who so whole heartedly accepted Brown's speculation that it was all he could talk about-- he would get into fights with those who did not agree with him. It wasn't pleasant for any of us. Many simply put him on ignore-- others argued with him. He eventually either left or was banned from the forum.

Again-- this is NOT a threat and I am not even saying you acting like he did-- not even close in any way.

But it really did rob him of the enjoyment of discussing this case with fellow enthusiasts.

My own experience can even be used as an example. I used to banter back and forth with Allen -- because I was so set in my Lizzie was innocent theory. Now, I not only respect her posts and contributions, I enjoy 'spending time' with her on this forum! In the past, I wouldn't even allow one shred of what she was saying penetrate my brain.

I know you like theorizing-- and I know you think Lizzie was innocent-- and that is wonderful-- many do. But keep in mind, your Morse theory is just that, a theory. Explore other ones. They really are nearly endless when one does not take the known facts into mind. The chances of new information cropping up is almost nill-- so we have to work with what we have. And although we can can speculate as to what a person might have thought, etc-- in the end we have to come back to the facts. So, while I cannot prove that Lizzie may not have known about the laws of inheritance-- I can speculate on it-- but at the end of the day I cannot use that speculation to form a theory. Does that make sense? I know you feel a language barrier-- but your English is better than you think it is! (Another theory of mine)

[Franz]

Franz, my problem with your theory is that there is no evidence for it at all. Not in any of the testimony or anywhere I cannot even infer it from putting together other bits of evidence. There is no evidence Morse had something against Andrew and Abby. There is no evidence that it's possible anyone could sneak behind Abby at the door and run up the stairs and not be heard. There is no supporting evidence for any of it. There is no evidence that Morse was even wearing a watch. And if the killer wanted the murder to be so bloody and diabolical that it pointed away from members of the family why take the weapon away? Why hide it? Leave the weapon there, make it bloody, leave blood trails, bloody footprints. There is evidence that Lizzie probably lied. She changed her story several times about where she was and what she was doing during the murders. This is suspicious. Her relatively calm demeanor after discovering both of her parents dead. The fact that she is already planning their funeral before the day was out.

1. For evidence about Morse I will post something separately.

2. I don't think I have to have evidence that Morse was wearing a watch. He could have had one, or not, but he used it only as a pretext. And the watch itself is just my conjecture, Morse could say he forgot some other thing in the guest room. Darrowfan said that I should not be so precise, he is probably right.

3. Allen, you are refuting my theory, so I think you should prove the impossibility that someone could sneek behind Abby.

4. I don't think it's a good idea to leave the weapon there (it could be, but not must be, it depends) . The killer, if an intruder, could have used an instrument most familiar to him, something he used every day. This could garantee maximum the killing's success. If he left such an object in the murder place, it could direct to his identity. On the contrary, if Lizzie did it, in my opinion, it should be a good idea to leave the weapon beside her father's body, instead of hinding it somewhere in the house, because, the hidden weapon, if it were found afterwards (it's possible) in a very secret place in the house, it would be immediately suspected that it was an inside job. Was Lizzie really so confident of herself that, 1) she didn't prepare a good alibi version, believing that no one would suspect her, even though she was one of the unique two people who were present in the house that morning? 2) she hid the weapon somewhere, being absolutely certain that no one would find it? If she was so confident of this, she must be, as PossumPie said, incrediblly naive.

5. Lizzie gave different versions about her whereabouts when the murders occured. But here I would like to precise: 1) about her wherabouts when her father was being killed, she never changed her version: she said always, to everyone, that she was in the barn; 2) I think she intentionally lied about what she was doing in the barn, but I don't think this proved she was killing her father at that time, she could have lied to cover waht she was really doing in the barn. When we discuss on the reason of Emma's leaving, Nancydrew, maybe among others, speculated that the reason could be smoking or drinking. If in 1913 smoking and drinking could be a reason to be seriously considered for Emma's leaving, I would say that somking and drinking should be much more scandalous things for a woman as Lizzie 20 years ago, in 1892. So I think smoking or drinking could be a possible reason as well to explain why Lizzie didn't tell the truth about what she was doing in the barn. And if she didn't realize the huge risk she was running before Knowlton, she could have tried still to cover her secret. 3) her different versions about her whereabouts when (after) Abby's death could be a lie (Lizze wanted to place her as far as possible from the guest room), it could be a confusion of memory as well.

