Motives not Suspects

[Franz]

... I entertain multiple scenarios one of which the murderer (either hired or for personal reasons) kills Abby because she somehow gets in the way, discovers him hiding upstairs, when the intended victim is Andrew...

Hi Debbie, I think that when we consider the theory (theories) of intruder, we must find a possible explanation for every element -- I say EVERY element ---. Take what you said here as an example, would you like to tell me how would you explain the note story?

[irina]

Geez..another of my posts got lost? Think it got cut in half anyway.

Quickly then: Thanks for the suggestions Debbie. I'm cyber-stupid and almost cyber-hopeless.

Considering all who could have done the murders, there are endless variations for an intruder who went berzerk. Business associate of Andrew's instructed to wait outside in the heat till Andrew returned. Associate of Uncle John who was sent to retrieve some item Morse left behind. Could have been an intended sexual crime but Abby fought back. Maybe Abby ran to the window to holler, like was previously suggested on this thread. The killer panicked, knowing he was in the wrong place for the wrong reason, and killed her.

In hopes this doesn't get lost I send this KISS~Keep It Simple Stupid~referring to myself of course, now smart enough not to make it so long it gets cut (axed) in half and lost!

[Curryong]

Hello again irina (and everyone.) Because I'm Australian I come online at different times to the others, usually! How interesting that you live near to the site of the Vilisca Axe murders. They were new ones to me when I joined this Forum, as I have more of a knowledge of 19th century and early 20th century British crime, including Jack, who is a decades old interest, (used to post on a Jack the Ripper forum.)

The Vilisca Axe murders make me feel slightly sick, actually. Weird for a Ripper fanatic, I know! It's probably because of most of the victims being children, and I am mother to three (and grandmother to two, with twins expected shortly.)
What do you think of the Oscar Pistorius case? Any thoughts? I've been following it quite closely and I know debbie has.
I'm finding it quite fascinating because of the differences between the South African court system and our own. The Amanda Knox business too, have you followed that one at all?

Don't be too afraid of buying things online. I've bought books on Amazon for many years now, no trouble! Detective novels published between the wars, another interest of mine, and hard to obtain in Australia. My son mistrusts the Internet, though he uses it daily. He very rarely buys things online, won't give banking/credit card details etc. and is angry about the U.S. Government (and others) use of the Internet in gathering information on private citizens.

As far as the Borden murders go, having thought about it and debated it, I'm afraid I am still in the 'Lizzie dun it' camp, with an outside chance of a hired killer. Have you explored previous threads/ the archives yet? Some fascinating stuff there! Hope you enjoy being on the Forum.

[PossumPie]

Don't misunderstand me...I don't have a pet theory. True, I lean towards Lizzie, b/c she had clear motive, clear means, and clear opportunity. I am open to other possibilities. What I am NOT open to are wild theories when someone says something to the effect that "An illegitimate son broke in and killed Andrew after confronting him b/c he didn't get any inheritance. Out of grief he killed himself and we never hear from him again" POPPYCOCK! You have made up scenarios out of whole cloth. The same with Morse hiring two men to sneak to the Borden home, distract Abby, sneak upstairs, kill her, hide for 90 minutes, sneak down and kill Andrew and leave b/c Morse wanted his nieces to get the inheritance. BLAH! there is TOO much made up stuff without a shred of evidence. The reason the "Lizzie did it people" hold more weight is that they have much black and white evidence they can use. I'm not saying that they are correct, but it is firmer evidence than an illegitimate son or a knight in shining armor- Morse. I can't abide people making up a fictional account then twisting insignificant facts to fit their fictional account. Could it have been a stranger, or Morse, or the Pope? sure, none of those are impossible. It is just that we have nothing to back them up, so we can speculate on fictional accounts all day, or say using what evidence we have, here are the Probable suspects.
I think I am misunderstood most on the point that all of the "could-have-happened" things like killers in broad daylights without regard for their safety or mega-luck of not getting caught COULD HAVE HAPPENED....TRUE. But my point is that they are more unlikely. Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. If I hear hoof-beats outside my country home window, I guess "horses" not "Zebras" You could say "AHA!!! BUT it COULD be a zebra!" Sure but more likely a horse...at least in my part of the world. A killer in a house in a city in broad daylight with 3 people wandering around on every floor is MORE likely someone who's presence there would not raise suspicion than a total stranger carrying a bloody hatchet.

[irina]

Hi Curryong and all...Actually I live in Idaho which is near the west coast. Vilisca axe murders were in Iowa which is midwest. I have never been there. The Vilisca case is also terrible because some of the children were visitors and there are less possible clear cut motives than in say the Borden murders.

