Odd behavior.

[Allen]

With so much talk about what people consider odd or suspicious behaviors on the part of some of the key characters in this case I started thinking about what I consider odd behaviors. In the beginning when I first started studying the evidence surrounding the case a lot of what the people said and did seemed like odd behavior to me. Until I peeled back the layers to delve into the reasons behind things that explained much of what I considered odd. It was a different time with a different culture and mind set. Once you research their customs and way of thinking it explains a lot. There are a few things about this case that I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind. I'm interested to know what odd behaviors stand out to you all. Not necessarily odd in the way that you find it suspicious enough to think the person or persons were involved in the crime, but just odd. These are the things I've always found odd.

The burying of Andrew and Abby's clothing and other items in the back yard. It appears that nobody else at the time found it odd or suspicious. No one protested. The police not only didn't protest or find it suspicious, but an officer supervised the burial. But why were they buried in the first place? What is the reasoning behind it? They were also dug up to retrieve a few items and reburied. It was John Morse who asked for permission to bury the clothing. Evidently nobody at the time found it odd. But I can't for the life of me think of a reason for it.

Why the police did not make a more detailed search of the house in the hours right after the crime. Sure they didn't officially suspect Lizzie of the murders. But not making a thorough search of the house after the crimes left room for evidence to be destroyed. Evidence of any kind even if from an intruder. Even in Victorian times this was elementary police procedure. While I don't believe the police completely botched the case, this has always bothered me.

Mary Wyatt and her refusal to be interviewed. Why did she refuse to be interviewed. She lived within view of the Borden house. Did she see something?

Mrs. Churchill and her statement about seeing something she would rather have her tongue cut out than repeat. If she did say that why would she spill her guts about everything else but this?

[PossumPie]

With so much talk about what people consider odd or suspicious behaviors on the part of some of the key characters in this case I started thinking about what I consider odd behaviors. In the beginning when I first started studying the evidence surrounding the case a lot of what the people said and did seemed like odd behavior to me. Until I peeled back the layers to delve into the reasons behind things that explained much of what I considered odd. It was a different time with a different culture and mind set. Once you research their customs and way of thinking it explains a lot. There are a few things about this case that I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind. I'm interested to know what odd behaviors stand out to you all. Not necessarily odd in the way that you find it suspicious enough to think the person or persons were involved in the crime, but just odd. These are the things I've always found odd.

The burying of Andrew and Abby's clothing and other items in the back yard. It appears that nobody else at the time found it odd or suspicious. No one protested. The police not only didn't protest or find it suspicious, but an officer supervised the burial. But why were they buried in the first place? What is the reasoning behind it? They were also dug up to retrieve a few items and reburied. It was John Morse who asked for permission to bury the clothing. Evidently nobody at the time found it odd. But I can't for the life of me think of a reason for it.

Why the police did not make a more detailed search of the house in the hours right after the crime. Sure they didn't officially suspect Lizzie of the murders. But not making a thorough search of the house after the crimes left room for evidence to be destroyed. Evidence of any kind even if from an intruder. Even in Victorian times this was elementary police procedure. While I don't believe the police completely botched the case, this has always bothered me.

Mary Wyatt and her refusal to be interviewed. Why did she refuse to be interviewed. She lived within view of the Borden house. Did she see something?

Mrs. Churchill and her statement about seeing something she would rather have her tongue cut out than repeat. If she did say that why would she spill her guts about everything else but this?

I've never given a second thought to the (alleged ) statement by Mrs. Churchill. This is third hand information. Edwin McHenry heard it from George Wiley who heard it from Mrs. Churchill. If it was said, it could be that seeing the hacked up bodies and Lizzie's cold reaction were not something she would repeat.

Many people refuse to tell what they saw in a murder...not suspicious at all. My brother-in-law is a police officer...it is stranger to find someone who IS willing to be interviewed!

There are some strange things, IF they were reported accurately. I found Morse ignoring the 'crowds' and eating a pear strange, but some witnesses not seeing anyone outside except Bridget and an officer. I found Morse's knowledge of every minute of his day down to the number of the streetcar suspicious. Lizzie burning the dress, Dr. Bowen burning a scrap of paper in the middle of an investigation!

The police not searching is indeed strange. Suspect or not, they didn't do a complete search until the following Monday!

The whole Mrs. Borden fainted/died of fright thing. How did it start? I can only find reference to it once, did he believe if for a short moment? How can you go up to a body laying in a pool of blood and think it was dead from fright? I tend to think people overheard the fainting speculation and ran away with it. He probably did think that until he approached the body.

[Allen]

I do admit I think that Dr. Bowen burning the note is a bit odd also. We also don't know where the pieces of note paper were found. Did it come from the waste basket? From Dr. Bowen's pocket? According to him the note said something about his daughter passing through somewhere. According to another witness they saw the name Emma written on it. Was it a note to Emma about Dr. Bowen's daughter? A letter from Dr. Bowen's daughter? A letter to Dr. Bowen about his daughter and he took down the telegram to Emma on the back? We will never know. Why were there any notes to Emma when she hadn't been at home for two weeks. Even if he read it and believed it was nothing of great importance that was not for him to decide. The police should have at least been allowed to see the contents of the note to decide if it was important.

[Allen]

I had at first found John Morse supposedly walking past a crowd to eat a pear in the back yard suspicious also. But there was testimony that there was no crowd in the yard when he arrived and that everyone who was there was pushed out into the street. Thomas Barlow testified he was in the yard trying to snoop around and look in windows, and had allegedly been in the barn (which I find odd in itself). He also stated that after Officer Fleet arrived everyone that was in the yard got put out into the street. And if I came up to my own house, which is on a pretty busy street, and a small crowd was standing out on the side walk I'm not sure my first thoughts would be that a foul murder had taken place. Or even that the crowd being there had anything to do with my home. If he had rushed into the house asking about a murder I'd have found that suspicious.

Another thing I do find strange is that nobody knows what happened to Andrew's Prince Albert coat. The one that was found bunched up underneath his head. The coat that he wore when he went out. I am suspicious as to why it was it under his head in the first place when he had a pillow to rest his head on. And as to what happened to it.

[leitskev]

Good topic.

burning the notes and the dress: was this common back then? I assume it was, with waste disposal being very different. But I am assuming, I don't really know. Weren't there rag collectors who took old dresses?

