Slop Buckets and Other Messy Alternatives

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:20 pm

Since there aren't any 'Lizzie was innocent' folks active right now, I'm going to changes sides for awhile.

Making assumptions is possibly the worst possible error in thinking any of us make when examining any subject. The Borden case is filled with them, the first and foremost being that no woman of Lizzie's social standing in the community could commit such a heinous crime.

Another possible one is the slop bucket filled with menstrual rags. Dr. Bowen purportedly confirmed this although I haven't yet seen that attributed to him in print. None of the men, and they were all men, wanted to touch the subject with a ten-foot stick. Even back then Bowen was bound by some degree of doctor-patient confidentiality although (thank God) not HIPAA. What if that slop bucket was the result of Dr. Bowen performing an abortion on Lizzie. There's no evidence to support this, but there wouldn't have been. Only a handful of people would have known: Lizzie and Dr. Bowen for sure; and possibly Andrew, Abby, Emma and/or the baby daddy.

Think about how changing this one fact - menstruation to abortion - would change how the entire case looks. Especially if Lizzie wanted to marry the baby daddy and her father wouldn't give his approval.

Now we have a reason other than financial (Emma inherited, not Lizzie) for the level of rage involved with both murders. We also have an explanation as to why Lizzie's clothing wasn't blood stained, how she managed to stay so clean. And as to where the hatchet went - out the side door with the killer.

I've always wondered whether the conversation between Abby and Lizzie on the morning of the murder, the one that Bridget couldn't overhear, didn't involve something like Lizzie saying, "Oh Mrs. Borden, I forgot to tell you how Mrs. Churchill commented on our dirty downstairs windows. Isn't this cooler spell a relief from last week." At which point Abby sends Bridget out to clean the windows, and Lizzie is left to her own devices to sneak the killer into the house and hide him in Emma's room between the murders.

This thread is for examining the assumptions made about the case and perhaps making a few more of our own...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:45 am

Right, who could the baby's daddy be? If it was a member of the congregation of the Church Lizzie attended, you wouldn't think Andrew would have objected in the circumstances. It must be someone completely unacceptable. I can't see Lizzie with her snobbishness going for a workman or farmhand at Swansea. If it was a married man there would be other complications.

It could be an artistic type she had met at a concert, say, and Andrew wouldn't have it at any price. He threatened to disinherit her. Lizzie, faced with disgrace or a poverty-stricken marriage decided on an abortion. She appealed to Dr Bowen, who agreed to perform an abortion.

Lizzie wanted to get rid of her stepmother, because she hated her, Andrew because he wouldn't let her be with her love. What if Lizzie decided to hire someone to murder Abby, that would only take about $200 and lessen the risk of the boyfriend being caught?

Lizzie could let him in through the side door when Bridget was talking to the Kelly's maid and let him out when the maid was washing the windows on the other side of the house, after the successful killing. She could let her boyfriend into the house at the same time. The boyfriend could wait in her bedroom or Emma's until Andrew returned then kill him after creeping downstairs. He could still wear Andrew's Prince Albert for protection, then leave out of the side door and just walk quickly away, concealing the hatchet in a carpet bag.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:59 am

If Lizzie had an abortion at Dr. Bowen's hands, wouldn't it be more likely that he'd do it in his own office, rather than risk being seen going into the Borden house (presumably when it was occupied by no one but Lizzie), then not seen again for an improperly long time?

Then again, he was apparently unwelcome at the Borden household. Bowen states that Andrew rebuffed him when he called at the Borden home to inquire after Abby's health following her troubling consultation the day before. Maybe Abby's visit wasn't about what he said it was about. Maybe she knew Lizzie was there and tried to intervene. He would certainly have lied about that in his testimony. The again again, (and sorry if this is too gruesome), if Lizzie had obtained an abortion just the day before the murders, she would still have been bleeding quite a lot, like a full period, or miscarriage, which I suppose would have come out in testimony, though I don't believe she was subjected to a strip search when incarcerated, was she?