I only catch what passes by on news with Oscar Pistorius. What I have said to my friends is he is in serious trouble because even I don't believe his story and I believe pretty much anything. I can't get past the idea of shooting through a bathroom door because you think there MIGHT be a burglar in there. Also not locating his girlfriend first. If I was in a threatening situation and possibly the strongest most able person around, I would make sure the weaker family members were accounted for. I know I wrote that a little odd. My late husband was a lot older than me and was crippled by stroke, so if something went bump in the night it was me who took charge and he was always my first concern.

I have always felt Amanda Knox was innocent and there were a lot of guilty type people who should have been investigated. I am very sorry for the victim Meredith's parents, for their loss and because I'm not sure the guilty parties have even really been looked at.

As for Occam's Razor...depends on how and when it is applied. Concerning the death of Abby Borden, Lizzie had motive, means and opportunity. Plenty of opportunity. Concerning the death of her father, simple facts have to be tugged and stretched to make it all happen. A very simple observation is Lizzie had very little time to kill, clean up, break the hatchet, hide it under wood ash, etc. etc. etc. By her own worlds and evidence of people who knew her she was not one to move fast and speed was needed to accomplish all this before Lizzie notified Bridget. It was theories of authorities at the time that looked for extraordinary means to convict Lizzie in my opinion.

Authors get rich writing convoluted theories and thus there is the illegitimate son of Andrew Borden or Prince Eddie or Walter Sickert in Jack the Ripper.

Family members kill family members. Happens all the time. So do creeps walk into houses and kill people, sometimes in broad daylight. Actually all the way around the case was built up by the prosecution trying to make a case. Evidence was lacking for or against Lizzie. Most notably the only hatchet on premises that might possibly be the murder weapon just happened to have a broken handle and be stored in an unusual way. Failing to find a hatchet anywhere on the grounds or in the neighborhood an elaborate scenario was concocted as to how Lizzie MIGHT have used THIS hatchet and subsequently cleaned it, broken it, hidden it. Sounds like someone turning horses into zebras, to me.

I spent part of this evening refreshing my memory of inquest testimony. I was surprised at the number of questions put to Emma about where the family purchased meat. Don't know if it means anything, but did the prosecution at one time consider a butcher could have been involved and that the nonexistent weapon could have been a butcher's tool? Unclear but interesting.

Looking at the simplest solution would be to assume that Lizzie and all others told the truth to the best of their ability. But people lie, especially to cover crimes. So if the is indicted or "presumed guilty" or whatever the commonwealth called it, one has to assume she lied about anything that was exculpatory. What if she didn't? What difference does it make if Abby had a note (or not) from a sick friend whom she planned to see when she went marketing for the noon meal? Nobody seems to feel Abby would never or rarely do the marketing. Indeed it sounds that Abby doing the marketing before noon was a regular activity. Why then must the note nobody saw or found, mean that much? If no such thing happened Lizzie would still be in safe territory to state that Mrs. Borden had gone to market for some meat for dinner and she has not returned yet. Lizzie could have mumbled something about Abby stopping to see her sister or something. I can't imagine Andrew rushing out in the heat, to the market to see if Abby really got there. Lizzie could have fabricated a much stronger tale from regular behaviors even if she had to twist the facts a bit, if there was a need to provide a story. THAT would also be a simple way to look at this story. Possibly it was the prosecution who desperately needed to find zebras in my opinion.

[Curryong]

It's quite clear though, irina, that there wasn't any note from a sick friend. Abby didn't have that many close friends actually, and Mrs Whitehead, her half-sister, who was at the Police picnic, would have been the only one Abby would have actually dropped everything for and rushed off if there was anything wrong.

I think the note has assumed significance because the only one who linked Abby with a note was Lizzie, who informed Bridget. Bridget gave testimony on it. The police were desperate to find the note and when no sender appeared it became quite obvious that the note story was made-up.

Yes, Lizzie could have said Abby was just out shopping, but the point is she didn't. She told Bridget, (and Andrew when he arrived home, according to Bridget) something that she must have known was a lie. She told Marshall Fleet in her earliest witness statement on Thursday afternoon, that the last time she saw Abby alive was when she came down to breakfast and Abby was in the guest room at that time. She later changed her testimony to Abby dusting, going marketing and 'the note'.

You know what made me really suspicious of Lizzie, when I first studied this case? It was the fact of that conversation. Lizzie gave evidence that she had asked Abby if she was going to change in order to go down the street and she said Abby replied that she would go as she was. Have you seen the photographs of Abby? She is obviously wearing a dress of calico, for housework. She also has on enormous boots. It is said that she wore Andrew's old boots around the house for comfort. Perhaps she had fluid retention. However that outfit and those boots are definitely not street wear in a much more formal age.

