Reasonable doubt list

[Franz]

It has been discussed a lot about Lizzie's probable guilt.

Are you interested now to make up a list (most exaustive possible) of the reasonable doubt against Lizzie's guilt? There are many, in my opinion.

[PossumPie]

It has been discussed a lot about Lizzie's probable guilt.

Are you interested now to make up a list (most exaustive possible) of the reasonable doubt against Lizzie's guilt? There are many, in my opinion.

By definition Franz, there WAS reasonable doubt throughout the case, that is why she was found "not guilty" I believe most of us freely admit that there is not enough evidence to convict, and what evidence against Lizzie is circumstantial. She was found not guilty b/c there was no evidence that she had blood on her, there was no evidence of a murder weapon, and there were no witnesses who saw her kill anyone.

[leitskev]

-- no physical evidence linking her to the attack, despite the fact that she sounded the alarm withing minutes, probably between 5 and 10 minutes after Andrew's death.
-- no murder weapon found, despite the fact she didn't leave the property that day, and was closely watched thereafter...and despite at least 2 somewhat rigorous searches.
-- no eyewitness testimony which shows her planning, committing, or cleaning up after the killings. The testimony of the pharmacists is a red herring since no poison was found.
-- contradictory evidence regarding motive.
- most evidence suggests she had a loving relationship with her father, though there is evidence of friction in the household.
- evidence suggests a cool relationship with her mother in law, but there is no evidence of heated arguments or anything which might have predicted violent confrontation. There is, of course, the possible evidence of Lizzie stealing from Abby.
- she did ultimately receive great wealth from the estate. However, it was actually Emma who inherited the entire estate and who was willing to split it with Lizzie.
- all of this suggests possible motivation, but it's hardly decisive.

This is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt with a jury.

The difficulty of pulling off the crime has to be weighed. She butchers Abby, then has to encounter Bridgett over the next hour or so. Was she wearing the same dress? Did Bridgett notice a change? To be honest, I don't recall if Bridgett saw Lizzie before Abby's killing. If so, then did she notice whether Lizzie changed dresses?

Then Lizzie kills Andrew. A different bloody dress? Or did she change back into the first bloody dress, so there was only one?

While many rightfully find it hard to imagine an intruder hanging around quietly after killing Abby and waiting for Andrew, it's also hard to imagine Lizzie, who had never done any violence in her life, hacking to death Abby, and then calmly going about her business that morning, setting up handkerchiefs to iron, and dealing pleasantly with Bridgett; then killing her father in the same way, sounding the alarm, leaving no evidence behind, and keeping herself relatively calm to deal with others.

The combination of a lack of evidence(physical or eyewitness) with the great difficulty in pulling off the killings would be sufficient to establish reasonable doubt with any jury, then or today. Doesn't mean she isn't the most likely suspect, it just means there is reasonable doubt.

[Franz]

Leitskev has listed the major reasonable doubt against “Lizzie’s guilty” theory. I add here some minor ones:

1. If Lizzie was guilty, why didn’t she invent a good alibi testimony and then stick on it?

2. If Lizzie was guilty, why did she invent that stupid note story, which implied not only the physic existence of the note itself, but also the existence of the author and the messenger of the note? Why didn’t she just say that Abby went to the store, or something alike?

3. If Lizzie was guilty, why didn’t she simply drop her criminal weapon near her father’s body, instead of hiding it? No matter how secret could have been her hiding place, she should have known that if by any chance the weapon would be found by the police in a very secret place in the house, her guilt would be almost certainly proved. So why did she run this great risk?

4. If Lizzie was guilty, why didn’t she wait uncle John’s departure, and then kill her parents? How could she know when Morse returned home? Why didn’t she do nothing in order to obtain information about what Morse would do the morning of the August 4th?

5. If Lizzie was guilty, why didn’t she try to accuse someone else for the crime? Instead, she defended Bridget and that old man in the farm. Why?

6. If Lizzie was guilty, why did she leave the guest room door open after her first murder and before her second? Who, among the members of the forum, could do such a thing at the place of Lizzie?