Of course, there was the issue of Mrs. Bowen, but who knows how much attention she paid to what went on in her husband's consulting room(s)? Believe it or not, abortions were not unknown in the late 19th century, especially among women of means who could afford to pay a willing doctor to perform them discreetly. Did Dr. Bowen fill this rôle in Fall River? We can't know.

I honestly don't see Lizzie having a "boyfriend" in any event. She was 32 years old, apparently a confirmed spinster quite set in her ways. Who would this boyfriend have been? Probably not a kid. Probably not a stranger to neighbors who might well have commented on his visits, or others who might have reported Lizzie's travels to meet up with him. There remains the possibility that she was getting it on with Uncle John (Morse) -- perhaps against her will, perhaps not. There is a possibility that Morse knocked Lizzie up, sent Emma out of town, arranged for the abortion, and killed off Abby and Andrew when they discovered the truth.

If Mrs. Churchill knew something she would never discuss, it might have had to do with this. Maybe she saw Morse assault Lizzie at some point.

Good discussion! Let's play some more. :)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:28 pm

I don't see Lizzie as very sensual either, I'm afraid. Strangely enough I was reading about one of Australia's early Prime Ministers yesterday, a man who lost his only child in London in the 1920's. She went in for an 'appendicitis' operation at a very discreet nursing home in the London suburbs. The operation rid her of her problem, but complications ensued and she died. I don't know whether discreet nursing homes were available at Buffalo or New York or Providence in the 1890's though. Yes, Dr Bowen's rooms are a better possibility. I love how Bowen made up his testimony about Andrew's reaction after the 'Abby poisoning' episode!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:04 pm

An abortion in the 1800 entailed a dilatation and curettage (D&C) and a large loss of blood. IF the results were still sitting around, it would have been less than 24hrs, and Lizzie would be in no shape to walk much less up and down stairs and wielding a hatchet...sorry. Bowen does seem suspicious to me in a strange way. Bears thinking about.
The strangest stories (aside from Lizzie's) are Morse's stopping for pears and (coincidental?) visit, and Dr. Bowen and his disappearing note trick. Could be coincidence but if we are devil's advocating...?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:19 pm

Didn't a poster in one thread take a kindly view of Dr Bowen's note, and suggest that he had used one side to draft the telegram to Emma, and another to scribble out arrangements for his daughter's homecoming that day?
I agree that John Morse must have been a very strange and eccentric character. Lizzie doesn't appear to have been particularly fond of him. I wonder whether he smelled? No bathroom anywhere at the Bordens', no toothbrush probably, or hairbrush.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:09 pm

I don't think Lizzie wielded the hatchet if, in fact, the abortion scenario took place. Then I think the perpetrator would've been the outraged baby daddy who got into the house the night before and hid in Emma's room or else came in the side door while Bridget was washing windows elsewhere. I even wondered if he left the house wearing one of Lizzie's dresses and a bonnet, then changed into another set of clothing in the barn and walked off with all the evidence. Yes for sure on there's nothing to support this...other than a few words possibly spoken by Lizzie as she approached death. The thing is people do unburden themselves before they die, so maybe this was the truth or a piece of it. I don't Lizzie as very sensual either; then again I don't see my great-grandmother as very sensual. She swore great-grandfather had never seen her knees but somehow managed to conceive twelve children with her knees were covered.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:40 pm

But then, alas, unlike your great-grandmother Lizzie doesn't seem to have had any serious longterm gentleman callers. Lizzie was 5' 3". Would her escapee love have fitted into any of her clothes unless exceptionally short? So much to ponder! Of course, if John Morse had anything to do with the killings he could have just hung around and help get rid of the hatchet. No need for him to flee. If we are talking serious candidates he has to be in the front row.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:16 pm

I wonder about the painter who conveniently showed up to guard the door and remembered that Lizzie's dress had paint on it.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:18 pm