I think as far as the hatchet is concerned the prosecution were trying to establish whether Andrew's odd job man employed at the Swansea farm (brought eggs, did wood chopping at No 92) ever did any killing of sheep etc at the Borden place, thus leaving nice, sharp axes/ hatchets laying around. That's my take on it anyway!

Have you taken a look at fairly recent threads which show how L. could have committed Andrew's murder using his coat as a cover-all ? That would leave her quite clean except for her boots.

[debbiediablo]

Quickly then: Thanks for the suggestions Debbie. I'm cyber-stupid and almost cyber-hopeless.

That would be called cyber-inexperienced. I, too, have my posts get lost...which I blame on taking too long or posting at the same time as someone else. Lately it's been worse than usual.

Edited to clarify quote from my response.

[debbiediablo]

... I entertain multiple scenarios one of which the murderer (either hired or for personal reasons) kills Abby because she somehow gets in the way, discovers him hiding upstairs, when the intended victim is Andrew...

Hi Debbie, I think that when we consider the theory (theories) of intruder, we must find a possible explanation for every element -- I say EVERY element ---. Take what you said here as an example, would you like to tell me how would you explain the note story?

Hi Franz! I'm guessing you mean the missing note that called Abby to a sick friend. These are the options that pop into my head:
• Lizzie lied about the note. It never existed.
• Abby lied about the note for reasons we don't know. It never existed. Maybe she wanted Lizzie to think she was going out when she had every intention of remaining upstairs out of sight.
• The note existed but Abby lied about its contents.
• Lizzie told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the note, but the person who sent the note either didn't want to get involved after the fact....
• Or the note was a hoax to lure Abby away from the house for the killer to come in and kill Andrew...
• Or for the killer to murder Abby off premises.
• The note is The Most Important Piece of Evidence; Dr. Bowen found it on Abby's body and later burned it.
• Bowen either knew what to look for or it was fairly evident in his cursory examination of her. Which leads to the question as to why the murderer didn't take it.
• The note existed and the killer took it because it was incriminating.
• Lizzie sent the note to Abby to get her out of the house but it didn't work.
• Andrew sent the note to Abby and the contents got both of them murdered.
• Abby's sister lied.
• Lizzie didn't hear anyone come home.
• Lizzie did hear something...perhaps the murderer moving about upstairs.
I give more credence to the red; and yes, some of my theories are in direct contradiction with each other. I still do not have a theory that is defensible at every element.

[debbiediablo]

Geez..another of my posts got lost? Think it got cut in half anyway.

Quickly then: Thanks for the suggestions Debbie. I'm cyber-stupid and almost cyber-hopeless.

Considering all who could have done the murders, there are endless variations for an intruder who went berzerk. Business associate of Andrew's instructed to wait outside in the heat till Andrew returned. Associate of Uncle John who was sent to retrieve some item Morse left behind. Could have been an intended sexual crime but Abby fought back. Maybe Abby ran to the window to holler, like was previously suggested on this thread. The killer panicked, knowing he was in the wrong place for the wrong reason, and killed her.

In hopes this doesn't get lost I send this KISS~Keep It Simple Stupid~referring to myself of course, now smart enough not to make it so long it gets cut (axed) in half and lost!

When I remember to do so (which at my age isn't consistent) I copy my posts before hitting Submit. This is intended to keep my blood pressure from shooting the moon when it disappears into cyberspace. I'm a long day trip from Villisca but the conference was in Des Moines which is about 100 miles from the murder site.

[debbiediablo]

Hello again irina (and everyone.)
What do you think of the Oscar Pistorius case? Any thoughts? I've been following it quite closely and I know debbie has.
I'm finding it quite fascinating because of the differences between the South African court system and our own. The Amanda Knox business too, have you followed that one at all?

I can't decide whether Pistorius's attorney made a huge error in introducing a mental health defense or whether the prosecution just charged headlong into a well laid trap. I do think Pistorius is likely to have an anxiety disorder although not one that would lessen culpability in killing Reeva...but...he will not be institutionalized for the evaluation so his chances of faking it are far better than if he were under 24/7 observation for 30 days. The South African justice system allows for an exceptional amount of grandstanding by the opposing attorneys. Perhaps because the judge (rather than a jury) will make the decision and is counted on to know the difference between facts and theatrics.