Bowen's burning the notes is strange to me, but I don't know what the custom was. I mean even if burning old papers was the norm, isn't it a bit presumptuous to do it in someone else's home? Was there something he didn't want his wife to see? If the notes were incriminating, however, why burn them at the scene of the crime? And isn't it odd that the officer was so very suspicious of the doctor, to the point where he tried to see what was on the notes?

Morse's strange behavior: it used to be my understanding that a crowd had already surrounded the house when Morse arrived, making his behavior strange and suspicious. But I've since seen testimony that few people were around. So maybe it's less peculiar. Still, the burly cop guarding the side door observed Morse, which means Morse had to have observed him. The yard is quite small. None of this aroused Morse's curiosity? And certainly Morse was aware of how security conscious the Bordens were. His behavior continues to strike me as weird, but he seems to have been a different sort of character anyway. And the care he took to establish an alibi is very unusual.

the police search: I get a very different notion of that investigation. It is my sense that the investigation that afternoon was extensive, though not exhaustive. There is testimony of Morse getting the key to open locked trunks for them to search, for example. And they were trying to get into Lizzie's room while she was in there with Dr. Bowen.

Dr. Bowen and Abby's fainting: so far I've found 2 people, both cops I think, who testified hearing Bowen say this. The second witness testified that Bowen said she must have run up there after seeing her husband killed and died of shock. Kind of a hard thing to explain away.

Bowen's travels after sending the telegram is also peculiar. I would think he would hurry back to the scene where his neighbors and friends were murdered.

Lizzie's behavior if guilty: why not take more time to stage a crime scene? Why not leave the house and walk downtown, let Bridget find the body? why not at least open the front door so it looked like someone escaped that way? To kill Andrew, take only a few minutes to clean up, then call Bridget...is just plain stupid. Not that anyone should expect a mastermind of crime, but she was supposedly cold and calculating, a woman who could kill Abby, wait and hour and half, acting normal with Bridget and Andrew, and then striking again. She managed to hide the weapon...so couldn't she have been smart enough to at least open the front door? or take a trip downtown?

Andrew's nap: did that man really nap that way, with his feet flat on the floor? I've never seen anyone nap that way.

Morse behavior the day before: Morse's visit was prompted by a letter from Andrew, and after visiting that afternoon, I believe he ran out to the Borden farm on some kind of business, and then returned to Second Street. This sounds like something sensitive was being handled by Morse for Andrew. The letter was reviewed by Knowlton and was then lost to history, but Andrew might not have been specific in the letter about anything controversial...or Morse might even have presented a different letter. I'm not jumping on the 'Morse did it!' bandwagon, just saying it could be a point of interest.

[Allen]

There are many things about Lizzie's ever changing alibi that do not make sense. But going out after killing Andrew would not have really completely taken the suspicion of murder off Lizzie. Lizzie was in the house with no alibi at the time Abby was killed. Bridget could testify to that. To have an alibi you have to be seen at the time of the crime. Someone has to corroborate it. They don't just take the word of the accused. Even if she went out after killing Andrew nobody could testify to having seen her at the time of the crime if she was the killer. It would not have helped her at all.

Dr. Bowen testified that when he first saw the body under the bed as he came up the steps he did think that Abby had fainted, until he satisfied himself after entering the room and upon further inspection that she was dead. The first that he saw of the body was coming up the stairs he could see her lying beside the bed. Looking under the bed at Abby. He could not see the full scene until he walked into the room and around the side of the bed to see her lying there. He did later deny making these statements to anyone else. He didn't deny thinking she had fainted, only that he made the statement to anyone else. I think as a doctor maybe he was embarrassed to have made this statement when it became obvious she was murdered. I don't think he was trying to convince anyone she had died of fright. It would have been obvious to anyone examining the body she had not.

I do also wonder why Dr. Bowen was worried about another agent of death possibly being found. He questioned an officer on this point and the officer said he seemed nervous. Was he worried it was poison? Maybe he felt bad for not taking Abby's fear seriously if he thought she had indeed been poisoned. But it does seem a strange exchange.

The search of the trunks was not made until Friday. Morse did not search the house with the police on Thursday.

Andrew's position on the couch does seem odd. It doesn't look like a man who was relaxed to take a nap. Maybe he opened his eyes at the last second and tensed up as the ax came down. But the position does look a little uncomfortable for a man who was supposedly napping. Maybe he was not sleeping and was caught unaware from behind and saw the ax coming. The position of both bodies seems a little odd.

[leitskev]

I basically agree with the plausibility of your explanations on Dr. Bowen. Not that they completely explain things, but it's plausible. And as I've said, I don't suggest Bowen was guilty, my point is merely that these are odd things that really can't be completely accounted for. I mean the second cop testified that Bowen said she died from fainting. It's odd. But there are odd elements to any case, or any event, such as the JFK assassination. Which was my point all along...that witness testimony is very unreliable.

And you are correct, Lizzie fleeing would not have established a full proof alibi. But it would have been a rational action...because it would have helped. Bridget had just gone up for a nap, and would not have discovered Andrew for some time, maybe say a half hour or an hour. That would have made it much easier to speculate on an intruder.

As far as Andrew's position, I would love to hear something from modern forensics. It seems to me that Andrew could have been sitting and facing his attacker, and then fell to the side after the first blow. Lack of defensive wounds is not that unusual, especially give Andrew's age and the fact that all that was needed was one blow. The position of the coat suggests it was used as a pillow, but are there other explanations? Could it just have been placed there in anticipation of a nap? Could Andrew have begun a nap, and that sat up when someone entered the room to meet with him? Could the killer have placed the coat? I'm not a forensics expert, obviously, so I'm just asking questions.

[Allen]

I would love to have modern forensics to evaluate all of the evidence. Not because I think they botched any of the investigation or there was any contamination of evidences that was submitted, but simply because of the limited capabilities of testing at the time. There are many aspects of the case that trouble me because I have to wonder how accurate their methods for testing the evidence really was. I think Abby's body had been moved before the photo's were taken. But still both bodies seem to be lying in strange positions. Like testing for poisons present in the bodies. Testing for the presence of blood on the weapons. Most of the testing I should just say.

For establishing an alibi it would have been like this.

"Where were you when your father was killed?"

"I was out at so and so's store etc..."

"Did anyone see you there? Can anyone else testify to you being there at the time of the murder?"