Charles Sawyer wasn't it? What do we know of him? Off to check.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:35 pm

there was a washstand in the guest room, were john morse inclined as to use it. it did seem strange that he showed up without so much as a toothbrush or change of clothing, having not been to the borden's for such a long time, although andrew had invited him.

aside from the david what's-his-name character ruby said lizzie had confessed to her was her lover, there's no evidence lizzie had any gentleman callers, who might have fathered a child with her.

oddly enough, i do see lizzie as being somewhat sensual, although i'm hard pressed as to say why. i suppose because she strikes me as something of a passionate person. wanting things, willing to take (sometimes stupid) risks, wanting to be out in life and living it. unlike emma, abby, or andrew.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:46 pm

Good point, Catbooks. Lizzie certainly had more hedonistic characteristics than anyone else in the Borden family.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Yes, certainly not like Emma, so far as we know. I suppose you can be passionate about new experiences etc. without there being a sensual experience. I just get the feeling of Uncle John being a bit grotty, and no wonder Abby went up in the morning to make his bed (change his sheets?)
As far as Charles Sawyer is concerned, the ornamental painter was a neighbour, (78 Second St) but, according to his testimony was not a calling acquaintance of the family. He said he went there 'once in a while to make some little purchases in vinegar and stuff'. What? Was he one of those neighbours who borrow a cup of sugar a lot, and he covered it up in court by saying he bought instead of borrowed, or did Bridget have a sideline selling off the family grocery supplies? Perhaps Charles fancied Bridget and used a lack of vinegar as an excuse for a chat!

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:47 pm

If Lizzie had an abortion, it stands to reason she would have still been 'recovering' while in jail and the matrons would have had to known about it.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:51 pm

Yes, Aamartin, I'm afraid an abortion looks very unlikely!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:58 pm

Curryong wrote:Yes, certainly not like Emma, so far as we know. I suppose you can be passionate about new experiences etc. without there being a sensual experience. I just get the feeling of Uncle John being a bit grotty, and no wonder Abby went up in the morning to make his bed (change his sheets?)
As far as Charles Sawyer is concerned, the ornamental painter was a neighbour, (78 Second St) but, according to his testimony was not a calling acquaintance of the family. He said he went there 'once in a while to make some little purchases in vinegar and stuff'. What? Was he one of those neighbours who borrow a cup of sugar a lot, and he covered it up in court by saying he bought instead of borrowed, or did Bridget have a sideline selling off the family grocery supplies? Perhaps Charles fancied Bridget and used a lack of vinegar as an excuse for a chat!

Interesting point...why not purchase from a grocer?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:13 am

debbiediablo wrote:
Curryong wrote:Yes, certainly not like Emma, so far as we know. I suppose you can be passionate about new experiences etc. without there being a sensual experience. I just get the feeling of Uncle John being a bit grotty, and no wonder Abby went up in the morning to make his bed (change his sheets?)
As far as Charles Sawyer is concerned, the ornamental painter was a neighbour, (78 Second St) but, according to his testimony was not a calling acquaintance of the family. He said he went there 'once in a while to make some little purchases in vinegar and stuff'. What? Was he one of those neighbours who borrow a cup of sugar a lot, and he covered it up in court by saying he bought instead of borrowed, or did Bridget have a sideline selling off the family grocery supplies? Perhaps Charles fancied Bridget and used a lack of vinegar as an excuse for a chat!
Interesting point...why not purchase from a grocer?

i've read that andrew, always on the lookout to make an extra few pennies, did sometimes sell food from the house. eggs from the swansea farm, and who knows what else. could 'little purchases in vinegar' refer to pickled foods? that's how i took it.

i think of lizzie as being sensual because of her love of fine things - clothing made of fine fabrics, her linen ceiling in maplecroft, even in her love of animals (softness of their fur, and animals are usually affectionate). but as far as that relating to a romantic relationship, the only thing i've read about is her possible relationship with nance o'neil. which i still think might have been what caused emma to leave.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:10 pm