Amanda Knox sends me back and forth. She lied straight out and put an innocent man's life in jeopardy. That's hard to explain away. But the prosecution keeps coming up with another motive, one for each trial it seems. And the crime scene sounds like a three-ring circus with tainted evidence at every turn. I'm not convinced she's as innocent as she claims but the shadow of doubt looms too large for me to vote for conviction.

[Curryong]

Yes, I think Pistorius probably had an anxiety disorder, (or if he didn't have before he should now! Sorry, weak joke!) it's clear that the judge is letting him have every opportunity to prove his innocence. It's just odd that this anxiety condition has come to the fore, towards the end of the trial when the defence team's forensic expert worked like a damp squib and everything else seems to have failed. Whatever the reasoning, it means another delay, a very long one this time, apparently.

I was discussing with a friend, an American who lives in Europe, how very different the Amanda Knox case appears to people in Britain and Europe, especially Italy, compared to the U.S. When nationals of one country get involved with another country's legal system, all sorts of patriotic and nationalistic feelings can intrude. This becomes even more complex when the victim is of another nationality again. Interesting!

[debbiediablo]

But my point is that they are more unlikely. Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. If I hear hoof-beats outside my country home window, I guess "horses" not "Zebras" You could say "AHA!!! BUT it COULD be a zebra!" Sure but more likely a horse...at least in my part of the world. A killer in a house in a city in broad daylight with 3 people wandering around on every floor is MORE likely someone who's presence there would not raise suspicion than a total stranger carrying a bloody hatchet.

Do you recall our most recent discussion about Occam's Razor which was shortly after Malaysian Flight 370 disappeared.

William Ockham was a theologian who wrote, "Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." In other words Ockham, later Occam, himself did not believe parsimony is universally applicable.

Simplicity should not be treated as a concrete reality. It must be embedded within context of the hypothesis, and I don't think it works well throughout the Borden case because it isn't the compliance of the data itself, simple or otherwise, but often the weight each of us chooses to give it that leads to our individual hypotheses. Note I did not say 'explanations'.

I agree: the Pope did not kill them. Here Occam's has meaning. Much as I enjoy Franz, it has meaning for his postulation as well, at least until further data is available. Likelihood of future data may be limited to a locked cabinet in Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Barry law offices in Springfield. Otherwise we have what we have and always have had.

But when we move to favoring hypotheses with more available competing data (i.e. which is more likely, the killer lingering in the house for 90 minutes or the killer bludgeoning two people and remaining in the house with no blood stains and no weapon) then Occam's fails because these sets of data are equally compliant or close to equally compliant. Each of us assigns weight to one or the other from our own personal experience, mindset, font of information...not from anything "more" scientific or logical. Or simple.

[Curryong]

Do you think we could arrange a burglary at above law firm? Joke, in case any police officers are reading this!

[PossumPie]

But my point is that they are more unlikely. Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. If I hear hoof-beats outside my country home window, I guess "horses" not "Zebras" You could say "AHA!!! BUT it COULD be a zebra!" Sure but more likely a horse...at least in my part of the world. A killer in a house in a city in broad daylight with 3 people wandering around on every floor is MORE likely someone who's presence there would not raise suspicion than a total stranger carrying a bloody hatchet.

Do you recall our most recent discussion about Occam's Razor which was shortly after Malaysian Flight 370 disappeared.

William Ockham was a theologian who wrote, "Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." In other words Ockham, later Occam, himself did not believe parsimony is universally applicable.

Simplicity should not be treated as a concrete reality. It must be embedded within context of the hypothesis, and I don't think it works well throughout the Borden case because it isn't the compliance of the data itself, simple or otherwise, but often the weight each of us chooses to give it that leads to our individual hypotheses. Note I did not say 'explanations'.

I agree: the Pope did not kill them. Here Occam's has meaning. Much as I enjoy Franz, it has meaning for his postulation as well, at least until further data is available. Likelihood of future data may be limited to a locked cabinet in Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Barry law offices in Springfield. Otherwise we have what we have and always have had.

But when we move to favoring hypotheses with more available competing data (i.e. which is more likely, the killer lingering in the house for 90 minutes or the killer bludgeoning two people and remaining in the house with no blood stains and no weapon) then Occam's fails because these sets of data are equally compliant or close to equally compliant. Each of us assigns weight to one or the other from our own personal experience, mindset, font of information...not from anything "more" scientific or logical. Or simple.