7. If Lizzie was guilty and she killed for money, how could she be so certain that Emma would not suspect her and therefore would not give her nothing? (Leitskev has mentioned this.)

8. If Lizzie was guilty and she never went to the barn, who could have been that woman seen by Lubinsky?

Etc., etc…

[leitskev]

Good questions, Franz. Some things that popped into my head while reading them:

-you mention leaving the hatchet with Andrew. This would have also made sense for an intruder to do, so he wouldn't have had to travel with a bloody hatchet. Unless that was his favorite hatchet, of course!
-why did Bowen burn the notes in the stove? This would be curious in any circumstance, but it's particularly curious when we know that it was Bowen who had taken it upon himself to search for the note to Abby Lizzie claimed to exist. So though he was aware of the importance of the note as evidence, he chose that moment and location to burn his own personal notes. Peculiar.
- Did Emma really encourage Lizzie to burn a dress in the stove? When combined with the convenience that Emma was away and the fact that she split the estate with Lizzie, is there anything interesting in all this?
- Is Uncle Morse's appearance the day before a coincidence? After arriving at Andrew's request, he left the house and traveled out into the suburbs on business. Was he doing some kind of business for Andrew that has never been revealed? And was his exacting alibi during the murders simply part of his odd character?
- why did Lizzie make absolutely no effort to stage a crime scene, or as Franz said, point the finger at others. If Lizzie was a true psychopath, as many suggest, she would feel no remorse at throwing suspicion on someone innocent.

[PossumPie]

Franz,

You are asking why someone unbalanced enough to kill her parents did NOT act in a rational manner? That is like asking why Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris behaved strangely while killing students and teachers at Columbine...They did not act rationally because they WERE NOT rational.

[PossumPie]

Good questions, Franz. Some things that popped into my head while reading them:

-you mention leaving the hatchet with Andrew. This would have also made sense for an intruder to do, so he wouldn't have had to travel with a bloody hatchet. Unless that was his favorite hatchet, of course!
-why did Bowen burn the notes in the stove? This would be curious in any circumstance, but it's particularly curious when we know that it was Bowen who had taken it upon himself to search for the note to Abby Lizzie claimed to exist. So though he was aware of the importance of the note as evidence, he chose that moment and location to burn his own personal notes. Peculiar.
- Did Emma really encourage Lizzie to burn a dress in the stove? When combined with the convenience that Emma was away and the fact that she split the estate with Lizzie, is there anything interesting in all this?
- Is Uncle Morse's appearance the day before a coincidence? After arriving at Andrew's request, he left the house and traveled out into the suburbs on business. Was he doing some kind of business for Andrew that has never been revealed? And was his exacting alibi during the murders simply part of his odd character?
- why did Lizzie make absolutely no effort to stage a crime scene, or as Franz said, point the finger at others. If Lizzie was a true psychopath, as many suggest, she would feel no remorse at throwing suspicion on someone innocent.

The business with Mr. Borden was well known. Mr. Borden specifically asked him to come to discuss hiring a new man to work the farm. Nothing strange about the visit except it was bad timing. Sometimes coincidence is just that. I know a guy who watched the Giants/Broncos game on Monday Night Football on Monday Sept. 10th, 2001. He overslept the next day, was late for work, and arrived at the World Trade Center just as the plane crashed into his floor. If he had been on time, he would be dead. Nothing mysterious, just coincidence.

[Aamartin]

IMO Emma must have encouraged the burning of the dress. Alice was there and she felt compelled to go to the authorities to report the dress burning. I think she would have contradicted Emma's testimony if she lied.

[Franz]

IMO Emma must have encouraged the burning of the dress. Alice was there and she felt compelled to go to the authorities to report the dress burning. I think she would have contradicted Emma's testimony if she lied.

I agree, Aamartin.

[leitskev]

Where did I ask that in the post you are responding to, Possum? Are you referring to my point that Lizzie did not stage a crime scene? Keep in mind that that was just one point on a long list.

