Starting from scratch

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:20 am

Having recently re-read the witness statements, the transcripts, and many helpful posts from the members of this forum, I have finally formulated my complete theory of the case. My theory is about why, not so much how, Lizzie committed the homicides. I hope that many of you will pick holes in it, so that I can "stay on my toes". Here, as briefly as I can state it, is my theory:

I believe that in the years after Andrew married Abby, Lizzie slowly developed a burning hatred and bitterness against her stepmother. Emma may have shared her sister's attitude, but I think it was Lizzie who allowed her hatred to become pathological. Lizzie, I think, felt that Abby had usurped Emma's role as "lady of the house", and had "stolen" their father's affection. Lizzie also became concerned that Abby would outlive Andrew, and would inherit his money, thus putting Lizzie and Emma at her mercy. Emma may have shared Lizzie's anxiety, but it was the younger sister who found this scenario frightening and intolerable.

Lizzie continued to brood over a long period, and I think that in the weeks leading up to the murders, Lizzie subconsciously knew that she would eventually kill Abby. Her motives were a pathological hatred for Abby, and a desire to secure her own and Emma's inheritance. I think that Lizzie finally decided that she had to act, and she set the stage with her "father has enemies" speech to Alice Russell. I believe that at this point, Lizzie only planned to kill Abby. She mentioned her father being in danger, as well as making reference to someone burning the house down around "our" heads. Note that she did not specifically mention Abby as a potential victim. I think she was just planting the idea that some act of unspeakable violence might be perpetrated.

On the day of the murders, she waited for an opportune moment, and soon found it. Morse had left the house, her father was out, and Maggie was working outside on the windows. Alone with Abby inside the house, Lizzie struck. But she had not fully thought out the consequences of her act. Would she let her father discover Abby's body? Would she go upstairs after her father came home and "raise the alarm" herself? I think during the period between Abby's murder and her father returning home, Lizzie came to an impulsive decision: she must kill her father, too. Why? Because he might not believe that an intruder had killed his wife. He might, in fact he probably, would immediately suspect Lizzie. Suppose he did suspect her, and told the police of his suspicion? And even if he suspected her, but did not confide in the police, he might still change the terms of his will, and Abby's murder would have been for nothing.

I believe these are the panicked thoughts that went through Lizzie's mind as she awaited her father's return to the house. And it was these concerns that made Lizzie realize that her work was only half done. She killed Abby primarily out of hatred. But she killed Andrew out of sheer panic at the thought of losing his money and property after all.

Ok, I'm done.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:30 am

Darrowfan wrote:Having recently re-read the witness statements, the transcripts, and many helpful posts from the members of this forum, I have finally formulated my complete theory of the case. My theory is about why, not so much how, Lizzie committed the homicides. I hope that many of you will pick holes in it, so that I can "stay on my toes". Here, as briefly as I can state it, is my theory:

I believe that in the years after Andrew married Abby, Lizzie slowly developed a burning hatred and bitterness against her stepmother. Emma may have shared her sister's attitude, but I think it was Lizzie who allowed her hatred to become pathological. Lizzie, I think, felt that Abby had usurped Emma's role as "lady of the house", and had "stolen" their father's affection. Lizzie also became concerned that Abby would outlive Andrew, and would inherit his money, thus putting Lizzie and Emma at her mercy. Emma may have shared Lizzie's anxiety, but it was the younger sister who found this scenario frightening and intolerable.

Lizzie continued to brood over a long period, and I think that in the weeks leading up to the murders, Lizzie subconsciously knew that she would eventually kill Abby. Her motives were a pathological hatred for Abby, and a desire to secure her own and Emma's inheritance. I think that Lizzie finally decided that she had to act, and she set the stage with her "father has enemies" speech to Alice Russell. I believe that at this point, Lizzie only planned to kill Abby. She mentioned her father being in danger, as well as making reference to someone burning the house down around "our" heads. Note that she did not specifically mention Abby as a potential victim. I think she was just planting the idea that some act of unspeakable violence might be perpetrated.

On the day of the murders, she waited for an opportune moment, and soon found it. Morse had left the house, her father was out, and Maggie was working outside on the windows. Alone with Abby inside the house, Lizzie struck. But she had not fully thought out the consequences of her act. Would she let her father discover Abby's body? Would she go upstairs after her father came home and "raise the alarm" herself? I think during the period between Abby's murder and her father returning home, Lizzie came to an impulsive decision: she must kill her father, too. Why? Because he might not believe that an intruder had killed his wife. He might, in fact he probably, would immediately suspect Lizzie. Suppose he did suspect her, and told the police of his suspicion? And even if he suspected her, but did not confide in the police, he might still change the terms of his will, and Abby's murder would have been for nothing.

I believe these are the panicked thoughts that went through Lizzie's mind as she awaited her father's return to the house. And it was these concerns that made Lizzie realize that her work was only half done. She killed Abby primarily out of hatred. But she killed Andrew out of sheer panic at the thought of losing his money and property after all.

Ok, I'm done.

Darrowfan, your theories are well thought out, well presented, and make a lot of sense given what is known. I agree with 99% of what you said. My only serious questions are, with Lizzie being so young at the time Andrew and Abby married, if she would have remembered Emma as ever being "the lady of the house "? And I think that Emma may have influenced Lizzie a great deal when it came to Abby. Emma was old enough to remember her mother, and old enough to think of Abby as an unwanted intruder into their little family.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:34 am

I think you have summed it all up beautifully. I too think that Lizzie came quite late to the realisation that Andrew had to be killed, too, both for materialistic reasons, greed, a great deal of money to do with as she wished, and the knowledge that her father knew her very well. He would, I believe, have come to the realisation quite soon that the hatred Lizzie felt for Abby had turned into something monstrous. I think he would have forced her to live elsewhere at the very least, perhaps he might even have tried to have her committed to an asylum. Certainly she wouldn't have inherited any of his money. So he had to go.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:02 am

[quote="FactFinder
Darrowfan, your theories are well thought out, well presented, and make a lot of sense given what is known. I agree with 99% of what you said. My only serious questions are, with Lizzie being so young at the time Andrew and Abby married, if she would have remembered Emma as ever being "the lady of the house "? And I think that Emma may have influenced Lizzie a great deal when it came to Abby. Emma was old enough to remember her mother, and old enough to think of Abby as an unwanted intruder into their little family.[/quote]

You raise a good point, FactFinder. You are probably right that Lizzie would not have "remembered" Emma having the dominant female role in the household, but she probably felt that "lady of the house" was Emma's rightful place. I agree with your point that Emma probably influenced Lizzie to a great extent. She may have even spoken to Lizzie about "how things used to be" before Abby entered the household.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:06 am

Curryong wrote:I think you have summed it all up beautifully. I too think that Lizzie came quite late to the realisation that Andrew had to be killed, too, both for materialistic reasons, greed, a great deal of money to do with as she wished, and the knowledge that her father knew her very well. He would, I believe, have come to the realisation quite soon that the hatred Lizzie felt for Abby had turned into something monstrous. I think he would have forced her to live elsewhere at the very least, perhaps he might even have tried to have her committed to an asylum. Certainly she wouldn't have inherited any of his money. So he had to go.