Crossposted:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 629,346636

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:38 pm

Oh Catbooks, I forgot about Andrew's predilection for making money out of everything he could! I wonder whether poor old Abby had to do the pickling of vegetables, eggs, corn etc. or whether she got Bridget to do it. Perhaps the manager's wife at the Swansea property was in charge of that.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:50 pm

i wondered about that too, curryong. was it abby doing the pickling and perhaps baking or whathaveyou? bridget? hadn't thought of the manager's wife at the swansea farm.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:12 pm

along the lines of the ruby story, here are two old threads on it to pick through:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... ystory.htm

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... maruby.htm

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:08 pm

I had read this earlier, and to me it does tie up the loose ends that most bother me with Lizzie being the murderess. By this time David Anthony was dead and Lizzie knew she was dying. Telling the truth would put no one in jail or at the end of a noose. And it would unburden her before death.

http://listverse.com/2009/09/29/top-10- ... nfessions/

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:37 pm

Is there any actual evidence though, of a close connection between Lizzie and this much younger man, (who sounds very cultured and gentle.) Are there any independent witnesses who saw them together before the murders and could have told detectives investigating the crime, "Oh, yes, that young Dave Anthony, he's sweet on Miss Lizzie, I hear. Go and speak to him."
Anyone who saw Lizzie and Dave walking and talking together, dancing together (we know that Lizzie went to dances) meeting together in the countryside, chatting together at Church functions, etc? If there isn't one scrap of evidence of either of them being seen to acknowledge each other's existence prior to August 1892, then their supposed love for each other must have been very, very secret indeed.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:36 pm

No that I'm aware of...not until long after the fact.

Thing is with Lizzie we have to extend ourselves into areas where there isn't much to go on.

If Lizzie did it then we have to explain how she walked away with no blood splatter despite the house being searched. We know police searched, so we must take the leap that the search wasn't thorough. We have to fly in the face of sworn testimony that the burned dress was paint splattered, and one of the witnesses to the paint splatter was an entirely disinterested party.

Ditto with the hatchet. We have to take the leap that she hid it in the house so well that it's still there over 120 years later. Or that she managed to dispose of it outside where it was never found...or that some guy claimed the murder weapon from a nearby shed roof simply because he wanted it.

Those are leaps of faith. We have no evidence to support this...only conjecture...only a lack of evidence which is not the same thing as evidence.

The David Anthony theory ties up all the blood splatter and missing hatchet loose ends but requires another leap...that a boyfriend was involved. And that the boyfriend somehow wasn't looked at as a possible suspect or even as being involved with the family. But really, conjecture about an unnamed boyfriend is not much different than conjecture that the hatchet could still be in the house or she burned her bloody dress or otherwise hid it.

No matter how we look at it, the conclusions each of us reach will never be any more than an educated guess based on what we choose to believe from the facts that are available.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:47 am

True. We will never know for sure what happened on that Thursday morning. But Lizzie was there on the spot and had (the old thing again,) method, motive and opportunity. I would really love it, as I have said before on this Forum, for a good new viable suspect to come out of the woodwork. It would be fantastic if one did. But there must be something, some smidgen of proof linking them to Lizzie, or Uncle John, or the victims.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:57 am

We do have a 'smidgen'...the user known as Gramma remembers Ruby Cameron, and (I will stand corrected if my memory on this is incorrect) Gramma was told by Ruby herself that Lizzie told her David Anthony was the real killer. Ruby's memory was foggy on the exact details but the story itself seems credible.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:46 am

Sorry debbie, but I could post on here that my aunt had met Anna Anderson in 1987 and she had heard from Mrs Andersn's own lips that she was in fact the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, and that my aunt believed her implicitly. That wouldn't necessarily make my aunt or myself liars, but it would be expected of Mrs Anderson that she provide some actual proof that she was indeed the Tsar's daughter before she built any credibility with the wider public.