You are saying Lizzie was mentally ill. Where is the evidence for that? Is there even one other credible person who is claiming she was "mentally ill"? Did anything in the way she lived before or after suggest she was "mentally ill"? Or is your point that she must have been mentally ill because she killed her parents and did not stage a crime scene? If that's your point...ok, I'll bite. But if that's the case...let's say she experienced something like temporary insanity...and that's why she made no effort to stage a crime scene or try to implicate anyone else...then how did she do such a fantastic job of making the evidence disappear? If she was so mentally ill that she could not think to stage a crime scene, how was she so competent that she could kill Abby, act normally around Bridgett the rest of the morning, then kill Andrew, clean herself up, and hide the weapon so effectively that it was never found...all in 5 to 10 minutes?

And again, I am NOT saying these things are impossible. I merely add them to a list of things about the case that are troubling or unlikely...but not impossible.

Franz, we only know that Morse claimed that was what the note was about. Knowlton read the note, supposedly, but then lost it. Just another strange thing, as it was evidence in a murder case, and Morse strangely wanted the note back because it was the last correspondence from Andrew.

So Morse gets some note about "hiring a man", shows up that afternoon, then runs about on some other errand, only to return very late...around 8 I believe. I am not categorizing this as "suspicious"...merely as curious, something I would like to know more about if I could. When evidence gets lost for any reason, it justifies questions. And also, notes that deal with sensitive matters can be written in a kind of code. For example, picture the Sopranos saying "did you take care of that thing?" because both gangsters know what the thing is, so need to mention it. And before any of the resident experts get in a tizzy, I freely admit I have not read the trial testimony on this, but only the second hand accounts, so I could be screwing something. It's just a discussion.

Aamartin, yes, either the dress really was just a paint damaged one, or it seems likely Emma was somewhat complicit in a coverup.

[PossumPie]

Where did I ask that in the post you are responding to, Possum? Are you referring to my point that Lizzie did not stage a crime scene? Keep in mind that that was just one point on a long list.

You are saying Lizzie was mentally ill. Where is the evidence for that? Is there even one other credible person who is claiming she was "mentally ill"? Did anything in the way she lived before or after suggest she was "mentally ill"? Or is your point that she must have been mentally ill because she killed her parents and did not stage a crime scene? If that's your point...ok, I'll bite. But if that's the case...let's say she experienced something like temporary insanity...and that's why she made no effort to stage a crime scene or try to implicate anyone else...then how did she do such a fantastic job of making the evidence disappear? If she was so mentally ill that she could not think to stage a crime scene, how was she so competent that she could kill Abby, act normally around Bridgett the rest of the morning, then kill Andrew, clean herself up, and hide the weapon so effectively that it was never found...all in 5 to 10 minutes?

And again, I am NOT saying these things are impossible. I merely add them to a list of things about the case that are troubling or unlikely...but not impossible.

Franz, we only know that Morse claimed that was what the note was about. Knowlton read the note, supposedly, but then lost it. Just another strange thing, as it was evidence in a murder case, and Morse strangely wanted the note back because it was the last correspondence from Andrew.

So Morse gets some note about "hiring a man", shows up that afternoon, then runs about on some other errand, only to return very late...around 8 I believe. I am not categorizing this as "suspicious"...merely as curious, something I would like to know more about if I could. When evidence gets lost for any reason, it justifies questions. And also, notes that deal with sensitive matters can be written in a kind of code. For example, picture the Sopranos saying "did you take care of that thing?" because both gangsters know what the thing is, so need to mention it. And before any of the resident experts get in a tizzy, I freely admit I have not read the trial testimony on this, but only the second hand accounts, so I could be screwing something. It's just a discussion.

Aamartin, yes, either the dress really was just a paint damaged one, or it seems likely Emma was somewhat complicit in a coverup.

So Sorry Leitskev, I meant to quote FRANZ's post. He goes on and on about "If Lizzie were guilty, why did she do so many dumb things?" I pointed out that just b/c you commit a horrible crime doesn't mean you will act in a rational manner. I must have hit 'quote' on your reply by accident.

