If it was Andrew, then not only would the culprit have to kill Abby, the person would have had to have had killed Lizzie and Bridget too, providing it was an intuder. There was no sign of that. So if it was Bridget, she'd have to do away with Lizzie and Abby and likewise if it was Lizzie she'd have to take care of both Bridget and Abby. If they were in it together, then the difficult part comes after the fact. They would have to keep quiet without squwilling on each other.
If the intended victim was Abby, they would have to take care of Andrew, because he would have figured out it was either Lizzie or Bridget or both. If Bridget did it she would have to take care of LIzzie so she wouldn't tell her father, then Andrew. If Lizzie then Lizzie would have to take care of Bridget to keep her mouth shut. Of course with two people dead, he would have to die too..
That's why I think it might have been that both Abby and Andrew were the intended targets, done by Lizzie.She didn't like her stepmother, and she was mad at her father for giving some property to Abby. She was getting even. Bridget was just the bystander.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Unless Abby and Andrew were killed in bed while they slept, there was no guarantee of killing one, then having the opportunity to kill the other. The object had to be Abby because she was the first one killed. Killing Abby in the guest room afforded the opportunity to kill Andrew, the only other places she might reasonably have been killed without immediate discovery were the cellar or the barn. Either Andrew or Bridget might have had occasion to enter the parlor, but neither would likely go to the guest room for any reason. I think the story about the note was primarily a device to prevent anyone searching for Abby immediately, and secondarily an excuse for Lizzie not missing Abby all morning. Given the number of hatchet blows, Abby was killed with greater malice than Andrew, certainly overkill.
Assuming Bridget wasn't part of the murders, I can't say what would have happened if Bridget and/or Andrew hadn't wanted a nap. I imagine either both Andrew and Bridget would have been killed, or neither one would have been killed. It's still possible that Bridget might have been in on it, so maybe she didn't actually go upstairs at all, but that scenario tends to over-complicate things unnecessarily.
I think Abby was the primary target and Andrew was killed only because the opportunity presented itself. If both murders were intended from the start, killing Bridget would have to be considered and planned for because there was no way to guarantee she would be out of the way. Bridget might have prevented Andrew from being killed, and she certainly couldn't be counted on to take Lizzie's side at the last minute so she would have been an eyewitness against Lizzie.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
I still think that both Andrew and Abby were targets-if Lizzie was the killer, she just happened to get very lucky that Bridget was in the right place at the right time, out of sight, where she didn't have to worry about her.
Otherwise, there may have been no choice but to kill Bridget as well, as much as Lizzie probably would've hated doing so. Would she have really let Bridget get in the way of her plan? I highly doubt it, whether they were close or not. Not if she was desperate enough.
Even though Abby was killed first, I think that happened more by default than anything-because Andrew was out of the house, attending to business matters at the time.
By only killing Abby, that in itself wouldn't have guaranteed direct access to the money, if money was the true motive. Therefore, Andrew would've had to be eliminated as well. There wouldn't have been another chance to "try again"-it all had to happen that day, or not at all, at any cost.
Chichibcc wrote:I still think that both Andrew and Abby were targets-if Lizzie was the killer, she just happened to get very lucky that Bridget was in the right place at the right time, out of sight, where she didn't have to worry about her.
Otherwise, there may have been no choice but to kill Bridget as well, as much as Lizzie probably would've hated doing so. Would she have really let Bridget get in the way of her plan? I highly doubt it, whether they were close or not. Not if she was desperate enough.
Even though Abby was killed first, I think that happened more by default than anything-because Andrew was out of the house, attending to business matters at the time.
By only killing Abby, that in itself wouldn't have guaranteed direct access to the money, if money was the true motive. Therefore, Andrew would've had to be eliminated as well. There wouldn't have been another chance to "try again"-it all had to happen that day, or not at all, at any cost.
I, too, think that both of them were the targerts for different reasons. Abby because she just didn't like her and she was mad at her because Abby got what Lizzie felt was part of her inheirtance. Think that was misplaced anger. Daddy was the one that made the decsion to give the property to Abbys' family. And Lizzie was mad at Andrew for giving the property to Abby. The only problem I have is this. Even though Bridget was out of sight and mind, she was washing windows and lying down in her room. If was washing the windows at the time of Abbys murder, she would at least felt the thud because of the house being so narrow and small. If she was in her room lying down, she definately would have heard the thud and definatly felt it.
I don't think she was all that much of an innocent bystander. Think she got caught up in the whole scenrio-- kinda maphazardly.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Whether Bridget would've heard anything would've depended on how well constructed/thick the walls of the house are, which is hard to know.
Plus, back then, houses were more strongly constructed than they are now (at least, that's what I've always heard, anyway).
If Bridget really was involved, she did a very good job of not saying anything-a lot of people in her situation would've had a far more difficult time staying quiet.
I think Abby was just dazed by the first blow, and went down to her knee's, then with the next blow went all the way down with her hands and arms out in front of her to try and catch herself. She was found with them under her. Instinctivly a person would try to catch oneself. It wouldn't have made a lot of noise, if any, if she just sort of crumpled. And whom-ever did it probably just kept hitting her, following her down to the floor. I think that's why the blows were so scattered and all over her head.
I believe also Abby was the primary cause of the murders. Something may have happened that morning to drive Lizzie to madness or perhaps it was part of a premeditated plan. After doing away with Abby, she realized Andrew would probably have to die in a similar fashion to cast suspicion on an outside intruder(s) committing the acts. Somehow though, I think Morse had a role in the events.