By the way, my aunt never met Mrs Anderson!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:45 am

Yes, it is hearsay. And hearsay is not admissible in court unless it's a deathbed confession...:-) However, that doesn't make it untrue.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:33 am

Correct! And there are many things about the Borden case in which that's so, or I guess this forum wouldn't be here!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:25 am

I've addressed this in another thread several months ago, Curryong hit's the main points...
I could tell you MY sweet old grandmother was the daughter of the man who delivered ice to the Borden's and he told her that he saw the Pope kill them....
Familiarity with a witness gives no more weight to the story than the actual witnesses who were there, and told different accounts.
Anyone who was so in Love with Lizzie as to ask for her hand wouldn't have left her to take the murder rap, in fact If they were in love enough to marry, why did NO ONE see them together...ever?
Why in a "FIT OF ANGER" did he kill Abby, then cool his heels for an hour and a half, rev himself up to kill Andrew, then cool down and leave...?
Not one piece of that story ever made any sense to me.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:10 pm

debbiediablo wrote:[…]f Lizzie did it then we have to explain how she walked away with no blood splatter despite the house being searched. We know police searched, so we must take the leap that the search wasn't thorough. We have to fly in the face of sworn testimony that the burned dress was paint splattered, and one of the witnesses to the paint splatter was an entirely disinterested party.

Ditto with the hatchet. We have to take the leap that she hid it in the house so well that it's still there over 120 years later. Or that she managed to dispose of it outside where it was never found...or that some guy claimed the murder weapon from a nearby shed roof simply because he wanted it.

[…]

No matter how we look at it, the conclusions each of us reach will never be any more than an educated guess based on what we choose to believe from the facts that are available.

well, not exactly. we do have to explain how she cleaned herself up, especially after andrew. but if lizzie didn't do it, having that prince albert coat folded and put under his head is even more inexplicable. the dress having paint on it doesn't contradict that lizzie wore it, got blood on it, and then burned it as a result. she wouldn't have worn a good dress to do such a thing.

she wouldn't have had to hide the hatchet so well it's sill there 120 years later. only until after she was acquitted, if she did it and did it alone. personally, i don't have much of a leap with the crowe yard hatchet being the murder weapon. it was found nearby (close enough that lizzie could have put it there while out 'eating pears'), it was a fairly new hatchet with gilt on it such as the one that was used, the police didn't search on that roof, and it was found the day the prosecution rested its case. meanwhile they'd entered another hatchet into evidence. the borden case was huge, so i don't think the guy claiming the hatchet for a souvenir is that big a leap. it being on the roof of a place where he wasn't even working, that seems a stretch.

but, yes, unless somehow some new evidence that includes a smoking gun appears, we'll have to settle for educated guesses. if i can come up with a theory that satisfied me, i'll be happy enough.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:09 pm

Yes, that Crowe Yard hatchet was a great candidate for 'the' weapon. It was discovered just too late. As an embarrassment to the police, I expect they were extremely pleased when the carpenter claimed it as his own. Even if the gilt found in the skull wasn't entered into evidence, what we know now about the manufacture of Victorian hatchets makes it clear that the hatchet used to kill was new and sharp.
Too many evasions, untruths and half-lies in Lizzie's testimony for me to believe her innocent, I'm afraid. If she conspired with someone beforehand or she knew someone was being hired for the task, it's a pity she/they didn't smooth out a good alibi for her and rehearse her story beforehand!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:46 pm

If Andrew disapproved of the a Lizzie-David relationship then it would make sense that they were never seen together. Plus we have no idea if they were ever seen together or not.

If Lizzie's personality is anything like I think it is, then she could've fearlessly protected David knowing that she stood a strong chance of being acquitted but he would go to the gallows if the truth came out. It would be calculated risk that both of them would walk away. And they both did. Did she fully forgive him for butchering her family...maybe not. A crime like the Borden murders would come between husband and wife, IMO.