(Probably not if she wasn't there.)

"Where were you when your mother was killed?"

"I was at home."

(Because Bridget saw her there and knew she didn't go out.)

I'm not sure how that helps.

[Allen]

There is one other event that bothers me about Dr. Bowen. He testified that he did not go to the Borden house on social calls. That most of his visits there were on business or as a physician. But he and Lizzie attended church together. Why and how did that come about? Why did they attend church together. How did it come about that he asked her or she asked him to go? And where was Dr. Bowen's wife at the time? This seems pretty strange for Dr. Bowen to attend a church service with Lizzie but then say he made no social calls at the Borden house.

[PossumPie]

I must say I LOVE this thread. Strange things can be discussed without anyone making absurd theories or feeling defensive. I think if anyone disected our behaviour during a crisis, we all would be shown to behave strangely. IF Lizzie were the killer, she wouldn't go out to be seen b/c her emotional excitement after killing both of her parents may have been seen by an acquaintance. No, better to raise the alarm at home.

The strangest by far thing for me is the 90 minutes between murders. Mrs. Borden's stomach contents and her coagulated blood show definitively that there was a long period between the murders. This is very significant. I just cannot fathom a killer hanging out for that long. A hired killer, or a business associate who hated him just would not risk it. What if unbeknownst to the killer, Mr. Borden asked a group of police officers over at 11am to discuss a new civics project? What if Mr. Borden didn't come home until 4pm? NO, there are way to many risky scenarios for a tangential killer to just hang out and wait. I will refrain from saying that makes Lizzie guilty, but it does seem to exclude hired killers or a spurned business partner. This was back when if you were convicted of murder, you were HANGED. You didn't get 5 years in an air conditioned cell with cable TV. You were killed. Would any hired person risk death by hanging to just lounge around playing solitaire for an hour and a half? As the minutes tick by, each moment brings increased dread that someone will catch you. You begin wildly speculating about people coming home, visitors filling up the downstairs, you being trapped up with the body. You start to think after an hour goes by "He's not coming home...maybe he went visiting for the day" Your fear of getting caught increases by the moment. No, It is the one fact I believe strongest of all...NO ONE would sit upstairs that long not knowing what was coming next.

[NancyDrew]

Great thread. I find a LOT of behaviors odd in this case, and with this family. Some may be attributed to customs, I simply don't know:

1. I find it very odd that anyone would pick up pears off the backyard (Lizzie, Uncle John) and eat them, when Andrew routinely threw the contents of his toilet bucket all over the yard. My Goodness!

2. I find it odd that Mrs. Borden asked Bridgette to wash the windows when she KNEW that Bridgette had been very ill. We all paint Mrs. Borden as a nice and kindly woman, a victim of circumstance, but what employer asks a sick servant to perform such an arduous chore under such circumstances?

3. I find Uncle John odd, period. Just a total weirdo. He shows up, no change of clothes, no toiletries. He leaves and visits a niece and nephew he hasn't seen in five years. There is no motive for him killing the Bordens (as I have stated to Franz a number of times) but he is certainly an interesting fellow. Just a peculiar guy.

4. The burying of the clothes: yes, I always found that VERY strange. How did they know that vandals wouldn't sneak into the yard and dig them up, sell them as souvenirs? Or burrowing animals? I know that the Jewish faith has a tradition of burying dishes that are declared "unclean" (having touched both diary and meat, for example) because the earth is thought of as a "purifying" place. Lizzie burned a dress with a little paint on the hem...why didn't she just bury it? Why weren't the bloody clothes burned?

5. I've stated this before: I think it is very odd that Abby ran to Dr. Bowed and confessed she might be poisoned. This woman knew WELL what "summer complaint" felt like. She had to know something was wrong, different, this time.

6. I find Lizzie's behavior the night before the murders REALLY odd. She was pretty much setting the stage for the entire murder scene. Did she really think she was being clever when she told Alice Russell "something bad is going to happen."

7. And finally, the oddest thing of all..the crux of the entire case...not a behavior, but a fact. How did Lizzie manage NOT to have any blood on her hands, arms, face, or hair?

Yes, I know there are no arteries in the head...that there would haven't been a great deal of arterial backspray. But how did LIzzie know this? What in the world was her plan IF she had found herself just covered in the red stuff? ("I'll hack father to death...oh Look there's hardly any blood on me! Gee that was far easier than I thought it would be.."_)? That's what I'd really like to know...what was Lizzie's original plan.

[Allen]

You all have presented some some very valid ideas about what you consider strange behaviors. I am also enjoying the exchange on this thread. There are several elements to this case that have boggled my mind trying to find an explanation. There are a few more things that I'd like to discuss but I want to go back and recheck my information before I post anything. I find it strange that everyone always refers to Emma and Lizzie as 'the girls'. I even find myself doing that. They are referred to as 'the girls' in many instances in such a way that gives the impression of two young ladies barely into their teens. They were in their 30's and 40's respectively. They were very rarely referred to as 'the women." or 'the ladies.' or anything that implies they were middle aged spinsters. This has always seemed strange to me.

Nancydrew it seems everyone in that house ate the pears but Bridget. And we have Bridget saying she saw Andrew throw his slop pail out in the yard. I think Bridget was a wise woman.

The whole visit to Alice Russell is indeed odd. Especially since after the murders, when Lizzie should have been saying yes Father had enemies and he was so rude to everyone, she is saying she has no idea who might want to hurt her father. That she did not know him to have any enemies.

leitskev raised the idea about the position of Andrew's body indicating maybe he was not napping. I do agree the position of his body was odd. Another thing that bothers me about Andrew's body is the fact that tobacco was found in his pocket. Evidence was shown that Andrew did not usually indulge in tobacco products. So why was it found on his body? Where did it come from, and why is a man who doesn't indulge in tobacco suddenly carrying it around? I've researched the uses of tobacco in the nineteenth century and I did find that back then tobacco, believe it or not, also had medicinal uses. But the tobacco found in his pocket has always bothered me.

[Darrowfan]

I heard something over the weekend that made me stop and think about finding too much significance in "odd behavior". My wife was watching one of those true life crime documentaries about a man who spent 25 years in prison for his wife's murder. It turns out that he was innocent. The real killer was finally caught, and the husband was released. What got my attention was the fact that several of the jurors admitted that they had voted to convict the husband because he "acted strangely" after his wife's killing. They felt that he did not show "enough shock or grief."