6. Lizzie's "calm demeanor" was observed only before the police, so before authority. This is indeed consistent with her changing cloth to meet policemen. She was not so calm at all before people as Alice, Mrs. Churchill, Dr. Bowen or Mr. Sawyer.

7. "she is already planning their funeral before the day was out". This doesn't trouble me. She didn't cry? This doesn't trouble me, neither. People react differently before the (sudden) death of their relatives.

8. I certainly agree that a number of her reactions were indeed suspicious. But from suspicious behaviours to circumstancial evidence (against her), there is a certain distance to step over. And to step over this distance, I think that we should exclude any other possible intepretations and what we eventually have in our hands would be only the unique interpretation which indicates Lizzie's guilt.

[Allen]

Franz, Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell. She would have stood at the door. And there is no way a stranger is going to sneak behind Abby standing at that door. You have not been to the house. You are going by pictures of what it looks like without ever having stood there an arguing it's possible. I've been to the house and stood on those steps. I'm telling you there is no way someone could have went behind Abby while she was standing at the door. Franz, show me anywhere in testimony that these people stated that Lizzie was more than pale and a little shook up. That for me is relatively calm after discovering your father dead. And your emotions do not have an on and off switch. Whether the police were there or not, she should not have been able to hide her emotions if she was truly so distraught that a neighbor noticed it from her own kitchen window (without the knowledge she'd just seen Bridget hurrying for a doctor). Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind? Why not leave blood everywhere? Why was the scene so CLEAN of blood other than where the bodies were? And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? Why stick to the stupid story about fishing sinkers? Because no matter WHAT ALIBI she gave for the killing of Andrew she had NONE for the killing of Abby. She was in the house Franz. She was in the house and could not deny it. So if she is in the house during one murder, why does it matter where she was when Andrew was killed? She not only lied about where she was when he was killed, she changed her story about where she was when he got home. She was in the kitchen, no she was upstairs, no maybe she really was in the kitchen. She said she had already started to iron before Andrew got home. Bridget saw her take out the ironing board and set it up on the dining room table after Andrew got home. She lied about so many things. And if she had said she was in the barn knitting booties for the pigeons it would not have changed the fact that she was inside the house when Abby was murdered. Her only alibi for that is that she thought Abby went out.

[PossumPie]

Franz, you are INCORRECT. Lizzie told Bridget immediately after discovering her father that she was in the yard, and heard a 'moan'. She ran in quickly and found her father dead. She later told others that she was in the barn to find screen, in the barn finding lead, in the barn eating pears and looking out the window. HOW could she forget that she was in the yard and HEARD a groan, then less than an hour later swear she was in the barn and heard nothing? Obviously she lied about one of them.

Abby would never have left the front door wide open, walk down the steps and down the sidewalk to talk to a stranger. In the late 1800's Gypsies (Romani people) had a scam where they lured you out the front door, while an accomplice snuck in, stole what they could grab, run out the back door. She NEVER would have allowed herself to be drawn away from the front door like you suggest, not in that neighborhood. In fact she wouldn't have opened the door all the way unless she recognized the person. Look at the pictures. The steps are narrow, the sidewalk near, she would have heard someone sneek up behind her.

[twinsrwe]

Franz, Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell. She would have stood at the door. And there is no way a stranger is going to sneak behind Abby standing at that door. You have not been to the house. You are going by pictures of what it looks like without ever having stood there an arguing it's possible. I've been to the house and stood on those steps. I'm telling you there is no way someone could have went behind Abby while she was standing at the door. Franz, show me anywhere in testimony that these people stated that Lizzie was more than pale and a little shook up. That for me is relatively calm after discovering your father dead. And your emotions do not have an on and off switch. Whether the police were there or not, she should not have been able to hide her emotions if she was truly so distraught that a neighbor noticed it from her own kitchen window (without the knowledge she'd just seen Bridget hurrying for a doctor). Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind? Why not leave blood everywhere? Why was the scene so CLEAN of blood other than where the bodies were? And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? Why stick to the stupid story about fishing sinkers? Because no matter WHAT ALIBI she gave for the killing of Andrew she had NONE for the killing of Abby. She was in the house Franz. She was in the house and could not deny it. So if she is in the house during one murder, why does it matter where she was when Andrew was killed? She not only lied about where she was when he was killed, she changed her story about where she was when he got home. She was in the kitchen, no she was upstairs, no maybe she really was in the kitchen. She said she had already started to iron before Andrew got home. Bridget saw her take out the ironing board and set it up on the dining room table after Andrew got home. She lied about so many things. And if she had said she was in the barn knitting booties for the pigeons it would not have changed the fact that she was inside the house when Abby was murdered. Her only alibi for that is that she thought Abby went out.