Thanks, Curryong. I have long felt that in the planning stages, Lizzie didn't think much beyond getting rid of the hated stepmother. Then, once the deed was done, Lizzie had a sudden "oh, wait a minute" revelation. I think this is how real people react when they have done something seriously wrong, something they planned in advance, without thinking it through completely.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:24 am

Darrowfan wrote:
Curryong wrote:I think you have summed it all up beautifully. I too think that Lizzie came quite late to the realisation that Andrew had to be killed, too, both for materialistic reasons, greed, a great deal of money to do with as she wished, and the knowledge that her father knew her very well. He would, I believe, have come to the realisation quite soon that the hatred Lizzie felt for Abby had turned into something monstrous. I think he would have forced her to live elsewhere at the very least, perhaps he might even have tried to have her committed to an asylum. Certainly she wouldn't have inherited any of his money. So he had to go.
Thanks, Curryong. I have long felt that in the planning stages, Lizzie didn't think much beyond getting rid of the hated stepmother. Then, once the deed was done, Lizzie had a sudden "oh, wait a minute" revelation. I think this is how real people react when they have done something seriously wrong, something they planned in advance, without thinking it through completely.

I totally agree. I think Lizzie had plenty of time living in that house, with her hatred growing, to fantasize about ways to kill Abby and possibly Andrew. I think she might have tried the poison. I think she went over different scenarios's in her head. She knew the layout of the house well. She knew their habits and schedules. But I don't think she did much planning past doing the actual deed when it came down to having an alibi to cover her tracks. I agree with your assessment of her reaction to having committed the deed without having thought out every detail beforehand. Lizzie had hit the point of no return by killing Abby, but was still flying by the seat of her pants when it came to a few of the details.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:37 am

FactFinder wrote: I totally agree. I think Lizzie had plenty of time living in that house, with her hatred growing, to fantasize about ways to kill Abby and possibly Andrew. I think she might have tried the poison. I think she went over different scenarios's in her head. She knew the layout of the house well. She knew their habits and schedules. But I don't think she did much planning past doing the actual deed when it came down to having an alibi to cover her tracks. I agree with your assessment of her reaction to having committed the deed without having thought out every detail beforehand. Lizzie had hit the point of no return by killing Abby, but was still flying by the seat of her pants when it came to a few of the details.

I think you're right, FactFinder. Many people believe that Lizzie planned out both murders in advance, but that has always seemed unlikely to me. I think she was going through too much emotional upheaval (anger and hatred, coupled with her fear of being caught) to think clearly.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:00 am

I think Emma fostered the Abby hate, especially after Andrew helped her family out by buying a house so they wouldn't be evicted. I also think that IF she did try the poison route, Andrew was an intended victim all along.
I wonder if John Morse's appearance did anything to move things along at a 'faster pace', ie- going from poison to whatever she could think of... No firearms in the house-- so a hatchet.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:12 am

Aamartin wrote:I think Emma fostered the Abby hate, especially after Andrew helped her family out by buying a house so they wouldn't be evicted. I also think that IF she did try the poison route, Andrew was an intended victim all along.
I wonder if John Morse's appearance did anything to move things along at a 'faster pace', ie- going from poison to whatever she could think of... No firearms in the house-- so a hatchet.

Good point about Emma fostering the hatred, Aamartin. But I have always felt there is scant evidence that Lizzie tried to poison anyone. No evidence was found in the victims' remains, and as far as I know, no poison of any kind was found in the house after the murders. Mr. Bence's story might have been dramatic, but I don't find it very persuasive, as he could have been mistaken about who tried to buy it, etc.

In short, the idea of Lizzie (or even Emma) trying to poison someone just "doesn't fit" the facts as I understand them.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:46 pm

I think Lizzie mentioned someone burning down the house because that was her intent to do just that. She tried hard to get Bridget to go to the store to buy some yard goods. I think she intended then to torch the place. I would love to know if down in the basement there was a can of paraffin lamp oil or coal oil just waiting. Bridget was sick, went upstairs, so no fire...

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:27 pm

PossumPie wrote:I think Lizzie mentioned someone burning down the house because that was her intent to do just that. She tried hard to get Bridget to go to the store to buy some yard goods. I think she intended then to torch the place. I would love to know if down in the basement there was a can of paraffin lamp oil or coal oil just waiting. Bridget was sick, went upstairs, so no fire...

That's a possibility I had never considered, PossumPie. I don't think she would have been quite that foolish, though. If she had done that, the police would have become aware that she mentioned that possibility to her friend only the night before. You could see how the interrogation would have gone:

Policeman: Miss Lizzie, your friend Alice says that last night, you said you were afraid the house would be burned down. Today, it was in fact burned down. Do you know who did it?

Lizzie: No, I have no idea.

Policeman: Then how did you know the house was going to be burned down? If you felt that the house was going to be torched, then you must have had someone in mind that was going to do it.

Lizzie: Oh, no. I just mentioned it as a possibility.

Policeman: So, you mention as a random possibility that the house might be burned down, and the very next day, it happens. That's quite a coincidence.