It made me think of how much emphasis I have always put on Lizzie's "attitude" after the killings. I still have no doubt that Lizzie committed the homicides of Andrew and Abby, but now I realize that the way Lizzie "behaved" after the murders is NOT evidence against her. Different people behave differently after a tragedy. I needed to be reminded of that.

[Franz]

The tabacco found in the pocket of Andrew has been always odd to me as well.

The Borden case, the more you think about its many details, the more it seems to you mysterious.

[Allen]

I heard something over the weekend that made me stop and think about finding too much significance in "odd behavior". My wife was watching one of those true life crime documentaries about a man who spent 25 years in prison for his wife's murder. It turns out that he was innocent. The real killer was finally caught, and the husband was released. What got my attention was the fact that several of the jurors admitted that they had voted to convict the husband because he "acted strangely" after his wife's killing. They felt that he did not show "enough shock or grief."

It made me think of how much emphasis I have always put on Lizzie's "attitude" after the killings. I still have no doubt that Lizzie committed the homicides of Andrew and Abby, but now I realize that the way Lizzie "behaved" after the murders is NOT evidence against her. Different people behave differently after a tragedy. I needed to be reminded of that.

I see your point Darrowfan. But there are also many descriptions of convicted killers that include them showing no emotion for their crimes, or for the deaths of the people involved. Everyone does react differently to tragedy. Taken alone her lack of emotion is not strong evidence. Taken alone many of the reasons I think she is guilty are not conclusive enough to stand alone. It's when you string all of these bits together that it appears to show guilt. Just like no one piece of circumstantial evidence is usually strong enough to stand alone, it's when you start to link them together in a chain of evidence that it becomes stronger. Her lack of emotion, a constantly changing story, her lack of plausible alibi for either killing, the fact that Lizzie's testimony pretty much refutes the testimony of every other witness on just about every point, her obvious hatred of her step mother, the fact that she stood to inherit all of Andrew's money, etc. Her lack of emotion just becomes another link in the chain.

[Allen]

The tabacco found in the pocket of Andrew has been always odd to me as well.

The Borden case, the more you think about its many details, the more it seems to you mysterious.

Yes, Franz on this point I agree with you. There are several elements of this case that seem odd or mysterious. The more you study the case, the more mysteries you find instead of the other way around.

[leitskev]

- I didn't know about the tobacco problem. Interesting.

- had Lizzie left after killing Andrew, of course it would not give her an alibi. But it would make it easier to propose alternatives to what happened. As it is, we know Andrew had to have been killed within a 10 or 15 minute window, because we know what time he got home and what time Lizzie called Bridget. But had Lizzie gone downtown, as she told Bridgett she intended to, then Bridgett might have discovered the body around 11:30. And with Lizzie not in the house, it would have been more plausible for a killer to come in and do his work. Yes, it left the problem of Abby, but it's the events that surround Andrew's death that most people are using to condemn Lizzie.

- Dr. Bowen may have been friendly with Lizzie because she was involved with church activities. So I don't find that part strange.

- as for a killer waiting for Andrew...it seems to have been well known that Andrew came home every day before 11, and that people that wanted to discuss business with him came to the house at 11. I've read that somewhere, anyway. If true, it would make sense to wait. Why come early and kill Abby? No idea. The reasons for killing would have to be very personal for him to do something like that. Maybe he was hiding in the guest room when Abby came in. Still leaves the problem of how he got into the house unless someone let him in. It's troubling, but also perhaps troubling that Lizzie killed Abby and waited an hour and a half.

- as Nancy says, even if the splatter is not as substantial as we might expect, there was still blood on the wall in the sitting room and on the bed in the guest room. It should seem that Lizzie must have gotten some blood on her hands, in her hair. And her dress. I am curious, what did Bridgett say Lizzie was wearing? In theory, Lizzie should have had 3 dresses on that morning. Did Bridgett notice any change?

- and I agree with Darrow. In many murder cases, there are all kinds of strange things that never add up. Things that without DNA evidence sometimes suggest an airtight case...and the person proves innocent. That's why you want hard evidence, and his case none, unfortunately.

[Allen]

- I didn't know about the tobacco problem. Interesting.

- had Lizzie left after killing Andrew, of course it would not give her an alibi. But it would make it easier to propose alternatives to what happened. As it is, we know Andrew had to have been killed within a 10 or 15 minute window, because we know what time he got home and what time Lizzie called Bridget. But had Lizzie gone downtown, as she told Bridgett she intended to, then Bridgett might have discovered the body around 11:30. And with Lizzie not in the house, it would have been more plausible for a killer to come in and do his work. Yes, it left the problem of Abby, but it's the events that surround Andrew's death that most people are using to condemn Lizzie.

- Dr. Bowen may have been friendly with Lizzie because she was involved with church activities. So I don't find that part strange.

- as for a killer waiting for Andrew...it seems to have been well known that Andrew came home every day before 11, and that people that wanted to discuss business with him came to the house at 11. I've read that somewhere, anyway. If true, it would make sense to wait. Why come early and kill Abby? No idea. The reasons for killing would have to be very personal for him to do something like that. Maybe he was hiding in the guest room when Abby came in. Still leaves the problem of how he got into the house unless someone let him in. It's troubling, but also perhaps troubling that Lizzie killed Abby and waited an hour and a half.

- as Nancy says, even if the splatter is not as substantial as we might expect, there was still blood on the wall in the sitting room and on the bed in the guest room. It should seem that Lizzie must have gotten some blood on her hands, in her hair. And her dress. I am curious, what did Bridgett say Lizzie was wearing? In theory, Lizzie should have had 3 dresses on that morning. Did Bridgett notice any change?

- and I agree with Darrow. In many murder cases, there are all kinds of strange things that never add up. Things that without DNA evidence sometimes suggest an airtight case...and the person proves innocent. That's why you want hard evidence, and his case none, unfortunately.

It really doesn't matter what events people today are using to condemn Lizzie for her guilt. She's not being tried today. And none of us are police officers on the case. No alibi for Abby indeed mattered very much to the authorities. And it was events surrounding both murders they were concerned with.

He was friendly with her because she was involved in church activities. Why just Lizzie? Why did he decide to pick her out of a crowd? And he didn't even attend the same church. I find this very strange. He decides not to go to church with his own wife, but attends services at another church with Lizzie. No matter how I think if this it doesn't make sense.