Thank you Allen; I totally agree with you, and could not have said it better. Great questions!

[twinsrwe]

... Abby would never have left the front door wide open, walk down the steps and down the sidewalk to talk to a stranger. In the late 1800's Gypsies (Romani people) had a scam where they lured you out the front door, while an accomplice snuck in, stole what they could grab, run out the back door. She NEVER would have allowed herself to be drawn away from the front door like you suggest, not in that neighborhood. In fact she wouldn't have opened the door all the way unless she recognized the person. Look at the pictures. The steps are narrow, the sidewalk near, she would have heard someone sneek up behind her.

I absolutely agree with you, PossumPie. Abby would never have allowed herself to leave her front door for the likes of a complete stranger.

Franz, take a good look at the pictures and comments I posted on Nov. 12, 2013 in the topic titled, ‘Maggie, I am almost certain I heard her come in’. To my knowledge, you have not posted a comment regarding these pictures, and I’d like for you to do so. Here is a link to the page you need in order to view the two pictures I posted of people gathered at the steps and sidewalk of the B&B. (Scroll down to my second post on this page).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5240&start=50

[twinsrwe]

Franz, following is the evidence that John Morse was wearing his watch on August 4, 1892. Here is his testimony at the Preliminary Hearing… (Red highlighting is mine).

Source: Morse’s testimony at the Preliminary Hearing held from Thursday, August 25 – Thursday, September 1, 1892. Preliminary Hearing in the Borden Case before Judge Blaisdell, August 25 through September 1, 1892. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society. Timeline of John Morse © 2002 Kat Koorey

Aug. 4, 1892, Thursday

6:00 a.m.

Got up in the morning “about 6, if I recollect right.” (pg. 239).

6:20 a.m.

Came down stairs after “I made my toilet.” (pg. 239).

Found no one down stairs. (pg. 240).

Did not see the servant “until about breakfast time.” (pg. 240).

6:35 a.m.

Saw Mr. Borden “I do not think more than 15 minutes” after Morse got down. (pg. 240).

Mr. Borden came down to the sitting room where “I was opening the windows at the time.”

Morse stayed in the sitting room -Mr. Borden was “backwards and forwards into the kitchen several times.”

6:55 a.m.

“15 or 20 minutes after Mr. Borden came down,” Mrs. Borden appeared.

7:05- 7:25 a.m.

Ate breakfast “I think about 7, it may have been a few minutes after.” (Morse, Mrs. Borden, Mr. Borden). Did not see Lizzie.

The servant came “in and out.” (pg. 240).

“. . . we were there not more than 20 minutes.” (pg. 242).

“While we were at breakfast”, Bridget was given directions “. . . That she was to wash the windows.” (pg. 251).

7:25- 9:10 a.m. (?)

Sat in the sitting room after breakfast “probably an hour and 3/4.” (pg. 242).

Had general conversation; we sat there “. . . in the sitting room.” (pg. 240, 241).

Mrs. Borden “sat there a little while” with them in the sitting room after breakfast, before she began to do her work. (pg. 241).

“Mrs. Borden was backwards and forwards through the room; she was in and out.”

“. . . in the kitchen way, and saw her go in the front way, once.”

Mrs. Borden “was dusting the room when I went in the sitting room, when I was there”. . . “with a feather duster.”

Morse did not know or hear Mrs. Borden go up stairs into his part of the house while he was there. (pg. 241).

8:30 a.m.

“About 15 or 20 minutes before I left the house” was when Morse saw Mrs. Borden go into the front hall. . . “Somewhere in the neighborhood of half past eight.” (pg. 243).

“I think Mrs. Borden must be up then; she went into the front hall the last I saw of her at all.” (pg. 241).

8:45 a.m.

Morse went away, “I think about quarter to nine.” (pg. 241).

Morse “did not hear her (Lizzie) come down.” (p. 241).

“I did not see her (Lizzie) from the time I came until the time of the tragedy.” (pg. 238).

At the time Morse left: “I suppose Lizzie was up stairs, I did not see her.” (p. 241).