Lizzie: Isn't it, though?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:43 pm

She could have thought of doing that in her euphoric state after murdering her hated stepmother, all the same. My only objection to it after the two murders is poor old Bridget stuck up in her third storey bedroom would be in danger of being trapped. If Lizzie called her down to send her off on an errand the maid would surely have wondered about all the paraffin oil fumes! I'm afraid a 'covering' fire wouldn't have worked in such a busy street and neighbouring houses very near. Somebody would be off calling the fire brigade as soon as they smelled the smoke. Where was the fire station located in Fall River anyway?
Why didn't Lizzie save herself the hassle of murder and burn the house down one night years before? Andrew would have been forced to build a spanking new house with WCs,' running water and at least one bathroom, and move his family into a more modern dwelling while he was doing it. At least one of Lizzie's frustrations solved!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:59 pm

Darrowfan wrote: That's a possibility I had never considered, PossumPie. I don't think she would have been quite that foolish, though. If she had done that, the police would have become aware that she mentioned that possibility to her friend only the night before. You could see how the interrogation would have gone:

Policeman: Miss Lizzie, your friend Alice says that last night, you said you were afraid the house would be burned down. Today, it was in fact burned down. Do you know who did it?

Lizzie: No, I have no idea.

Policeman: Then how did you know the house was going to be burned down? If you felt that the house was going to be torched, then you must have had someone in mind that was going to do it.

Lizzie: Oh, no. I just mentioned it as a possibility.

Policeman: So, you mention as a random possibility that the house might be burned down, and the very next day, it happens. That's quite a coincidence.

Lizzie: Isn't it, though?

Perhaps...but we see her setting up the murders on several occasions, telling people she was afraid someone would poison the family, then inquiring about poison, and telling people that she was afraid people were out to get Mr. Borden, and that she was afraid they would set the house on fire...Boom. The house burns down with the bodies in it. She says "See someone was out to get us! I don't think she was as smart as we sometimes give her credit for. Heck, she said she was afraid someone would murder them, and it happened. Sure she was a suspect, but ultimately let off.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:07 am

Darrowfan:

I agree with everything you wrote...keep going! What did she do to clean herself up in the 10-20 minute period between when Andrew came home, saw Bridgette, then ended up hacked up? That's the always been the $64,000 question in this case. How could she have looked so 'spotless.' (didn't one of the witness describe her hands as "lily-white""?) in such a short amount of time....

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:15 am

I am not sure she HATED anyone. I keep wondering psychologically if Allan (back a few months ago) wasn't on target with her sociopath idea. I don't believe Lizzie hated, but more coldly decided that she wanted more money, a bigger house, finer things, and finally thought "Father is going to die first, he's oldest, and that woman will get everything. I think it was a 'chess move' to kill Abby, then Andrew, and the small details were fixed later...

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:18 am

NancyDrew wrote:Darrowfan:

I agree with everything you wrote...keep going! What did she do to clean herself up in the 10-20 minute period between when Andrew came home, saw Bridgette, then ended up hacked up? That's the always been the $64,000 question in this case. How could she have looked so 'spotless.' (didn't one of the witness describe her hands as "lily-white""?) in such a short amount of time....

One of the "trump cards" here is the menstrual bucket. Any rag used to clean blood from anywhere could be dumped in that bloody water with the other rags, and nothing would be said.
Fresh blood on clothes comes out relatively easily in cold water. Hot water will make it set and stain, but cold water on the few spots of blood on a dress would come right out.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:28 am

Would her hands have been so terribly splattered anyway? Surely nothing that a nail brush and soap and water wouldn't sort out. Maybe she even wore gloves to bump Andrew off. They could be easily disposed of. (Though I don't think they would be necessary.)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:44 am

NancyDrew, I am convinced that Allen's suggestion from ages ago that Lizzie may have worn Andrew's coat while murdering him, putting it on backwards and then folding it under his bloodied head afterwards, is a correct one. I've experimented with that myself in a relative's overcoat and it can be done. Remember, Lizzie was much shorter than her father and his overcoat could have well covered her down to the hem of her dress. The end of the couch would have deflected much of the splatter. If she got any blood spotting on her boots one of her damp hankies could be used to wipe them off and then the hankie could have gone in the kitchen stove.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:38 am

NancyDrew wrote:Darrowfan:

I agree with everything you wrote...keep going! What did she do to clean herself up in the 10-20 minute period between when Andrew came home, saw Bridgette, then ended up hacked up? That's the always been the $64,000 question in this case. How could she have looked so 'spotless.' (didn't one of the witness describe her hands as "lily-white""?) in such a short amount of time....

NancyDrew, you've got me there. That is the question that has always troubled me. As I said on another thread, I'm convinced Lizzie did the deed, but then, as you ask, how could she have been free from blood on her person or on her clothes? I don't see how she had enough time to clean up between killing Andrew and crying out to Maggie. I suppose it's possible that by some quirk of fate, she simply didn't get any blood on herself. That seems unlikely though. The only other possibility is that the witnesses who saw her shortly after the killings either a) lied about whether she had blood on her or b) simply didn't notice a small amount of blood on her. Of course, there are problems with both those possibilities.

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:45 am

PossumPie wrote:I am not sure she HATED anyone. I keep wondering psychologically if Allan (back a few months ago) wasn't on target with her sociopath idea. I don't believe Lizzie hated, but more coldly decided that she wanted more money, a bigger house, finer things, and finally thought "Father is going to die first, he's oldest, and that woman will get everything. I think it was a 'chess move' to kill Abby, then Andrew, and the small details were fixed later...

Interesting possibility, Possum. What makes me lean toward the "hatred for Abby" idea is that fact that Lizzie was on record criticizing Abby, calling her a "mean old thing", etc. That indicates to me that her hostility toward Abby was close to the surface, and frequently on her mind, thus, a probable motive.

I also suspect that the reason she sometimes skipped meals with the family was that she disliked Abby so much she didn't want to be around her any more than she had too. That may also explain the fact that when she got home on the night before the murders, she didn't even bother to say "hi" to her visiting uncle. I don't think it was John or her father that Lizzie was avoiding, but Abby.

Also, her odd remark that "I'm away so much myself" may have meant that she left the house whenever she could in order to be away from Abby.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:40 pm

Curryong wrote:She could have thought of doing that in her euphoric state after murdering her hated stepmother, all the same. My only objection to it after the two murders is poor old Bridget stuck up in her third storey bedroom would be in danger of being trapped. If Lizzie called her down to send her off on an errand the maid would surely have wondered about all the paraffin oil fumes! I'm afraid a 'covering' fire wouldn't have worked in such a busy street and neighbouring houses very near. Somebody would be off calling the fire brigade as soon as they smelled the smoke. Where was the fire station located in Fall River anyway?
Why didn't Lizzie save herself the hassle of murder and burn the house down one night years before? Andrew would have been forced to build a spanking new house with WCs,' running water and at least one bathroom, and move his family into a more modern dwelling while he was doing it. At least one of Lizzie's frustrations solved!