I agree that this is hearsay. But being hearsay doesn't make it untrue...or true. It does make it worth much more careful scrutiny than sworn testimony.

I'm not bothered that David Anthony wasn't seen as a suspect at the time. Every month I read about someone who has been released from prison after being convicted by eye witness testimony only to be exonerated by DNA. Sometimes the DNA points to the real perpetrator, and many times the true guilty party wasn't even considered by investigators. And this is the 21st century, not the 19th.

Whether Lizzie did it or David did it, the positioning of the coat was an effort to undo the crime. Placing it at the bottom of the pile makes no sense if it's supposed to disguise blood splatter.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:54 am

i wonder what would have happened if the crowe hatchet had been discovered a month earlier. would lizzie have been convicted? we'd definitely know more about it than we do now. i agree, the police seemed embarrassed. doubt they did a lot of follow-up work on it.

the prince albert wasn't on the bottom of the pile. look at the photo. it's right behind his head. if david by some remote chance did do it, or anyone other than lizzie, i can't see that as an undoing.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:38 am

I tend to still think that the killer used the cushion to sort of hold/ balance Andrew's head and then the coat could be quickly slipped underneath. The afghan is at the bottom, isn't it?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:36 am

debbiediablo wrote:If Andrew disapproved of the a Lizzie-David relationship then it would make sense that they were never seen together. Plus we have no idea if they were ever seen together or not.

If Lizzie's personality is anything like I think it is, then she could've fearlessly protected David knowing that she stood a strong chance of being acquitted but he would go to the gallows if the truth came out. It would be calculated risk that both of them would walk away. And they both did. Did she fully forgive him for butchering her family...maybe not. A crime like the Borden murders would come between husband and wife, IMO.

I agree that this is hearsay. But being hearsay doesn't make it untrue...or true. It does make it worth much more careful scrutiny than sworn testimony.

I'm not bothered that David Anthony wasn't seen as a suspect at the time. Every month I read about someone who has been released from prison after being convicted by eye witness testimony only to be exonerated by DNA. Sometimes the DNA points to the real perpetrator, and many times the true guilty party wasn't even considered by investigators. And this is the 21st century, not the 19th.

Whether Lizzie did it or David did it, the positioning of the coat was an effort to undo the crime. Placing it at the bottom of the pile makes no sense if it's supposed to disguise blood splatter.

I admit I'm NOT arguing this from evidence but from logic. SO...Lizzie is secretly in love (why a secret? Why if ANYONE AT ALL knew of her interest in a man wasn't he brought up as the prime suspect?) the lover asks Mr. Borden for her hand, he says no (Why bother asking if you are keeping the love affair a secret?) The lover is so in love with Lizzie that he Kills her parents, then lets her take the rap.
A CALCULATED RISK WITH HER LIFE???? Ummm....no. I don't care how much the two of them hoped she would get off, he is no "lover" of Lizzie if he sits quietly watching her agonize in prison for a year, upset, alone, locked up. Heck, even if they KNEW she would get off, she was a sucker to take a year in prison knowing she didn't do it. And there was no guarantee that she wouldn't be hanged. If she was upset that he killed them, she would have told on him, and gone free. If she was glad he killed them, she would have gotten the $$$$ grabbed the lover, and moved to Kalamazoo to live with her prince charming and the money. She ended up with no lover, living with her sister, lonely and an outcast....Sorry, there is not one "logical" component to the 'lover theory'.