“Mr. Borden came out through the kitchen into the back hall, and unhooked the door, and he hooked it, and the last words I heard him say was “John, come back to dinner with us.” Mr. Borden remained inside. . . the lasttime Morse saw him. (pg. 241, 242, 243).

Bridget “was in the kitchen” when “I went out.” (pg. 241).

When Morse left, “I looked at my watch,” it was. . . “within a few minutes of it (8:45). (pg. 243).

“I came down to the post office”. . . with a card to “I think William Vinnecum” of Swansea. (pg. 243).

“. . . then went from there out to the north door, and went up (walked) Third St.; from there to Pleasant St., up Pleasant St. to Weybosset St., No. 4 to Daniel Emery’s.” . . . “a good mile,” eastward, to see “a niece and a nephew from the west; my brother’s children.” (pg. 243, 244).

11:20 a.m.

Morse started to come away from there “I think about 20 minutes past eleven.” (pg. 243).

Morse fixed the time by looking “at my watch about going back to dinner.” (pg. 244).

The usual dinner hour at the Borden’s was “About 12 o’clock.”

Morse came back “on the car”. . . that comes down Pleasant St.

“I got off the corner of Pleasant and Second Streets”. . . went right up home. (pg. 244).

11:45 a.m.

Got home “about quarter to 12; I do not know exactly.” Did not look at watch. (pg. 244, 245).

Noticed “. . . Nothing that attracted my attention. . . I did not notice anything about the place.” (pg. 244).

“. . . might have been a few men along, the same as generally. I did not see anything unusual about it.” (pg. 253).

Came “Into the north small gate. . . I went around to the pear tree”-(didn’t see anybody in the entry way by the screen door)-stayed out under the pear tree “two or three minutes.” (pg. 253).

11:48 a.m.

First learned what happened “at the door,” by way of “I think the servant girl.” (pg. 244).

Mr. Sawyer was inside the house.

“The first man I saw in there was Dr. Bowen,” and “I think two policemen.” (pg. 244).

“I saw Mr. Borden (body) as I passed through. I went in there and saw him laying on the sofa. I went part way up the stairs. I did not go into the room at all, looked under the bed, and saw Mrs. Borden lying there.” “They told me”. . . she was up in that room. (pg. 245, 254).

Came down through the sitting room, “into the kitchen, from there into the dining room, from there back into the kitchen.” (pg. 255).

When came back through sitting room did not look at Mr. Borden to examine anything. (pg. 255).

Could only tell the direction of one wound upon Mr. Borden, “The one that went down through, and cut through here, and cut through the nose, a long gash it appeared to be”. . . “My impression of it”. . . the cut was diagonal, from the forehead down and towards the nose. (pg. 257).

11:50 a.m.

“After I had been in the house 2 or 3 minutes, I saw her” (Lizzie) “. . . In the dining room, sitting on the lounge.”(pg. 245).

There were some ladies with Lizzie. (pg. 255).

“I was so excited at that time I could not tell you who they were; I was nervous, to tell the truth about it.”

Morse then went out of doors; saw “quite a number” of people then.

While out of doors “I don’t know as (I did) anything.” (pg. 255).

“I was out there 3 or 4 hours”. . . “walking around in different parts”(of the yard). (pg. 256).

“I think when I came from the back of the house, when I got the pears, I think it (the cellar door) was open; I won’t say sure, but I think it was.”

“I think it (the barn) was open.” (pg. 256).


Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/crimelibr ... meline.htm

[Aamartin]

Franz, Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell. She would have stood at the door. And there is no way a stranger is going to sneak behind Abby standing at that door. You have not been to the house. You are going by pictures of what it looks like without ever having stood there an arguing it's possible. I've been to the house and stood on those steps. I'm telling you there is no way someone could have went behind Abby while she was standing at the door. Franz, show me anywhere in testimony that these people stated that Lizzie was more than pale and a little shook up. That for me is relatively calm after discovering your father dead. And your emotions do not have an on and off switch. Whether the police were there or not, she should not have been able to hide her emotions if she was truly so distraught that a neighbor noticed it from her own kitchen window (without the knowledge she'd just seen Bridget hurrying for a doctor). Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind? Why not leave blood everywhere? Why was the scene so CLEAN of blood other than where the bodies were? And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? Why stick to the stupid story about fishing sinkers? Because no matter WHAT ALIBI she gave for the killing of Andrew she had NONE for the killing of Abby. She was in the house Franz. She was in the house and could not deny it. So if she is in the house during one murder, why does it matter where she was when Andrew was killed? She not only lied about where she was when he was killed, she changed her story about where she was when he got home. She was in the kitchen, no she was upstairs, no maybe she really was in the kitchen. She said she had already started to iron before Andrew got home. Bridget saw her take out the ironing board and set it up on the dining room table after Andrew got home. She lied about so many things. And if she had said she was in the barn knitting booties for the pigeons it would not have changed the fact that she was inside the house when Abby was murdered. Her only alibi for that is that she thought Abby went out.