I agree Curryong. I don't think the house would have had time to burn. There were too many witnesses, and telephones within walking distance, to call in the fire department. If they could telephone the police from a local shop, the fire department would have been called in as well. I am one who believes Lizzie was craftier than everyone gives her credit for. I think she set up the fact that Andrew had enemies as a prelude to murder. But I don't think she would have been dull enough to say she thought the house would be burned down and then actually burn it down. There is coincidence, and then there is...not coincidence. After all if she did it she got away with it and without a hint of blood on her person, no weapon found, and no witnesses.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:44 pm

Curryong wrote:NancyDrew, I am convinced that Allen's suggestion from ages ago that Lizzie may have worn Andrew's coat while murdering him, putting it on backwards and then folding it under his bloodied head afterwards, is a correct one. I've experimented with that myself in a relative's overcoat and it can be done. Remember, Lizzie was much shorter than her father and his overcoat could have well covered her down to the hem of her dress. The end of the couch would have deflected much of the splatter. If she got any blood spotting on her boots one of her damp hankies could be used to wipe them off and then the hankie could have gone in the kitchen stove.

I think this is an extremely plausible theory. After using it to cover herself, she could have shoved it under Andrew's head, and it would have become covered with blood from Andrew's wounds anyway. Cleaning up her hands and face just required a quick wipe. I would like to know more about the experiments you've conducted.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:54 pm

The experiment was some time ago when I first read about the theory in earlier posts. I am 5 feet one inch, so smaller than Lizzie, who was I believe 5ft 4 inches, and quite obviously I wasn't wearing clothes of the 1890's. I don't know how long Andrew's Prince Albert overcoat was. Nevertheless, I borrowed a relative's overcoat that was pretty long, and a nephew's tomahawk. A friend lay on a chaise lounge in lieu of a Victorian couch. I obviously didn't go so far as to murder her, but nevertheless the overcoat covered me completely, (its owner is 6ft, don't know Andrew's height) down to my boots. It did slip a bit due to the gap at the back after a few strokes but I managed to button it and stop that. (If a Prince Albert is waisted it might be different.) Also the puffed sleeves on women's gowns in the 1890's might make for a problem putting the sleeves of the overcoat on. Nevertheless, it was do-able and the high end of the chaise lounge also offered protection. I soaked the tomahawk in water, prior, ( very unscientific) and the majority of the liquid went on the chaise lounge and a bit splashed on the wall! So, I remain as convinced that Lizzie could have done it that way.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:18 am

Thank God I'm not the only one conducting experiments. I rubbed my own blood (from a prick on my finger using a sterile lancet) into my medium brown hair. You couldn't see it AT ALL. IN other news, my family officially thinks I'm nuts. (I believe someone else on here did this too.)

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:45 am

I love the passion everyone has! Back perhaps as far as early Autumn I did some research on the web. I finally found a pic that I posted here of a CSI wearing a white jumpsuit. She had a forensic head full of forensic blood. NOW...she was bludgeoning it with a dull hammer not a sharp hatchet, so there would have been LESS BLOOD splatter and more blood pooling with a sharp hatchet. ...I posted a picture. The woman was surprisingly free from blood. There was cast-off spatter on her wrist and some high velocity splatter on her legs, and blood on the floors and walls, but as I've said over and over again, It's not the Texas Chainsaw Massacre buckets of blood all over thing you see in Hollywood. I'll try to find that picture again. As an Aside something else has bothered me in the back of my mind, The only blood found on Lizzie was a spot the size and shape of a pin head on her petticoat hem. IMO this could NOT have been from menses. Forensically the smaller the spot the HIGHER the velocity of blood. A gunshot to the head will produce very small spray b/c the bullet is going so fast. A punch to the nose produces larger drops, and a dripping of blood from gravity produces very large drops. To get a pin head sized drop on her petticoat, there had to be a spray from a high velocity of blood, like a hatchet blow. I will go so far as to say I can think of no instance which would cause menstruation to produce such a small drip. This is because blood is viscus (thick) and tends to stick together unless moving very fast.

Found it !!!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:56 am

What do you think PossumPie, about the theory of Andrew's coat? It would have caught much of the splatter on wrist and hem and could then have been rolled up under Andrew's head.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:42 am

Going back to the first premise of this thread, the WHY of why Lizzie killed, she seems to have been extra restless and unhappy in the two weeks prior to the murders. Perhaps she became upset/alarmed about the Swansea property, which she may have feared was going to be left elsewhere or sold to John Morse.
She certainly did a lot of travelling.
Lizzie seems to have spent some days with Emma. They left Fall River on Thursday 21st July together for New Bedford, with Emma then going on to Fairhaven.
Lizzie then spends only one day with her friends in Marion. Emma had been worried enough about her sister to discuss plans with Alice Russell, and probably wanted her to stay with her friends.
Lizzie then goes to Westport and travels back to Fall River were she spends about three days in a boarding house in Madison St Fall River, avoiding Andrew and Abby like the plague, from the 27th to Saturday 30th.
She joins her friends for part of Saturday the 30th, in Marion, but self-confessedly is abstracted, can't join in the jokes and fun.
So she returns home to Second St in Fall River and in the subsequent five days we get Abby and Andrew's stomach upsets, a possible attempt on Lizzie's part to buy Prussic acid, Abby's panicked visit to Dr Bowen, John Morse's visit, Lizzie's doom-filled conversation with Alice Russell, and then the murders. Did Lizzie, on those days away, finally decide that she had to do something desperate, or did John Morse's visit merely spur things along?