[NancyDrew]

I find it odd that Lizzie changed her dress. And I also find it odd that the dress she changed into was pink and white striped, with a red ribbon tied around the waist. That just seems way too cheery an outfit to wear after two bloody murders had occurred.

"They thought I had better change." Lizzie said that, and it bugs the HELL out of me. It's arrogant, and self serving. NO ONE told her she had better change, not one person. What happened to the dress Lizzie changed so quickly out of? Is it possible she noticed it had blood on it, and that is why she ran upstairs to put on the candy-striped wrapper?

I find a lot of the statements she made to be odd. I find them to be arrogant, as if she were putting on airs. When she was questioned about the frequency of John Morse's visits, and replies "I'm away so much myself." Oh shut up, you sad little woman. You were not "away so much." I don't know why, but I have an emotional reaction to that statement. It makes me angry at Lizzie...she was trying to paint a picture of herself that wasn't accurate.

[NancyDrew]

I apologize for getting angry at a woman who has been dead almost 100 years. I'm having a bad night (back issues...pain makes me grumpy...plus my new puppy Stella is running all over the house acting like a maniac.)

[PossumPie]

I find it odd that Lizzie made a point to say about Andrew's enemies, and thinking that they would probably burn the house down around the family. That was odd. I wonder if Bridget HAD gone out for the fabric sale, whether Lizzie would have set the house on fire...?

[Allen]

I find it odd that Lizzie changed her dress. And I also find it odd that the dress she changed into was pink and white striped, with a red ribbon tied around the waist. That just seems way too cheery an outfit to wear after two bloody murders had occurred.

"They thought I had better change." Lizzie said that, and it bugs the HELL out of me. It's arrogant, and self serving. NO ONE told her she had better change, not one person. What happened to the dress Lizzie changed so quickly out of? Is it possible she noticed it had blood on it, and that is why she ran upstairs to put on the candy-striped wrapper?

I find a lot of the statements she made to be odd. I find them to be arrogant, as if she were putting on airs. When she was questioned about the frequency of John Morse's visits, and replies "I'm away so much myself." Oh shut up, you sad little woman. You were not "away so much." I don't know why, but I have an emotional reaction to that statement. It makes me angry at Lizzie...she was trying to paint a picture of herself that wasn't accurate.

I also found it odd that she changed her dress. I find it odd that in the middle of all that is going on, two dead parents lying in the house, the police inside looking around, with doctors there, neighbors, that she thinks of changing her clothing. Why did she need to change? I think if the police had looked at the bundle on the floor of Emma's closet they may have found something.

[Allen]

I find it odd that Lizzie made a point to say about Andrew's enemies, and thinking that they would probably burn the house down around the family. That was odd. I wonder if Bridget HAD gone out for the fabric sale, whether Lizzie would have set the house on fire...?

That is an interesting thought. If Bridget had gone out I think many things would have gone down differently.

[PossumPie]

I find it odd that Lizzie made a point to say about Andrew's enemies, and thinking that they would probably burn the house down around the family. That was odd. I wonder if Bridget HAD gone out for the fabric sale, whether Lizzie would have set the house on fire...?

That is an interesting thought. If Bridget had gone out I think many things would have gone down differently.

Lizzie didn't feel well, Bridget didn't feel well, yet Lizzie made a point to entice Bridget to leave and go get fabric. I know If I puked my guts up in the yard, the last thing I would want would be to go look at fabric...I think that if Bridget hadn't announced that she was going upstairs to her 3rd floor room, Lizzie would have "pulled rank" and told her to go do/get something away from the house.

[dalcanton]

[quote="NancyDrew"]I find it odd that Lizzie changed her dress. And I also find it odd that the dress she changed into was pink and white striped, with a red ribbon tied around the waist. That just seems way too cheery an outfit to wear after two bloody murders had occurred."

NancyDrew, that's a very interesting point. In retrospect, the dress does seem too cheery given the grim circumstances - unless that was the first thing Lizzie just happened to grab for.

But then your dress statement got me thinking further:

If she were innocent – why would she change her dress at all? What would be the purpose? The only thing I can think of is: was the wrapper more loose-fitting than the “normal” dresses she wore – thereby helping her to “breathe easier” due to the stress of having her father & stepmother just murdered?

If she were guilty – then why change it? Did she notice blood on the dress? Did she want to confuse people as to what she was wearing that day? But then again, I can see it going both ways. Let’s say she committed the murders. It’s always been speculated that she was wearing a blue dress that morning. Why then did she change into a pink & white wrapper? Wouldn’t it have been wiser for her to change into a blue dress, keeping it as similar as possible to the one she wore that morning so as to maybe confuse Mrs. Churchill & Bridget (& others who saw her immediately after the alarm bell was rung)?

[Allen]

The witnesses were already confused as to what dress she was wearing that morning. Nobody remembered what she was wearing. None of the witnesses could testify to what dress Lizzie wore that day. Nobody could even state for sure if the dress she turned over as the one she was wearing was even the correct dress. She didn't own very many dresses. I don't think anyone was really paying attention to what she wore. But by putting on the pink wrapper, at least in my opinion, she didn't give the time enough to notice it so it would be in anyone's memory either. But none of the witnesses did remember what she had on that day. Other than it was blue, and some other vague descriptions.

[Allen]

Dr. Handy's description of the strange man, and his own strange behavior, seem even more strange if I take into account that it was at Dr. Handy's cottage in Marion that Lizzie was supposed to go fishing with his daughter. Dr. Handy seems like another odd duck.

Witness statements:

James E. Cunneen, No. 17 Freedom street. “Drove up Second street that day, and the only strange thing I observed was Dr.Handy’s actions. His carriage was drawn up to the west side of the street, about opposite Dr. Kelly’s yard. He sat in the buggy and was quickly turning his head from right to left, and left to right. He seemed very nervous, and his strange actions caused me to look around to
see what was the occasion of this; but I observed nothing. Before I reached where he was standing, he started and drove slowly down the street by me.”

[twinsrwe]

... I think if the police had looked at the bundle on the floor of Emma's closet they may have found something.

I totally agree with you, Allen. I have always wondered about that bundle!

[Allen]

... I think if the police had looked at the bundle on the floor of Emma's closet they may have found something.

I totally agree with you, Allen. I have always wondered about that bundle!