Agreed--

And IF she was somehow lured away from the door-- where was the person hiding? On the other side of the house? How could they possibly know Bridget, who was outside-- I believe on the side of the house the door is on talking to the Kelly's maid-- wouldn't see him?

[Franz]

Franz, following is the evidence that John Morse was wearing his watch on August 4, 1892. Here is his testimony at the Preliminary Hearing… (Red highlighting is mine).

Source: Morse’s testimony at the Preliminary Hearing held from Thursday, August 25 – Thursday, September 1, 1892. Preliminary Hearing in the Borden Case before Judge Blaisdell, August 25 through September 1, 1892. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society. Timeline of John Morse © 2002 Kat Koorey

Aug. 4, 1892, Thursday

6:00 a.m.

Got up in the morning “about 6, if I recollect right.” (pg. 239).

6:20 a.m.

Came down stairs after “I made my toilet.” (pg. 239).

Found no one down stairs. (pg. 240).

Did not see the servant “until about breakfast time.” (pg. 240).

6:35 a.m.

Saw Mr. Borden “I do not think more than 15 minutes” after Morse got down. (pg. 240).

Mr. Borden came down to the sitting room where “I was opening the windows at the time.”

Morse stayed in the sitting room -Mr. Borden was “backwards and forwards into the kitchen several times.”

6:55 a.m.

“15 or 20 minutes after Mr. Borden came down,” Mrs. Borden appeared.

7:05- 7:25 a.m.

Ate breakfast “I think about 7, it may have been a few minutes after.” (Morse, Mrs. Borden, Mr. Borden). Did not see Lizzie.

The servant came “in and out.” (pg. 240).

“. . . we were there not more than 20 minutes.” (pg. 242).

“While we were at breakfast”, Bridget was given directions “. . . That she was to wash the windows.” (pg. 251).

7:25- 9:10 a.m. (?)

Sat in the sitting room after breakfast “probably an hour and 3/4.” (pg. 242).

Had general conversation; we sat there “. . . in the sitting room.” (pg. 240, 241).

Mrs. Borden “sat there a little while” with them in the sitting room after breakfast, before she began to do her work. (pg. 241).

“Mrs. Borden was backwards and forwards through the room; she was in and out.”

“. . . in the kitchen way, and saw her go in the front way, once.”

Mrs. Borden “was dusting the room when I went in the sitting room, when I was there”. . . “with a feather duster.”

Morse did not know or hear Mrs. Borden go up stairs into his part of the house while he was there. (pg. 241).

8:30 a.m.

“About 15 or 20 minutes before I left the house” was when Morse saw Mrs. Borden go into the front hall. . . “Somewhere in the neighborhood of half past eight.” (pg. 243).

“I think Mrs. Borden must be up then; she went into the front hall the last I saw of her at all.” (pg. 241).

8:45 a.m.

Morse went away, “I think about quarter to nine.” (pg. 241).

Morse “did not hear her (Lizzie) come down.” (p. 241).

“I did not see her (Lizzie) from the time I came until the time of the tragedy.” (pg. 238).

At the time Morse left: “I suppose Lizzie was up stairs, I did not see her.” (p. 241).

“Mr. Borden came out through the kitchen into the back hall, and unhooked the door, and he hooked it, and the last words I heard him say was “John, come back to dinner with us.” Mr. Borden remained inside. . . the lasttime Morse saw him. (pg. 241, 242, 243).

Bridget “was in the kitchen” when “I went out.” (pg. 241).

When Morse left, “I looked at my watch,” it was. . . “within a few minutes of it (8:45). (pg. 243).

“I came down to the post office”. . . with a card to “I think William Vinnecum” of Swansea. (pg. 243).