Darrowfan · Post by **Darrowfan** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:37 am

Curryong wrote:Going back to the first premise of this thread, the WHY of why Lizzie killed, she seems to have been extra restless and unhappy in the two weeks prior to the murders. Perhaps she became upset/alarmed about the Swansea property, which she may have feared was going to be left elsewhere or sold to John Morse.
She certainly did a lot of travelling.
Lizzie seems to have spent some days with Emma. They left Fall River on Thursday 21st July together for New Bedford, with Emma then going on to Fairhaven.
Lizzie then spends only one day with her friends in Marion. Emma had been worried enough about her sister to discuss plans with Alice Russell, and probably wanted her to stay with her friends.
Lizzie then goes to Westport and travels back to Fall River were she spends about three days in a boarding house in Madison St Fall River, avoiding Andrew and Abby like the plague, from the 27th to Saturday 30th.
She joins her friends for part of Saturday the 30th, in Marion, but self-confessedly is abstracted, can't join in the jokes and fun.
So she returns home to Second St in Fall River and in the subsequent five days we get Abby and Andrew's stomach upsets, a possible attempt on Lizzie's part to buy Prussic acid, Abby's panicked visit to Dr Bowen, John Morse's visit, Lizzie's doom-filled conversation with Alice Russell, and then the murders. Did Lizzie, on those days away, finally decide that she had to do something desperate, or did John Morse's visit merely spur things along?

Very interesting, Curryong. I admit I have not studied Lizzie's movements and attitude in the days leading up to the killings. From your narrative, I get the idea that Lizzie was quite nervous and somewhat restless, perhaps even agitated. I think Morse's visit was just incidental. As you suggest, Lizzie may have finally decided that it was time to act.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:48 am

Curryong wrote:What do you think PossumPie, about the theory of Andrew's coat? It would have caught much of the splatter on wrist and hem and could then have been rolled up under Andrew's head.

I always loved Allen's coat hypothesis. Backwards would have covered Lizzie's dress and legs, and any blood would not have been suspicious b/c she rolled it up under his head. I didn't know the guy,

but Andrew doesn't seem like the kind of man to use his coat for a pillow.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:47 am

Why did Lizzie spend 3 days in a boarding house? What did she do while she was there? Do we know if the police interviewed anyone there?

Could she have been planning the murders then? Buying or shoplifting the hatchet?

BTW, PossumPie, as a woman who mensturated for 35 years, I completely agree with you about the pin-head size drop of blood found on Lizzie's skirt.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:07 am

NancyDrew wrote:Why did Lizzie spend 3 days in a boarding house? What did she do while she was there? Do we know if the police interviewed anyone there?

Could she have been planning the murders then? Buying or shoplifting the hatchet?

BTW, PossumPie, as a woman who mensturated for 35 years, I completely agree with you about the pin-head size drop of blood found on Lizzie's skirt.

That was a "DUH" moment for me. I understand blood drop patterns. Not from CSI on TV, but by long experience as a nurse. I changed bandages, saw arterial blood spray across a room onto a wall, Saw gravity drops fall and velocity spatter from sneezing nose bleeds. As you said Nancy Drew, a pin-head sized blood drop is impossible from a menstrual drip. Not to get overly graphic, but menses is mucus, uterine lining tissue, and blood. It is viscous and will not form such a small drip unless propelled at a high velocity (speed). Unfortunately back then just the mention of menstruation, and further questions were not asked. A shame, the prosecution could have proven that it had to have come from a high speed impact with that fabric but chose to be "discreet"

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:21 am

Would they have known about blood splatter patterns, high speed impacts etc in those days PossumPie? I'm not saying they wouldn't have, and of course they were able to point out that the pinpoint of blood on Lizzie's petticoat was on the wrong side of the material to be menstrual blood. I just don't know if they were that advanced. Now, if the murder had happened nowadays.....!

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:54 am

Another woman chiming in on the idiocy of a tiny pinprick of blood being menstrual in origin. Nope.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:09 pm

Curryong wrote:Would they have known about blood splatter patterns, high speed impacts etc in those days PossumPie? I'm not saying they wouldn't have, and of course they were able to point out that the pinpoint of blood on Lizzie's petticoat was on the wrong side of the material to be menstrual blood. I just don't know if they were that advanced. Now, if the murder had happened nowadays.....!

There is actually some very interesting testimony at trial about the spatter and directions of the patterns of the blood. I believe the doctor was able to form an opinion as to where the killer may have stood when he struck Andrew based on the patterns of blood on the walls and ceiling. I was surprised when I came across this in testimony many years ago. I didn't think they had any idea about such things then. I agree about the blood on the skirt not being menstrual blood. I had no idea how they tested blood to see if it was human or not until I read the trial testimony.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:32 pm

I believe it was clearly understood how to show directionality and velocity of blood spatter even back then. Whether or not it was utilized is a different matter. Police came across suicides where a gun was put in a mouth and fired. They observed that the 'tails' of the spatter showed what direction the blood was traveling, hence where it originated. Investigators knew that large gravitational drops like from a bloody nose, or a drip from a menstrual rag would be large, and a velocity splatter from a nose-bleed sneeze or a gun shot wound, or a sharp force trauma would contain very small drops. Next warm day, give your neighbors something to gossip about. Take some Catsup and a white paper. drip a few drops from your hand or mouth and let them fall on the paper on the ground. They will be about 1 cm diameter. NOW, put some catsup in your mouth close your lips and spew it out vertically at the paper. you will see some medium sized drops, and many many very small High velocity drips...some with 'tails showing which direction you spit from...LOL the neighbors will love your little experiment. I just don't see any way possible to get a menstrual drop of blood the size of a pin head...there is no velocity to menses...speaking as a male nurse of course!!

I stained some trim for my family room last year, in my garage on saw horses. I couldn't resist...when I was done I took the brush with dark stain on it. and swung it several times like I was attacking someone with a hatchet. The wall in the garage still has a beautiful example of high velocity cast off spatter with directional tails. I can even see right where I was standing and which direction I was swinging the hatchet/paintbrush. I told my wife it was all in the name of science, and it was just the drywall inside the garage, not like anyone will see it...

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:32 pm

I don't believe the blood was menstrual in origin. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it wasn't possible. Is everyone assuming that the blood droplet would be formed as the blood exited the body? Not brushed onto the material from some other surface? Or a splash from a menstrual napkin landing in a pail? The information about the size and the fact of it coming from the outside of the material, doesn't necessarily have to indicate high velocity spatter of some kind.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:28 pm

NancyDrew, a quick reply about the boarding house in Fall River which I should have answered before. No-one knows what Lizzie was doing in the boarding house. The police tracked her movements at that time and inquired in Fall River stores as to her purchases. I believe an early report had her visiting another pharmacy asking about poisons but it never came to anything, and I could be wrong about the timing. The invalid sister of an old schoolmate lived in the same street as the boarding house, but whether Lizzie visited her, attended to Church duties, did some shopping, or merely sat and brooded in her room, who can tell!