I wonder about that bundled a lot. And I also have to wonder why Lizzie made a couple of trips to the dress closet that day. Alice Russell said that Lizzie took the key and let herself in there a couple of times. This was after she had already changed her clothing so she wasn't looking for something to wear. Why was she making trips to the dress closet?

[Allen]

Why would Lizzie set up and ironing board on the dining room table where they ate their meals, and that had in fact had already been set for the next meal. The dining room table was set. Why if she is ironing and using flats from the stove didn't she set the ironing board up in the kitchen?

[NancyDrew]

I'll go even further. Why didn't the flats heat up? They were sitting in a burning wood stove...and yet Lizzie says twice that her flats just weren't hot enough? I don't believe this for a minute.

I had almost forgotten about that point...I grew up with a wood stove in the house, and things heat up VERY quickly in them. When I first read her inquest testimony, I remember thinking "you're lying" when she repeatedly said her flats weren't hot enough.

[NancyDrew]

I simply cannot resist bringing up another odd behavior, and it is one I have pointed out many times already here, in different threads:

I find it VERY odd that Lizzie didn't greet Uncle John upon her return home from Alice Russell's house the night before the murders. There HAD to be a reason...and I'm very interested to know what members here think that reason might be.

This was a blood relative, someone with whom she didn't have any known disagreements with. She knew he was in the house, claimed she had heard his voice.

Q. When you came back at nine o'clock, you did not look in to see if the family were up?
A. No sir.
Q. Why not?
A. I very rarely do when I come in.



"I very rarely do when I come in."

What does Lizzie mean by this? I'm taking it as meaning that she doesn't usually look to see who is still downstairs IF she has been out visiting. She basically ignores anyone still up, and just goes to her room.

Only that wasn't what was happening on that night. There was a GUEST. And Victorian manners were ingrained enough that, even though the Bordens were retching violently into the night 24 hours before, they still took the time to welcome John, prepare meals for him, make the bed, sit up talking, etc.

And so I ask again: WHY DIDN'T LIZZIE GREET UNCLE JOHN? In my opinion, this is GLARINGLY odd behavior. A guest, her own mother's brother, comes for a visit, and Lizzie doesn't say one word to him? Not a hello, a nod, a wave, NOTHING?

I can think of only 3 reasons:

1. She was deliberately ignoring Uncle John, angry with him for some reason.
2. The door to the sitting room was closed, letting Lizzie know there was a private conversation going on and she shouldn't intrude.
3. She was too ill to speak; maybe she had to run upstairs to throw up.

Thoughts?

[Curryong]

Sorry about bringing an old thread back. I just didn't know where to put these two questions.
(1) Why was Abby found to be wearing TWO aprons when they undressed the bodies. Bit excessive wasn't it for a morning's dusting and primping in the guest room? Of course she may have been an eccentric dresser anyway, wasn't she also wearing a pair of outsize boots as well.

(2) Lizzie made two visits to the cellar the night after her parents' murders. Both were observed, from outside, by Officer Hyde. The first was with a nervous Alice Russell and involved slop pails and the privy. Then, about fifteen minutes later, Hyde sees Lizzie coming down again, this time alone. He believed that Lizzie went to the area where Andrew and Abby's blood soaked clothing was reposing in a pail. He saw her crouch down. What could she possibly have been doing? Picking up a tasteful souvenir?

[debbiediablo]

I'm housesitting for my daughter who is on vacation. Looking around this room I ask myself what might be inexplicable if someone were to hatchet me in the face within a few minutes. And I see

• a letter addressed to my ex-son-in-law except he hasn't been in the family for 10 years; this property which is where my OTHER daughter lives wasn't in the family until six years ago; he never lived within 75 miles of this town and neither did my daughter who was married to him. So how did we come by a newly arrived letter to him when he's been halfway across the continent for a decade. And the letter is about a lapsed life insurance policy.
• I don't drink but there's a half full bottle of brandy sitting right by my computer on the table next to my chair. An asthmatic cough left over from a cold is hanging on and thus far nothing has worked to stop it. So I decided to try brandy. Then I spilled better than half of it in the sink trying to get the cap off. The receipt is in the kitchen. So it looks like I drank the other half of it on one evening when I'm known to not drink. Did I drink it my myself or did I have help?
• all of my prescription medicine dumped into one bottle which I find handy but might make other people wonder.
• a cell phone that works which hasn't been used for the two years I've had it. It's a spare for when I'm traveling for work except I've never had cause to use it. Even my family doesn't have the number for no reason other than I've never thought to give it to them.
• nine pairs of men's shoes in two sizes that fit no one who lives here. Actually no men live here nor have they since my daughter moved here. They don't fit my husband either. I bought them on a closing out sale for less than $20 total, paid cash, and plan to give them to a food and clothing bank that had a fire and lost all their inventory. No one has any clue about this except me.

My point being some things are not explicable and the inexplicable can be entirely irrelevant...:-) or not. That said, it's loads of fun to discuss!

[PossumPie]

I'm housesitting for my daughter who is on vacation. Looking around this room I ask myself what might be inexplicable if someone were to hatchet me in the face within a few minutes. And I see

• a letter addressed to my ex-son-in-law except he hasn't been in the family for 10 years; this property which is where my OTHER daughter lives wasn't in the family until six years ago; he never lived within 75 miles of this town and neither did my daughter who was married to him. So how did we come by a newly arrived letter to him when he's been halfway across the continent for a decade. And the letter is about a lapsed life insurance policy.
• I don't drink but there's a half full bottle of brandy sitting right by my computer on the table next to my chair. An asthmatic cough left over from a cold is hanging on and thus far nothing has worked to stop it. So I decided to try brandy. Then I spilled better than half of it in the sink trying to get the cap off. The receipt is in the kitchen. So it looks like I drank the other half of it on one evening when I'm known to not drink. Did I drink it my myself or did I have help?
• all of my prescription medicine dumped into one bottle which I find handy but might make other people wonder.
• a cell phone that works which hasn't been used for the two years I've had it. It's a spare for when I'm traveling for work except I've never had cause to use it. Even my family doesn't have the number for no reason other than I've never thought to give it to them.
• nine pairs of men's shoes in two sizes that fit no one who lives here. Actually no men live here nor have they since my daughter moved here. They don't fit my husband either. I bought them on a closing out sale for less than $20 total, paid cash, and plan to give them to a food and clothing bank that had a fire and lost all their inventory. No one has any clue about this except me.