“. . . then went from there out to the north door, and went up (walked) Third St.; from there to Pleasant St., up Pleasant St. to Weybosset St., No. 4 to Daniel Emery’s.” . . . “a good mile,” eastward, to see “a niece and a nephew from the west; my brother’s children.” (pg. 243, 244).

11:20 a.m.

Morse started to come away from there “I think about 20 minutes past eleven.” (pg. 243).

Morse fixed the time by looking “at my watch about going back to dinner.” (pg. 244).

The usual dinner hour at the Borden’s was “About 12 o’clock.”

Morse came back “on the car”. . . that comes down Pleasant St.

“I got off the corner of Pleasant and Second Streets”. . . went right up home. (pg. 244).

11:45 a.m.

Got home “about quarter to 12; I do not know exactly.” Did not look at watch. (pg. 244, 245).

Noticed “. . . Nothing that attracted my attention. . . I did not notice anything about the place.” (pg. 244).

“. . . might have been a few men along, the same as generally. I did not see anything unusual about it.” (pg. 253).

Came “Into the north small gate. . . I went around to the pear tree”-(didn’t see anybody in the entry way by the screen door)-stayed out under the pear tree “two or three minutes.” (pg. 253).

11:48 a.m.

First learned what happened “at the door,” by way of “I think the servant girl.” (pg. 244).

Mr. Sawyer was inside the house.

“The first man I saw in there was Dr. Bowen,” and “I think two policemen.” (pg. 244).

“I saw Mr. Borden (body) as I passed through. I went in there and saw him laying on the sofa. I went part way up the stairs. I did not go into the room at all, looked under the bed, and saw Mrs. Borden lying there.” “They told me”. . . she was up in that room. (pg. 245, 254).

Came down through the sitting room, “into the kitchen, from there into the dining room, from there back into the kitchen.” (pg. 255).

When came back through sitting room did not look at Mr. Borden to examine anything. (pg. 255).

Could only tell the direction of one wound upon Mr. Borden, “The one that went down through, and cut through here, and cut through the nose, a long gash it appeared to be”. . . “My impression of it”. . . the cut was diagonal, from the forehead down and towards the nose. (pg. 257).

11:50 a.m.

“After I had been in the house 2 or 3 minutes, I saw her” (Lizzie) “. . . In the dining room, sitting on the lounge.”(pg. 245).

There were some ladies with Lizzie. (pg. 255).

“I was so excited at that time I could not tell you who they were; I was nervous, to tell the truth about it.”

Morse then went out of doors; saw “quite a number” of people then.

While out of doors “I don’t know as (I did) anything.” (pg. 255).

“I was out there 3 or 4 hours”. . . “walking around in different parts”(of the yard). (pg. 256).

“I think when I came from the back of the house, when I got the pears, I think it (the cellar door) was open; I won’t say sure, but I think it was.”

“I think it (the barn) was open.” (pg. 256).


Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/crimelibr ... meline.htm

Thank you.

[Franz]

Franz, Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell. She would have stood at the door. And there is no way a stranger is going to sneak behind Abby standing at that door. You have not been to the house. You are going by pictures of what it looks like without ever having stood there an arguing it's possible. I've been to the house and stood on those steps. I'm telling you there is no way someone could have went behind Abby while she was standing at the door. Franz, show me anywhere in testimony that these people stated that Lizzie was more than pale and a little shook up. That for me is relatively calm after discovering your father dead. And your emotions do not have an on and off switch. Whether the police were there or not, she should not have been able to hide her emotions if she was truly so distraught that a neighbor noticed it from her own kitchen window (without the knowledge she'd just seen Bridget hurrying for a doctor). Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind? Why not leave blood everywhere? Why was the scene so CLEAN of blood other than where the bodies were? And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? Why stick to the stupid story about fishing sinkers? Because no matter WHAT ALIBI she gave for the killing of Andrew she had NONE for the killing of Abby. She was in the house Franz. She was in the house and could not deny it. So if she is in the house during one murder, why does it matter where she was when Andrew was killed? She not only lied about where she was when he was killed, she changed her story about where she was when he got home. She was in the kitchen, no she was upstairs, no maybe she really was in the kitchen. She said she had already started to iron before Andrew got home. Bridget saw her take out the ironing board and set it up on the dining room table after Andrew got home. She lied about so many things. And if she had said she was in the barn knitting booties for the pigeons it would not have changed the fact that she was inside the house when Abby was murdered. Her only alibi for that is that she thought Abby went out.