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:01 pm

Curryong wrote:Going back to the first premise of this thread, the WHY of why Lizzie killed, she seems to have been extra restless and unhappy in the two weeks prior to the murders. Perhaps she became upset/alarmed about the Swansea property, which she may have feared was going to be left elsewhere or sold to John Morse.
She certainly did a lot of travelling.
Lizzie seems to have spent some days with Emma. They left Fall River on Thursday 21st July together for New Bedford, with Emma then going on to Fairhaven.
Lizzie then spends only one day with her friends in Marion. Emma had been worried enough about her sister to discuss plans with Alice Russell, and probably wanted her to stay with her friends.
Lizzie then goes to Westport and travels back to Fall River were she spends about three days in a boarding house in Madison St Fall River, avoiding Andrew and Abby like the plague, from the 27th to Saturday 30th.
She joins her friends for part of Saturday the 30th, in Marion, but self-confessedly is abstracted, can't join in the jokes and fun.
So she returns home to Second St in Fall River and in the subsequent five days we get Abby and Andrew's stomach upsets, a possible attempt on Lizzie's part to buy Prussic acid, Abby's panicked visit to Dr Bowen, John Morse's visit, Lizzie's doom-filled conversation with Alice Russell, and then the murders. Did Lizzie, on those days away, finally decide that she had to do something desperate, or did John Morse's visit merely spur things along?

Curryong, I don't believe that Lizzie spent any time at a boarding house in Fall River. I have never seen that information anywhere before. Unless you meant New Bedford? I've found no mention of a stay in a boarding house, only her stay with the Poole's in New Bedford which I believe was on Madison Street. So this is why I thought you meant to say New Bedford and not Fall River.

The Witness Statements page 31 William H. Medley's notes:

Fall River August 5, 1892.
In accordance with instructions, I visited New Bedford. I find that Lizzie Borden arrived in that city on Thursday July 21st, and went to Mrs. Poole’s, the mother of a friend, a former schoolmate, living near South Water street. While there she never went out alone, always going in the company of the family, with one exception, that being Saturday morning July 23, when she went on the street to buy a piece of dress goods of some cheap material, being gone about one and 30 minutes. She went alone and returned alone. No one called to see her while here. She never made mention of her family affairs. On Tuesday Lizzie, Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Poole’s daughter went to ride to Westport to see Mrs. Poole’s daughter who was a schoolmate of Lizzie’s, and who is now married to Cyrus W. Tripp. They spent the day there, leaving time enough for Lizzie to connect with train at New Bedford for Fall River. That was the last time the Pooles saw her. While at Westport, Lizzie saw no one outside of the family. Made this visit to New Bedford August 7.

Fall River, August 8, 1892.
Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. “Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father. But she must have influence with my father, or he never would have given my stepmother’s half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father’s death. This conversation took place at different times during former visits; nothing being said during her visit July 26th.

Trial testimony of Emma Borden page 1550-1551:

Q. That is she went to New Bedford the same day you went to Fairhaven?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. To make a visit in New Bedford?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. She did not go to Fairhaven to visit?
A. No, sir.

Q. She was in New Bedford visiting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long did she remain in New Bedford?
A. Until the following Tuesday.

Q. This is, from Thursday until Tuesday?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. During that time, do you know, did she go to Marion?
A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. What day was that?
A. It must have been a week from the following Saturday. We went to New Bedford Thursday.

Q. The Saturday before you came back home?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see her on the way to or from Marion?
A. No, sir.

Q. That is something she told you, I suppose?
A. That is all.

Q. And she told you that she simply spent the day there?
A. Yes, sir.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:05 pm

I'm sure I've read it somewhere! Have to check it!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:10 pm

Mea Culpa! It was at 20 Madison St NEW BEDFORD. What a stupid mistake.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:11 pm

Curryong wrote:NancyDrew, I am convinced that Allen's suggestion from ages ago that Lizzie may have worn Andrew's coat while murdering him, putting it on backwards and then folding it under his bloodied head afterwards, is a correct one. I've experimented with that myself in a relative's overcoat and it can be done. Remember, Lizzie was much shorter than her father and his overcoat could have well covered her down to the hem of her dress. The end of the couch would have deflected much of the splatter. If she got any blood spotting on her boots one of her damp hankies could be used to wipe them off and then the hankie could have gone in the kitchen stove.

i tend to believe this as well, although not necessarily that she put it on backwards, which would seem awkward as she'd have no way to easily button it on the back so it'd be certain to stay on to cover her, and if she did button it, it would take more time to remove it after the deed were done. i'd think she'd want to get out of that thing, and get on with cleaning herself up asap.

i don't believe that careful, frugal andrew would have come home, removed his coat, and then bunched it up under his head as a pillow?? few people would do that even now. he'd have removed his coat and hung it up. so to me the coat has always stood out as being put behind his head by his murderer. i can't think of any other reason for it than it being used to cover the murderer from any blood, and then go undetected as being used that way because it would have gotten covered with andrew's blood being under his head.

didn't anyone at the time think it was strange that andrew would bunch up his coat like that?

was the coat burned in the back yard, along with the other clothing abby and andrew were wearing?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:34 pm

Fall River, August 8, 1892.
Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. “Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father. But she must have influence with my father, or he never would have given my stepmother’s half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father’s death. This conversation took place at different times during former visits; nothing being said during her visit July 26th.

very interesting. thank you, factfinder!

i wonder in what date range those statements were made. within the previous year, two, five?