My point being some things are not explicable and the inexplicable can be entirely irrelevant...:-) or not. That said, it's loads of fun to discuss!

You have a great analytical mind. I also have pointed out in the past that we all do, have, and say things that can't easily be explained. Pure coincidences, seen in the light of a tragedy, are assigned meaning. That is why conspiracy theories develop around major disasters.
Statistics would say that highly improbable events do occur, just not often. Humans want desperately to put meaning to coincidences, so develop theories to explain them.
I once read about a professor who's wife was very ill, and had a nurse at her bedside. When she died, the clock at her bedside was found to have stopped at the EXACT moment of her death...and supernatural causes were suspected. The man was intelligent, and started investigating. The clock was old, and had a tendency to stop and start if moved. When the woman died, the nurse picked the clock up to record the time of death, and set it back down. When she glanced at it awhile later, she saw it had stopped at the moment of death, and told everyone. The man realized that she had caused this by picking it up.
I truly believe much unexplained things about the Borden case are pure coincidence seen b/c of the microscopic way we are investigating it.

[debbiediablo]

Maybe it's more comforting to assign meaning to coincidence than to embrace universal chaos.

[Mara]

I find it odd that Lizzie changed her dress. And I also find it odd that the dress she changed into was pink and white striped, with a red ribbon tied around the waist. That just seems way too cheery an outfit to wear after two bloody murders had occurred.

"They thought I had better change." Lizzie said that, and it bugs the HELL out of me. It's arrogant, and self serving. NO ONE told her she had better change, not one person. What happened to the dress Lizzie changed so quickly out of? Is it possible she noticed it had blood on it, and that is why she ran upstairs to put on the candy-striped wrapper?

Could she have just let it slip that she heard voices? "They" said I should change into this cheerful outfit. Reaching too far into the void there, am I?

I find a lot of the statements she made to be odd. I find them to be arrogant, as if she were putting on airs. When she was questioned about the frequency of John Morse's visits, and replies "I'm away so much myself." Oh shut up, you sad little woman. You were not "away so much." I don't know why, but I have an emotional reaction to that statement. It makes me angry at Lizzie...she was trying to paint a picture of herself that wasn't accurate.

You are not alone, NancyDrew! I'm often struck by the inappropriate flippancy, not to mention inaccuracy, of that statement. Reminds me of something Amy March would have said in Little Women.

Multiple Personality Disorder?

[Curryong]

My reading of her character includes a desire, a need almost, to be accepted, especially by those in 'better' circles. There is a pretentiousness there that is allied with that and comes out in statements like 'been away so much'. A desire to be thought cultured, well-read and travelled, lady-like, all those things that were admired in the social class she wanted to belong to. Very aspirational and rather snobbish. There were tales in Abby's family of Lizzie ignoring them when she met them in shops etc later in life.

[Mara]

Yes, that fits perfectly. She also said "I can't do anything in a minute" — another "I'm a lady and I put my gloves on just so" statement. Did Lizzie want so much to be thought a peer of the Fall River realm that she would kill (twice!) for the opportunity? If yes, too bad it didn't work out for her that way. Honestly, what did she think was going to happen?

[Curryong]

I'm very much afraid it was a motive, Mara. When she and Emma moved into Maplecroft she must have thought she'd 'arrived' where she belonged. Then came disillusionment and annoyance at acquaintances cutting her in the street and so on. The trouble with Lizzie was, I think, that so much of her 'gentility' was on the surface.

[Catbooks]

I find it odd that Lizzie changed her dress. And I also find it odd that the dress she changed into was pink and white striped, with a red ribbon tied around the waist. That just seems way too cheery an outfit to wear after two bloody murders had occurred.

"They thought I had better change." Lizzie said that, and it bugs the HELL out of me. It's arrogant, and self serving. NO ONE told her she had better change, not one person. What happened to the dress Lizzie changed so quickly out of? Is it possible she noticed it had blood on it, and that is why she ran upstairs to put on the candy-striped wrapper?

Could she have just let it slip that she heard voices? "They" said I should change into this cheerful outfit. Reaching too far into the void there, am I?

I find a lot of the statements she made to be odd. I find them to be arrogant, as if she were putting on airs. When she was questioned about the frequency of John Morse's visits, and replies "I'm away so much myself." Oh shut up, you sad little woman. You were not "away so much." I don't know why, but I have an emotional reaction to that statement. It makes me angry at Lizzie...she was trying to paint a picture of herself that wasn't accurate.

You are not alone, NancyDrew! I'm often struck by the inappropriate flippancy, not to mention inaccuracy, of that statement. Reminds me of something Amy March would have said in Little Women.

Multiple Personality Disorder?

*laughs* it does sound like something amy march would have said. i was just re-reading her inquest testimony and came across that bit. was amused to see that knowlton busted her on that point, asking her what trips she'd been on, how long ago, how often she went out and so on.

also the part where he's questioning her about something or another and she continues to answer with 'i don't know,' even though it's obvious she does, and she then bursts out with 'i don't know. i don't even know your name!'

[Curryong]

Lizzie 'didn't know his name' (a) because they hadn't been introduced and (b) he was obviously no 'gentleman'!

[Catbooks]

I truly believe much unexplained things about the Borden case are pure coincidence seen b/c of the microscopic way we are investigating it.

definitely.

it's easy to get lost in all of this microscopic examination. there's so much to remember, so many witnesses, statements, so many things that seem strange but may well have perfectly reasonable explanations but we don't know what they are. then there's all the possible interpretations.

sometimes i pull back and write out only the things that have been positively proven and *known* to be fact, but invariably i get sucked back into the microscopic view. rinse and repeat.

curryong, lol, obviously he wasn't!

[debbiediablo]

I truly believe much unexplained things about the Borden case are pure coincidence seen b/c of the microscopic way we are investigating it.

definitely.

it's easy to get lost in all of this microscopic examination. there's so much to remember, so many witnesses, statements, so many things that seem strange but may well have perfectly reasonable explanations but we don't know what they are. then there's all the possible interpretations.

sometimes i pull back and write out only the things that have been positively proven and *known* to be fact, but invariably i get sucked back into the microscopic view. rinse and repeat.

curryong, lol, obviously he wasn't!