Agreed--

And IF she was somehow lured away from the door-- where was the person hiding? On the other side of the house? How could they possibly know Bridget, who was outside-- I believe on the side of the house the door is on talking to the Kelly's maid-- wouldn't see him?

I invite you to re-read my theory (second version).

[Franz]

... Abby would never have left the front door wide open, walk down the steps and down the sidewalk to talk to a stranger. In the late 1800's Gypsies (Romani people) had a scam where they lured you out the front door, while an accomplice snuck in, stole what they could grab, run out the back door. She NEVER would have allowed herself to be drawn away from the front door like you suggest, not in that neighborhood. In fact she wouldn't have opened the door all the way unless she recognized the person. Look at the pictures. The steps are narrow, the sidewalk near, she would have heard someone sneek up behind her.

I absolutely agree with you, PossumPie. Abby would never have allowed herself to leave her front door for the likes of a complete stranger.

Franz, take a good look at the pictures and comments I posted on Nov. 12, 2013 in the topic titled, ‘Maggie, I am almost certain I heard her come in’. To my knowledge, you have not posted a comment regarding these pictures, and I’d like for you to do so. Here is a link to the page you need in order to view the two pictures I posted of people gathered at the steps and sidewalk of the B&B. (Scroll down to my second post on this page).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5240&start=50

Allen, PossumPie, twinsrwe, when you say: Abby would never have allowed herself to leave her front door ..., what are you stating? a fact? or just a personal opinion?
If it is nothing else but a personal opinion, you should allow others to think differently. None of us was Abby. None of us could say as a fact how Abby would react. I think the two possibilities exsist: 1) she would have left her front door, 2) she would not. The conspirator might have been apparently a gentlman, well dressed, with polite manner, and just for this he remained near the fence like a (false) respect sign to the Borden's property. If he seemd like a tramp, a vagabond, it would be another story...

[Franz]

Franz, Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell. She would have stood at the door. And there is no way a stranger is going to sneak behind Abby standing at that door. You have not been to the house. You are going by pictures of what it looks like without ever having stood there an arguing it's possible. I've been to the house and stood on those steps. I'm telling you there is no way someone could have went behind Abby while she was standing at the door. Franz, show me anywhere in testimony that these people stated that Lizzie was more than pale and a little shook up. That for me is relatively calm after discovering your father dead. And your emotions do not have an on and off switch. Whether the police were there or not, she should not have been able to hide her emotions if she was truly so distraught that a neighbor noticed it from her own kitchen window (without the knowledge she'd just seen Bridget hurrying for a doctor). Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind? Why not leave blood everywhere? Why was the scene so CLEAN of blood other than where the bodies were? And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? Why stick to the stupid story about fishing sinkers? Because no matter WHAT ALIBI she gave for the killing of Andrew she had NONE for the killing of Abby. She was in the house Franz. She was in the house and could not deny it. So if she is in the house during one murder, why does it matter where she was when Andrew was killed? She not only lied about where she was when he was killed, she changed her story about where she was when he got home. She was in the kitchen, no she was upstairs, no maybe she really was in the kitchen. She said she had already started to iron before Andrew got home. Bridget saw her take out the ironing board and set it up on the dining room table after Andrew got home. She lied about so many things. And if she had said she was in the barn knitting booties for the pigeons it would not have changed the fact that she was inside the house when Abby was murdered. Her only alibi for that is that she thought Abby went out.

1. Allen, as I said in the previous post, when you say: Abby is not going to walk down to the fence to talk to a stranger who rang her doorbell, I dont't think you are stating a fact.

2. "Why would a killer not just bring a weapon he could leave behind?" I don't understand well this phrase, acccording to yur other posts, you probably mean here: why would a killer not leave the weapon? As I said before, if the killer was an intruder, his weapon could have been something he used every day and he was most familiar with it, it could garantee maximum the success. Such a weapon left on the crime scene could revel his identity. On the contrary, if Lizzie did it and then hid it in a very secret place of the house, Lizzie should have been absolutely certain that no one would find it. But how could she be so sure? If the weapon were found, her guilt would be almost prroved, and she, be hung. In my opinion, it's not a good idea for Lizzie to hide the weapon, instead of leaving it there. The weapon's not being found, in any way, should be an evidence in favor of Lizzie's innocence.

3. If Lizzie did it and was there all morning, as you said, why didn't she prepare a good alibi version about what she was doing in the barn? Could we answer this question by saying that Lizzie was not intelligent enough?