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:17 pm

Catbooks wrote:
Curryong wrote:NancyDrew, I am convinced that Allen's suggestion from ages ago that Lizzie may have worn Andrew's coat while murdering him, putting it on backwards and then folding it under his bloodied head afterwards, is a correct one. I've experimented with that myself in a relative's overcoat and it can be done. Remember, Lizzie was much shorter than her father and his overcoat could have well covered her down to the hem of her dress. The end of the couch would have deflected much of the splatter. If she got any blood spotting on her boots one of her damp hankies could be used to wipe them off and then the hankie could have gone in the kitchen stove.
i tend to believe this as well, although not necessarily that she put it on backwards, which would seem awkward as she'd have no way to easily button it on the back so it'd be certain to stay on to cover her, and if she did button it, it would take more time to remove it after the deed were done. i'd think she'd want to get out of that thing, and get on with cleaning herself up asap.

i don't believe that careful, frugal andrew would have come home, removed his coat, and then bunched it up under his head as a pillow?? few people would do that even now. he'd have removed his coat and hung it up. so to me the coat has always stood out as being put behind his head by his murderer. i can't think of any other reason for it than it being used to cover the murderer from any blood, and then go undetected as being used that way because it would have gotten covered with andrew's blood being under his head.

didn't anyone at the time think it was strange that andrew would bunch up his coat like that?

was the coat burned in the back yard, along with the other clothing abby and andrew were wearing?

Welcome, Catbooks! I'm glad to see you jumping right in with both feet :)

I also find it odd that Andrew would have folded up his coat to use as a cushion for his head while having his nap. I would like to know if this was the coat he was wearing on his trip downtown to conduct his banking and other business. It must not have been a very heavy coat, if so. He was found in death still wearing his suit jacket, after all, which I believe would have answered 1892's call for a respectable gentleman's attire in town. If it were heavier than a man might wear on a hot day (not excessively hot, but still, hot), then that suggests to me that Lizzie might have fetched it off the coat rack in the entryway for her task, but would any coat be hanging there at that time of year? In any event, how would the coat have come to be under Andrew's head? If we believe Lizzie wore it (backwards or otherwise) to protect her clothing from blood, she'd have had to lift up what was left of Andrew's head after he attack to put it there, and let the blood soak into it. That would have been a very messy job indeed, almost messier than if she hadn't worn the coat as a butcher's apron. And I should think it would have dislodged whole portions of the head in a way that the police and Dr. Bowen might have noted. So now, I'm not so sure that this was how it went. I'm with you, though, Catbooks, in wondering how much, if any, thought investigators gave to the curious incident of the coat under Andrew Borden's head.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:53 pm

Mara wrote:
Catbooks wrote:
Curryong wrote:NancyDrew, I am convinced that Allen's suggestion from ages ago that Lizzie may have worn Andrew's coat while murdering him, putting it on backwards and then folding it under his bloodied head afterwards, is a correct one. I've experimented with that myself in a relative's overcoat and it can be done. Remember, Lizzie was much shorter than her father and his overcoat could have well covered her down to the hem of her dress. The end of the couch would have deflected much of the splatter. If she got any blood spotting on her boots one of her damp hankies could be used to wipe them off and then the hankie could have gone in the kitchen stove.
i tend to believe this as well, although not necessarily that she put it on backwards, which would seem awkward as she'd have no way to easily button it on the back so it'd be certain to stay on to cover her, and if she did button it, it would take more time to remove it after the deed were done. i'd think she'd want to get out of that thing, and get on with cleaning herself up asap.

i don't believe that careful, frugal andrew would have come home, removed his coat, and then bunched it up under his head as a pillow?? few people would do that even now. he'd have removed his coat and hung it up. so to me the coat has always stood out as being put behind his head by his murderer. i can't think of any other reason for it than it being used to cover the murderer from any blood, and then go undetected as being used that way because it would have gotten covered with andrew's blood being under his head.

didn't anyone at the time think it was strange that andrew would bunch up his coat like that?

was the coat burned in the back yard, along with the other clothing abby and andrew were wearing?
Welcome, Catbooks! I'm glad to see you jumping right in with both feet :)

I also find it odd that Andrew would have folded up his coat to use as a cushion for his head while having his nap. I would like to know if this was the coat he was wearing on his trip downtown to conduct his banking and other business. It must not have been a very heavy coat, if so. He was found in death still wearing his suit jacket, after all, which I believe would have answered 1892's call for a respectable gentleman's attire in town. If it were heavier than a man might wear on a hot day (not excessively hot, but still, hot), then that suggests to me that Lizzie might have fetched it off the coat rack in the entryway for her task, but would any coat be hanging there at that time of year? In any event, how would the coat have come to be under Andrew's head? If we believe Lizzie wore it (backwards or otherwise) to protect her clothing from blood, she'd have had to lift up what was left of Andrew's head after he attack to put it there, and let the blood soak into it. That would have been a very messy job indeed, almost messier than if she hadn't worn the coat as a butcher's apron. And I should think it would have dislodged whole portions of the head in a way that the police and Dr. Bowen might have noted. So now, I'm not so sure that this was how it went. I'm with you, though, Catbooks, in wondering how much, if any, thought investigators gave to the curious incident of the coat under Andrew Borden's head.

thank you for the welcome, mara! it's such a pleasure to be able to join in, after all of this time of just reading. must admit it was a little intimidating. for one, i'm rusty on some of the finer points. it's been years since i've read any of the transcripts, or any of the books, for that matter.

good question about the coat. as i said, i'm rusty, but i thought one or more of the eye witnesses said he was wearing a coat when he was about his errands downtown. but was it the same coat? i assumed it was.

now that we know it wasn't the record-breaking sweltering day we'd supposed, it makes more sense if he were wearing a coat to conduct his formal business. (do we know if it was his custom to wear a coat?) plus, he was elderly, tall and thin, would be likely to feel chill more keenly than heat, and it was only 10:45ish in the morning when he came home. still, i wouldn't think it was a heavy coat. it was, after all, august.

thank you for mentioning the coat rack in the hallway. i was wondering where a coat would be hung, and where lizzie would have gotten it. couldn't recall if there was a hall closet or not.

as far as lizzie (or anyone) putting the coat under andrew's head, i'd envisioned it as being slid and tucked under his head, which might not have been so very messy. at worst it would get more blood on her (or someone else's) hands, which needed to be washed off in any event. not sure if andrew's head was in such a delicate state that the act of tucking/sliding the coat underneath it would dislodge portions of it, and draw more attention to the coat, or even if it was, if that would be noticeable to those would saw him after the fact.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:27 pm

Andrew's outdoor coat, which I have always taken to be the Prince Albert waisted affair he wore when going down the street, was kept in the dining room wasn't it, according to Bridget's testimony? Both men's coats and suits were of course made of pure wool then and must have felt very hot. Andrew was an old-fashioned sort of fellow and probably wore winter and summer what he had always worn when going out.
Found Bridget's testimony from the preliminary trial.
Page 9
Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.
Q. Did you see him with that on?
A. No sir.
Q. So the last time you saw him before he went out he had his housecoat on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you did not see him go out?
A. No sir.