Yes, exactly. The fascinating aspect of this case (unlike Jack the Ripper where the killer could be one of many suspects or someone entirely unknown) is that we know who had both motive and opportunity. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence but no weapon, witnesses or physical indications such a blood splatter. So we comb through everything, over and over. I sometimes wonder if she would've been hung and 'Lizzie Borden' would be nothing more than a case number in Massachusetts had the court allowed the pharmacist's testimony about prussic acid. Maybe even if one of the judges had not been appointed by the lead defense attorney. Just think. The money Andrew saved by living a lifetime of frugality likely paid for his murderer to walk free.

[Mara]

Just think. The money Andrew saved by living a lifetime of frugality likely paid for his murderer to walk free.

That statement made me catch my breath. Good observation! Imagine that spoken as the grim voice-over introducing a new actually factual documentary about the case.

[Catbooks]

I truly believe much unexplained things about the Borden case are pure coincidence seen b/c of the microscopic way we are investigating it.

definitely.

it's easy to get lost in all of this microscopic examination. there's so much to remember, so many witnesses, statements, so many things that seem strange but may well have perfectly reasonable explanations but we don't know what they are. then there's all the possible interpretations.

sometimes i pull back and write out only the things that have been positively proven and *known* to be fact, but invariably i get sucked back into the microscopic view. rinse and repeat.

curryong, lol, obviously he wasn't!

Yes, exactly. The fascinating aspect of this case (unlike Jack the Ripper where the killer could be one of many suspects or someone entirely unknown) is that we know who had both motive and opportunity. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence but no weapon, witnesses or physical indications such a blood splatter. So we comb through everything, over and over. I sometimes wonder if she would've been hung and 'Lizzie Borden' would be nothing more than a case number in Massachusetts had the court allowed the pharmacist's testimony about prussic acid. Maybe even if one of the judges had not been appointed by the lead defense attorney. Just think. The money Andrew saved by living a lifetime of frugality likely paid for his murderer to walk free.

yes, that does make it more fun to try to solve it. granted there's a very, very, VERY slim chance that we can, but the fun is in that tantalizing .0001% chance that it's possible.

with jack the ripper, who the heck knows. way too many possibilities. plus, for me personally, too many gruesome murders to try to sift through for clues.

absolutely, if lizzie had been found guilty and hung, or even given a life sentence, we'd have heard about it but i doubt this forum would be here, or the many books, or lots of other lizzie-related things. the compelling part is, how did she do it? and, if not lizzie, who??

i'm not sure the prussic acid testimony would have been enough to convict her in the minds of the jurors. maybe, but probably not. in the trial testimony i've read so far, knowlton appears to me downright cowed by jennings. that was a contributing factor as well.

[Curryong]

Let me make it clear, I do believe that Miss Borden went searching for Prussic acid in Mr Whitney's pharmacy, and it's a great pity that it wasn't allowed in testimony. I was just pointing out in my post that sometimes such sightings aren't quite so valuable as they first appear.
The police however did value Mr Whitney's statement. Lizzie maintained her cool when she was faced with him at her home, and the prosecution probably felt that if it came down to a 'he said, she said" without corroborating evidence, then the jury would believe Lizzie.
I just feel the cards fell all Lizzie's way during and after the murders and during the trial itself. The only time she had a wobbly was when she was cross-examined during the inquest, and I think the knowledge that she did not have to go into the witness box during the trial itself would have been a cause of great satisfaction.

[Curryong]

Sorry, quoted Whitney and it was of course Eli Bence. Concentrate woman, and don't do three things at once!

[debbiediablo]

With so much talk about what people consider odd or suspicious behaviors on the part of some of the key characters in this case I started thinking about what I consider odd behaviors. In the beginning when I first started studying the evidence surrounding the case a lot of what the people said and did seemed like odd behavior to me. Until I peeled back the layers to delve into the reasons behind things that explained much of what I considered odd. It was a different time with a different culture and mind set. Once you research their customs and way of thinking it explains a lot. There are a few things about this case that I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind. I'm interested to know what odd behaviors stand out to you all. Not necessarily odd in the way that you find it suspicious enough to think the person or persons were involved in the crime, but just odd. These are the things I've always found odd.

The burying of Andrew and Abby's clothing and other items in the back yard. It appears that nobody else at the time found it odd or suspicious. No one protested. The police not only didn't protest or find it suspicious, but an officer supervised the burial. But why were they buried in the first place? What is the reasoning behind it? They were also dug up to retrieve a few items and reburied. It was John Morse who asked for permission to bury the clothing. Evidently nobody at the time found it odd. But I can't for the life of me think of a reason for it.

Why the police did not make a more detailed search of the house in the hours right after the crime. Sure they didn't officially suspect Lizzie of the murders. But not making a thorough search of the house after the crimes left room for evidence to be destroyed. Evidence of any kind even if from an intruder. Even in Victorian times this was elementary police procedure. While I don't believe the police completely botched the case, this has always bothered me.

Mary Wyatt and her refusal to be interviewed. Why did she refuse to be interviewed. She lived within view of the Borden house. Did she see something?

Mrs. Churchill and her statement about seeing something she would rather have her tongue cut out than repeat. If she did say that why would she spill her guts about everything else but this?

With regard to what Mrs. Churchill would prefer to have her tongue cut out than to repeat: this is Victorian New England and she's a widow living in a house full of women and children so there's some likelihood it could be about sex.

[Curryong]

Your last statement says it all. SEX. It was Dr Bowen and Lizzie! Sorry, another thread!
(1) I think the burial of the clothing is odd, too. The only reason I can think of is perhaps that all that blood lying in a pail started to stink the cellar out. The clothing couldn't be washed or burned and the police and doctors obviously didn't think of boxing it up and taking it away. John V. obviously knew nothing about the preservation of evidence and just decided to be helpful. He may have asked if he could burn it and been refused.

(2) In the first hours the police seemed to be searching primarily for a male intruder and it was only later turned into a search for clues/evidence. Unfortunately Victorian police forces don't seem to have been particularly efficient in search procedures, especially when dealing with domestic murder in middle class households. 'Ladies' feelings and need for privacy etc., were taken into account far too much. This was seen in the Constance Kent case of 1860 too, and several others in the 19th century.

(3) Mary Wyatt might have been one of these people, still seen nowadays, who have a complete horror of becoming involved in any police investigation where there's a possibility of having to appear in court and testify.