Chichibcc wrote:Whether Bridget would've heard anything would've depended on how well constructed/thick the walls of the house are, which is hard to know.
Plus, back then, houses were more strongly constructed than they are now (at least, that's what I've always heard, anyway).
If Bridget really was involved, she did a very good job of not saying anything-a lot of people in her situation would've had a far more difficult time staying quiet.
I have heard houses were better built back the, but you have to remember that the house was very narrowly built(so I have heard and read) and that there were no hall ways separating the upstairs rooms. Plus, Bridgets room was in the attic which, from what I have seen from the way the house was constructed, it was right up the back staircase,from the kitchen. I mean if she just walked the one flight of stairs and didn't go to her room she would have been in Andrews' room. I mean to say it was very close quaters between the attic room and the second floor.
I also think too that she did a very good job of keeping her mouth shut. I think she was involved after the fact, Think she helped Lizzie clean up. And she wasn't going to say anything.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Morse actually returning to the Borden house has always seemed odd if he had been involved in the murders. He may have been one of the first to zero in on what actually happened, but I doubt he was a part of it beforehand. Just the fact that he returned to the house detracts from his credibility as a suspect, and the speed with which the police began to suspect Lizzie tells me they thought so, too. This was even before they had a chance to check his alibi.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Chichibcc wrote:At this point, I don't think Mr. Morse was involved-wasn't he gone from the house at the time of the murders? I just don't see it.
I tend to agree, although at one time I thought he might have had something to do with the murder's. That he killed Abby before he even left the house that morning, but that's kinda way out there.
I've noticed an inconsistency in expectations when it comes to suspects. While we expect Lizzie to be covered from head to toe in blood and gore as the result of the murders, we don't expect anyone else to be similarly adorned. That includes an intruder going completely unnoticed by one and all, and Morse on his way to his relatives.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
That's another reason I ruled out the intruder scenario-even if they had slipped out the house without being noticed by Lizzie and Bridget, their clothes would've been quite blood-splattered-where could they have gone without being seen like that? It would've been impossible.
I really don't think there was much blood spattered on the attacker. Look at how much blood was spattered around the guest room, it wasn't much. The bedspread from that room was recently examined and everyone was amazed at the relative lack of blood on it. The blood spatter in both murders all appears to have been cast-off from the hatchet, which is thrown away from the attacker. I don't see any particular reason to expect there would be any blood at all on the attacker based upon the crime scenes.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
shakiboo wrote:I think Abby was just dazed by the first blow, and went down to her knee's, then with the next blow went all the way down with her hands and arms out in front of her to try and catch herself. She was found with them under her. Instinctivly a person would try to catch oneself. It wouldn't have made a lot of noise, if any, if she just sort of crumpled. And whom-ever did it probably just kept hitting her, following her down to the floor. I think that's why the blows were so scattered and all over her head.
Yes, this seems probable, Abby's hand position seems to be such that she was attempting to guard against her head or face hitting the floor, more or less to slow her descent. The wound to the side of her head may well be the first one struck while facing the assailant. She might have turned away and taken the a second blow to her upper back/neck area as the autopsy showed, which may have put her on her knees. She remained alive long enough to raise her hands to cushion her fall from that position. Her hands and arms were in a defensive posture, if she had been killed with the first blow, her arms might have been in any random position, possibly straight down at her sides, and she would more likely have fallen straight down, just collapsing all at once.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Assuming Bridget wasn't part of the murders, I can't say what would have happened if Bridget and/or Andrew hadn't wanted a nap. I imagine either both Andrew and Bridget would have been killed, or neither one would have been killed. It's still possible that Bridget might have been in on it, so maybe she didn't actually go upstairs at all, but that scenario tends to over-complicate things unnecessarily.
For the sake of things (if you want to think Lizzie had an accomplice) could Bridget have NOT gone upstairs to take her nap and instead, killed Abby? To take it further, what if Bridget killed Andrew and snuck upstairs to clean up? No one mentions searching Bridget's room (unless it's on an earlier thread)- what a perfect place to hid bloody clothes and the murder weapon. We know she later went to spend the night at a friend's house (close by) but what's not to say that she didn't dispose of everything then?
If Bridget killed Abby it would have had to have been done much earlier. (Remember the blood evidence.) I tend to think that Abby was disposed of at about 9:30 am. It would have been extremely awkward if Andrew had gone up to have a snooze in his room. I don't know what Lizzie would have done in those circumstances, gone up to his bedroom and, if the room was unlocked, murdered him there? (Always supposing she was the killer, of course.)
The police did search Bridget's room. I can't remember which officer reported on it, but it is in the police testimony. Poor Bridget didn't have much but what she did have got a thorough going over. Inspector Medley, Marshall Fleet and Officer Harrington all questioned Lizzie at various times and her room was searched afterwards.
Bridget slept at Dr and Mrs Kelly's house. She was friendly with their maid. She never really went back to the Bordens in those few days after the murders. Don't know whether a police officer escorted her there to the Kelly's or not.
I agree about the 9:30 timing but Lizzie wasn't as forthcoming with details as to where she was during all of this (the morning part that is). I was thinking that perhaps she killed Abby - she did say that she couldn't really estimate timing.
I didn't know about Bridget's room being searched. I'll have to go back and read it. Thanks!