She did not see him go out because she was vomiting near the pear tree (where John Morse later picked pears from the ground. Ugh!) Nevertheless, I'd bet Andrew, a creature of habit if ever there was one, did wear his coat out, and I believe his dear daughter probably offered to hang it up back in the dining room for him. Quite convenient really.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:51 pm

Ah yes, the Prince Albert in the Dining Room. You see, Catbooks, you're not the only one who has forgotten a few things over the years. I'd also thought about mentioning Andrew's age and slender build as being things that could make him more susceptible to cold, and if the temperature were only about 70°F at mid-morning that day, yes it could have felt a bit chilly to him. Coastal towns (or those lovely islands) in New England always make me glad to have my Southern-girl sweaters handy ;)

It's very interesting to me that many questions during the preliminary trial seemed to be just about to dig into something useful (whether Lizzie wore a dress or a skirt and waist (blouse), her purchase of "cheap" dress fabric in New Bedford soon before the murders (something dark to wrap herself in for the murders, then hide or even burn?), this bit about Andrew's coat, and many other little things that we talk about form time to time as feeling "off" to us. I guess they felt off to the prosecution, too. But why didn't they do more with these tidbits to tighten the knot around Lizzie's neck? Why were certain lines of questioning abandoned?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:34 am

Yes! Good idea for a new thread. We could be the prosecuting counsel!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:12 am

Curryong wrote:Andrew's outdoor coat, which I have always taken to be the Prince Albert waisted affair he wore when going down the street, was kept in the dining room wasn't it, according to Bridget's testimony? Both men's coats and suits were of course made of pure wool then and must have felt very hot. Andrew was an old-fashioned sort of fellow and probably wore winter and summer what he had always worn when going out.
Found Bridget's testimony from the preliminary trial.
Page 9
Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.
Q. Did you see him with that on?
A. No sir.
Q. So the last time you saw him before he went out he had his housecoat on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you did not see him go out?
A. No sir.

She did not see him go out because she was vomiting near the pear tree (where John Morse later picked pears from the ground. Ugh!) Nevertheless, I'd bet Andrew, a creature of habit if ever there was one, did wear his coat out, and I believe his dear daughter probably offered to hang it up back in the dining room for him. Quite convenient really.

the dining room? well, well. yes, how very convenient for lizzie: father, do let me hang up your coat. i'm heading into the dining room to do a bit of handkerchief ironing anyway

thank you for finding that. creature of habit and old-fashioned, yes, i do think both of andrew.

i would like to know if the police followed up at all on that purchase of cheap dress fabric. did they find it at the house, intact, and then just drop it? maybe that's what happened with a lot of these things we hear about once, and then never mentioned again.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:30 am

The question has been posed here, if WE find these issues so interesting and obvious (ie Andrew's coat bunched up under his head) then why didn't the prosecution bring it out at the trial?

I have two comments for consideration:

1. Trials are strange things. We can sit here and make speculations, but witnesses on the stand cannot be asked to do so. They can't be asked to form conclusions or opinions either. What a prosecutor can bring up is actually very narrow; there has to be a good reason, and it cannot be prejudicial.

I had a very hard time understanding, for example, WHY the prussic acid testimony was declared inadmissible, since the judge ruled it would unfairly influence the jury. Well, Geez, isn't that the whole IDEA of evidence? To influence your judgment one way or another?

Apparently not.

2. We are talking about the habits and customs of folks who lived 120 years ago. It was very different time. What stands out to us now like a sore thumb perhaps just DIDN'T back then. I like to try and imagine what it must have been like to live in 1892, and frankly, I cannot.

The germ theory of disease was less than 25 years old. Women couldn't vote (that we have had the right to vote less than 100 years still blows my mind!) Battles raged between the U.S. Calvary and Native Americans, often ending in the wholesale slaughter of entire tribes. These were still the days of cowboys and Indians, albeit on a different coast.

The 1890's was coined "The gay Nineties" but only 30 years later. The "Gilded Age," the "Mauve Decade" (one of my favorite expressions for that time!)...humanity was on the brink of great changes; the first automobile had been invented, the first film, the first organization of suffragettes.

Okay, so I"m babbing a bit. Where am I going with all this? I hope I can articulate what I want to say. We tend, I think, when looking at past events, to paint people with one brush, to generalize about them. Andrew Borden was said to be thrifty and frugal. And so we therefore conclude that he would never have bunched up his coat and chose to rest his head on it for a catnap.

And from here, we have Lizzie donning the coat in order to protect her clothing while she chopped up her father's head.

However, upon closer inspection, WAS that coat "bunched up," or was it neatly folded (or as neatly could be folded by an elderly man who wasn't feeling well.) Perhaps his love of thrift is what made him decide NOT to send Bridgette upstairs for a pillow, thinking "my coat will serve just as well a resting place for my head."

In truth, we don't really know anything about Andrew Borden's personality; it is quite possible he thought absolutely nothing of using his coat for a pillow.

To answer another question I saw on the boards (I've read so much this morning, what with the "Mental Illness" thread---VERY entertaining---being brought back to life, I'm a bit disoriented as to where I read what the files of George Robinson, et al (Lizzie's attorney and one of the shining stars of her "dream team." have not been released to the public.

They are still at Donovan, etc the original law firm. The attorneys there cite some legal mumbo-jumbo to defend their keeping the files sealed.

I've brought this subject up many times here, even starting a thread about it, but I didn't get the intense interest I'd hoped. To withhold the files seems to me, to be pointless and without merit. They are an important part of history. With all due to respect to Mike Martins (whom I've heard is a very nice fellow) if I were head of the Fall River Historical Society, I'd be going after those files, still supposedly entombed in a metal filing cabinet on the 16th floor of the building in Springfield, MA.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:55 am

It was me who wrote about the Robinson files last. I believe the firm won't release them due to client confidentiality or something equally odd. You are right, they are historical documents and ought to be released.
As to Andrew and his coat and Lizzie wearing it, you are correct, we can't ever really 'know' people who lived 120 years ago. However the Borden case is such a fascinating one that I guess it draws us all in, and we speculate and we debate and we doubt. This Forum gives us room to do it, I suppose.