NOW, I could believe that Lizzie found a man secretly, maybe flirted with him, offered him money to kill them, told him the day and time, and was there to make sure he wasn't caught, paid him and sent him on his way...no love involved but that one is plausible. She was part of the conspiracy so even if she were to tell that it was someone else who actually did the killing, she was just as guilty and would still hang. Hence keeping her mouth shut.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:45 am

I could believe, just, that Lizzie and Emma agreed on what had to be done, explored the possibilities when out of town, and hired someone to do the deed, but flirting, nah, it would be a straight up and down business deal!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:57 am

Curryong wrote:I tend to still think that the killer used the cushion to sort of hold/ balance Andrew's head and then the coat could be quickly slipped underneath. The afghan is at the bottom, isn't it?

yes, the afghan was at the bottom, under the pillow. i think the same as you about how the pillow was used.

i'm reading/rereading the david anthony stuff. i read some of it a long time ago and dismissed it early on. but i'm willing to take another look at it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:10 am

PossumPie wrote:
I admit I'm NOT arguing this from evidence but from logic. SO...Lizzie is secretly in love (why a secret? Why if ANYONE AT ALL knew of her interest in a man wasn't he brought up as the prime suspect?) the lover asks Mr. Borden for her hand, he says no (Why bother asking if you are keeping the love affair a secret?) The lover is so in love with Lizzie that he Kills her parents, then lets her take the rap.
A CALCULATED RISK WITH HER LIFE???? Ummm....no. I don't care how much the two of them hoped she would get off, he is no "lover" of Lizzie if he sits quietly watching her agonize in prison for a year, upset, alone, locked up. Heck, even if they KNEW she would get off, she was a sucker to take a year in prison knowing she didn't do it. And there was no guarantee that she wouldn't be hanged. If she was upset that he killed them, she would have told on him, and gone free. If she was glad he killed them, she would have gotten the $$$$ grabbed the lover, and moved to Kalamazoo to live with her prince charming and the money. She ended up with no lover, living with her sister, lonely and an outcast....Sorry, there is not one "logical" component to the 'lover theory'.

NOW, I could believe that Lizzie found a man secretly, maybe flirted with him, offered him money to kill them, told him the day and time, and was there to make sure he wasn't caught, paid him and sent him on his way...no love involved but that one is plausible. She was part of the conspiracy so even if she were to tell that it was someone else who actually did the killing, she was just as guilty and would still hang. Hence keeping her mouth shut.

Okay, let's look at this from another viewpoint. Lizzie is pregnant and wants to marry the baby daddy David. Andrew threatens to disinherit her. She has an abortion. David is furious. He confronts Andrew.

Why would she confirm him as the killer to assuredly send him to the gallows when she could take her chances with the court knowing he would confess before she would hang. This kind of stuff has been written about since the ancient Greeks through Wm. Shakespeare and beyond. It happens far less often in real life than in the movies but it does happen. A child kills a sibling and against all logic the mother protects the killer. She cannot bear to lose another child.

I think you (PossumPie) were a counselor at one point in life. So you understand the ambivalence we all entertain about those we love, and sometimes hate. And you understand the rage that fuels the fires. It's entirely possible that Lizzie wanted Abby and Andrew dead, perhaps even wanted David to kill them, but couldn't come to terms with the reality that HE did it once it happened.

No matter how much I love my husband, watching him hack off my father's face would forever damage our relationship even if I hated my father much of the time. (He was a wonderful man; may be rest in peace.) Both Lizzie and David would need to be psychopaths to take the money and run to Kalamazoo to live happily ever after. The guilt from such an act would be like the Grand Canyon between them, regardless of how much they loved each other or how much she protected him. And I do see guilt when she asks to be buried at his feet.

The flipside is murder becomes a turn-on and they embark on a Charles Starkweather-Caril Fugate killing spree.

There's an old quote attributed to about a dozen different people: "We see things not as they are, but as we are the world is." I think Lizzie Borden is a prime example of how difficult it is for all of us to step out of our own shoes and try to step into hers...because most of us would be hard pressed to consider murder beyond self-defense, much less patricide. (Just as I could not live with a man who butchered my Dad.)

This is one of those time when unknowing might be more important than knowing. The more I read and think about David Anthony and Lizzie Borden, the more I'm like Alice in Wonderland – "Curiouser and curiouser!"