Leitskev, what IS your opinion on who the killer was? I've seen you vehemently argue that the police searched the house well enough that if a weapon were there, it would have been found. You disagree with most evidence pointing to Lizzie's guilt, I've seen you discuss the strange behaviors of Morse, and the reasonable doubt about Lizzie's guilt. Do you have a suspect? I am very willing to concede that Lizzie may not be guilty, for many of the above reasons. I am not as ready to concede Morse was guilty- NOTHING has ever surfaced to show he had anything but a cordial, kind relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Borden, he was a strange man, true, but you can't convict someone on being strange. He gained nothing by killing them, he got no money, property, or anything, We have no testimony at all that he fought or argued with them. He had an air-tight alibi so if he organized the killings, he would have had to have hired someone to do it, now we have another person who knew and never told. I see him as the LEAST likely suspect in this whole affair.

[leitskev]

No problem. I do agree with Franz it is a bit of an issue. Certainly people committing horrible acts do dumb things, that's not the issue. The problem is that on the one hand she does not make any even minimal effort to stage a crime scene or cast suspicion on Morse or Bridgett; now does she get her story straight; while at the same time we are to believe she acted normal after killing Abby, and disposed of all evidence within minutes of killing Andrew. So on the one hand she does not make even crude by easy efforts to help create doubt around her guilt, and yet she seems to have calmly and competently disposed of evidence.

And no one is saying anything is impossible. We're just throwing that out there on the list of peculiar things about the case.

[Franz]

......
I am very willing to concede that Lizzie may not be guilty, for many of the above reasons. I am not as ready to concede Morse was guilty...

So, conceding for a moment that Lizzie was not guilty, could you tell me, PossumPie, whom do you suspect most?

[Franz]

... Franz... you mention leaving the hatchet with Andrew. This would have also made sense for an intruder to do, so he wouldn't have had to travel with a bloody hatchet. Unless that was his favorite hatchet, of course! ...

The killer, if an intruder, could have chosen an instrument to him most familiar, something he used everyday in his professional activities, in order to garantee maximum the success of his killing. Such an instrument could have been not only his favorite object, but also could have betrayed more easily the identity of its owner. My conjecture? -or a woodman and his hatchet, or.. a butcher and his clever.

while escaped, he didn't need to hold his criminal weapon in his hands. He could have put it in a bag, maybe together with his dirty cloth. And a little miror could have ascertained him if there was blood on his face. Indeed, a butcher should have more experience than anyone else to avoid the blood while killing...

[PossumPie]

... Franz... you mention leaving the hatchet with Andrew. This would have also made sense for an intruder to do, so he wouldn't have had to travel with a bloody hatchet. Unless that was his favorite hatchet, of course! ...

The killer, if an intruder, could have chosen an instrument to him most familiar, something he used everyday in his professional activities, in order to garantee maximum the success of his killing. Such an instrument could have been not only his favorite object, but only could have betrayed more easily the identity of its owner. My conjecture? -or a woodman and his hatchet, or.. a butcher and his clever.

while escaped, he didn't need to hold his criminal weapon in his hands. He could have put it in a bag, maybe together with his dirty cloth. And a little miror could have ascertained him if there was blood on his face. Indeed, a butcher should have more experience than anyone else to avoid the blood while killing...

You don't need to be a butcher to know that chopping a person's head open will 1. Bleed and 2. kill them. This wasn't Jack the Ripper expertly cutting out their uterus.

[PossumPie]

......
I am very willing to concede that Lizzie may not be guilty, for many of the above reasons. I am not as ready to concede Morse was guilty...

So, conceding for a moment that Lizzie was not guilty, could you tell me, PossumPie, whom do you suspect most?

A very good question Franz. If it wasn't Lizzie, I believe that it had to have been someone very familiar with the family and routine. Emma may have hired someone to do it, if she told them ahead of time the routine of the household. Her motive-money. If that were true, the killer indeed "lucked out" that Morse was away- Emma had no way of knowing he was visiting. Lizzie could have hired someone to do it also, but that still makes her guilty. Of course, your favorite Morse could have hired someone also, but he had no motive that anyone has ever found.