4. "Why not leave blood everywhere?" I don't understand well this question neither. Do you mean that if the killer were an intruder, he should, or he must have left blood everywhere? why? why should he or must he have left? A good professional butch would have good skills to avoid the blood's spreading (sorry for my English) when he kills animals (and human beings). Since you believe Lizzie did it, so, by asking this question, do you mean that Lizzie could have not only cleaned her up, but also somehow cleaened up the crime scene? To be honest I dont' understand well. Please give me some further explanations.

4. Lizze said always she was in the barn when her father was being killed. Please prove that Lubinsky's testimony was false (with or without intention). Please prove it. Prove, I am saying prove.

[Franz]

...
And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? ...

As I said before, she could have tried to cover some very very scandalous thing she was doing in the barn (I mean certainly "scandalous" for that time), when questioned by the authority, if she didn't realize that the situation had become very dangerous for her. If she really realized that "her life was on the line", as you said, would she, being innocent or not, throw towards the face of Knowlton something like: "I even don't know what's your name!"? She would have been much much more prudent, in my opinion.

[Aamartin]

...
And you will never convince me that a woman would rather be put in jail for murder than admit she was smoking and drinking in the barn. If this is what she really was doing then why not say so after she was arrested and her life was on the line? ...

As I said before, she could have tried to cover some very very scandalous thing she was doing in the barn (I mean certainly "scandalous" for that time), when questioned by the authority, if she didn't realize that the situation had become very dangerous for her. If she really realized that "her life was on the line", as you said, would she, being innocent or not, throw towards the face of Knowlton something like: "I even don't know what's your name!"? She would have been much much more prudent, in my opinion.

So, at the last minute, if things looked bleak-- she would admit to masturbating in the barn in some Hail Mary attempt to avoid being found guilty?

And IMO that "I don't know your name" was driven by arrogance, not ignorance/stress/drugs

[Allen]

Franz, once her life was on the line why did she stick to an alibi nobody would believe like looking for lead for sinkers instead of just admitting the truth. I'm not talking about that day and at the inquest. I'm talking about after she was arrested and was in jail and knew that telling such a stupid story did not fly. And a hatchet is a hatchet is a hatchet. I don't believe that the killer had some special hatchet that did a better job of chopping than any other hatchet he could have just bought to do the job. That for me makes no sense what so ever. Why did he need a special hatchet Franz? Explain? Did his hatchet chop better than any other? Did it slice and dice and ever make fries? He could have gotten any hatchet to do the same job and then left the weapon behind to point AWAY from the hatchets owned by the family doing the job. Taking the murder weapon with him left the police looking at the hatchets in the house. At the ones owned by the family. Again that doesn't make sense for someone who wanted to keep the police from suspecting any member of the household. Why not leave some man sized footprints around in blood? If the killer (the intruder) in your opinion, wanted to make the scene as gruesome as he possibly could so that nobody would suspect Lizzie why was the scene so CLEAN? No blood everywhere? Nothing disturbed or ransacked? Just blood on the bodies and no weapon left behind. And if Lizzie did do it, and did it alone, she would have had no choice but to hide the weapon in the house. There was no place else she could have hidden it. She couldn't leave the house and come back after discovering the bodies. She had no one to carry it away for her, and the house was being watched by police afterward. So the weapon not being found, if Lizzie did it, could only point to she knew a great place to hide it. I don't need to prove Lubinski's testimony was false Franz. Because they never PROVED that the woman he saw was Lizzie at all. Why do I need to prove testimony false that was never proven in the first place? Explain that?

[Franz]

Franz, once her life was on the line why did she stick to an alibi nobody would believe like looking for lead for sinkers instead of just admitting the truth. I'm not talking about that day and at the inquest. I'm talking about after she was arrested and was in jail and knew that telling such a stupid story did not fly...

You are right Allen. But Lizzie's inquest testimony was judged inadmissible. And I remember I have read somewhere that when Lizzie was told that her testimony would not be intruduced in the trial, she burst into tears. I am not sure if this is true or not, and you could certainly give me more information about it. My point is: when Lizzie knew that her testimony was not admissible, she would not touch any more that subject. It concerned just something that she wanted to cover up (certainly, I am stating my own theory, nothing else.)

By the way, if I am not mistaken, we are not sure if the weapon was a hatchet or something else. This could be the most plausible conjecture, but not accepted as a fact, right?)