[Franz]

......
I am very willing to concede that Lizzie may not be guilty, for many of the above reasons. I am not as ready to concede Morse was guilty...

So, conceding for a moment that Lizzie was not guilty, could you tell me, PossumPie, whom do you suspect most?

A very good question Franz. If it wasn't Lizzie, I believe that it had to have been someone very familiar with the family and routine. Emma may have hired someone to do it, if she told them ahead of time the routine of the household. Her motive-money. If that were true, the killer indeed "lucked out" that Morse was away- Emma had no way of knowing he was visiting. Lizzie could have hired someone to do it also, but that still makes her guilty. Of course, your favorite Morse could have hired someone also, but he had no motive that anyone has ever found.

OK. If Emma hired someone to do it, I have at least these two questions:

1. How did the killer know where to go to find his first target --- Abby?

2. How to explain the note story --- Lizzie being innocent, she should have told a true note story ---?

(P.S.: another question: 3. If the guilty was Emma, who had promised to her dying mother to take care of Lizzie, why did she send the hired killer to murder her parents in the house where Lizzie was present? Why didn't Emma try nothing to make her younger sister to leave the house when she planned the murder to be accomplished? Was it so difficult to persuade Lizzie to make that trip together with her? For Bridget? It could have been a matter of que sera sera.)

[Franz]

...
You don't need to be a butcher to know that chopping a person's head open will 1. Bleed and 2. kill them. This wasn't Jack the Ripper expertly cutting out their uterus.

I was not saying that the killer, if an intruder, must have been a butcher. I was just saying that a butcher should have more experience than most of us in killing and avoinding the blood. I am a teacher, my professional instrument is a ... pen? No, we use mostly the computer today. But a butcher's professional instrument is a ... clever. If I murdered someone, I certainly would not leave my computer beside my victim's body, it's something so obvious.

[Aamartin]

In the past, people speculated that an intruder, such as a butcher, etc-- might have entered the guestroom to kill Abby carrying a hatchet or cleaver and she thought nothing of it at first since such men usually carried such instruments. I totally disagree. People don't go around outside of their job carrying the implements they use there--- especially in another person's second floor guestroom

[PossumPie]

In the past, people speculated that an intruder, such as a butcher, etc-- might have entered the guestroom to kill Abby carrying a hatchet or cleaver and she thought nothing of it at first since such men usually carried such instruments. I totally disagree. People don't go around outside of their job carrying the implements they use there--- especially in another person's second floor guestroom

Plus, does anyone really think Mr. and Mrs. Borden pissed off their local butcher that much? "Hey! You Borden's have criticized my Rump Roast for the last time! I'm gonna chop your heads up with my butcher's cleaver!"

[Franz]

In the past, people speculated that an intruder, such as a butcher, etc-- might have entered the guestroom to kill Abby carrying a hatchet or cleaver and she thought nothing of it at first since such men usually carried such instruments. I totally disagree. People don't go around outside of their job carrying the implements they use there--- especially in another person's second floor guestroom

Me too, I totally disagree.

[FactFinder]

Quick question. I am wondering where the information came from that Emma inherited the whole of the estate and shared it with Lizzie. My understanding of Massachusetts laws as I have researched them is that if Andrew died intestate (without a will) , and he died first, the estate would have been divided into equal thirds for Abby, Emma, and Lizzie. Since Abby died first the estate was divided into equal shares for Andrew's heirs, Emma and Lizzie. Unless Lizzie would have been found guilty of the murders and with a guilty finding would have been automatically legally disinherited because one cannot profit from committing a crime of murder. Emma was appointed administratrix of the estate because someone has to be appointed an administrator even without a will being drawn up. Someone has to testify as to the holdings and assets of the deceased. Which Emma and Lizzie both attested to in writing before the estate was divided up.

[Curryong]

Yes, I wondered that, too. Sources please! More particularly, if this was correct under Massachusetts state law, would Miss Lizzie have (a) known it and (b) taken the risks that she did, always supposing that she committed the murders, of course?

[Mara]

Emma wasn't the sole heir. She was named the executor of Andrew Borden's estate.