Again, I think you are understanding PARTS of Occam's Razor and misunderstanding others. OF COURSE strange bizarre and unlikely things do occur. The events that all conspired to sink the Titanic are examples of unlikely or low probability things adding up to disaster. The term "Stranger than fiction" was written to PROVE Occam's Razor isn't always the answer. BUT it says given two competing hypotheses..the one that is the most mundane and simple is USUALLY the correct one. I went on a satirical path a few months ago, frustrated at Franz's wild fictional account, and I said the Pope hired someone to kill the Borden's. The scenario I gave was completely within known evidence and couldn't be dis-proven...albeit a wild crazy theory. My first elaborate hypothesis mysteriously disappeared...the mundane answer was It got 'lost in cyperspace' the conspiratorial answer was that some moderator thought it was to satirical. Anyway, people drop in and drop out of here with crazy theories they defy people to dis-prove. The laws of logic however force the burden of proof onto the theorist...NOT those trying to dis-prove it. An example is Bertrum Russell's "Teapot" He stated that if he believed a teapot was orbiting the sun between the earth and the sun, nobody could dis-prove it. Of course not, but it wouldn't fall on us to dis-prove...It would fall on him to prove.
I want to encourage hypotheses about various suspects....I really do. But I will critically disect the ideas that pile loads of fiction without any supporting evidence.

Quote:
" A very simple observation is Lizzie had very little time to kill, clean up, break the hatchet, hide it under wood ash, etc. etc. etc. "
End Quote:

Illogical. ANY SUSPECT no matter Lizzie, Morse, a stranger, or the Pope's hitman would have the exact same amount of time to kill, clean up, and lose the weapon. Lizzie talked with Andrew, went outside (according to her) returned less than ten minutes later to find him dead. That gives the same improbable amount of time to any killer. She states she was in the barn for half an hour but that is a gross exaggeration. The timeline is quite clear using Bridget's testimony and Lizzie's own, that only 10 minutes occurred from last sighting of 'live Andrew' and 'dead Andrew'.

I am most at a loss for what happened to the weapon, but am fascinated by the hatchet that was found on the neighbors roof a year after the killings that was NOT allowed in the trial. Any suspect would have been able to go to the back of the property and toss a hatchet up on the roof where it was found.

[Curryong]

Yes I dislike those assertions that Lizzie was messing around after Andrew's murder putting the hatchet head in hot ashes then going into the barn to break the axe handle in a vice, the theory that the prosecution came up with.
Why, when there was a perfectly good flat-roofed barn to throw the hatchet up onto? Workmen had been at Crowe's for some time and she may even have got the idea from seeing them around. Anyone spotting the hatchet subsequently would not be able to disprove that a careless workman left it there.

[irina]

Everyone has been busy!

All I can say about Amanda Knox is I never closely followed it. Sounds like she enjoyed quite a night life and I never consider that the safest course in life.

Oscar Pistorius~I live in the western US. Lots of us have guns. Most of us know we could and would defend our families with firearms if it was necessary. That said I cannot imagine shooting through a closed door, hoping to hit an unidentified burglar. Like I said, he's in big trouble because even I don't believe his story and I believe most anything.

Problems with speculating on historic mysteries is when people get theories, do research and write whole books with lots of pages to fill. One of the first books I read about Lizzie (our library only had 2 volumes then and none now), was Victoria Lincoln's "A Private Disgrace". She had every possible question answered and blank filled in to prove her idea of how it all could have happened. Because she had grown up in the area there was always the idea that she had a lot of inside knowledge. Maybe she did but it also seems Fall River didn't much like Lizzie and her family before the crimes and shunned her and her sister afterward.

Concerning the note or story of the note to Abby, I don't see it as serving a purpose for Lizzie. When I was reading the inquest online last night I didn't see any comments about a boy bringing the note. I remember reading that somewhere. I like Masterton's suggestion that there may not have been a note or if there was it was from Mrs. Whitehead and about Little Abby, the niece not coming over for the day, that possibly Mrs. Whitehead's young son delivered the message or possibly a note that referred to Abby's recent illness and stating that because Abby had been sick the child would spend the day in another place. Masterton suggests that Abby imparted some version of this to Lizzie who only half listened and then did indeed create a story about Abby going out to tend a sick friend.

If Abby habitually did the marketing before lunch I cannot see any reason to invent such a troublesome lie that Lizzie stuck to all the way through. She never made it bigger or more dramatic. "She told me she had had a note, somebody was sick and she said, 'I am going to get dinner on the way', and asked me what I wanted for dinner," Lizzie's inquest testimony. Why not make it bigger? Somebody was VERY sick and Abby rushed out? Abby said she might be back very late because somebody was very sick? I just don't see a point for such a simple lie if it's a lie. If it isn't a lie, perhaps a misunderstanding then it would be a point in favor of Lizzie telling the truth.

The one thing I find troubling is that Lizzie asked Abby if she was going to change her clothes before going out and Abby said there was no reason to do so. That seems an odd thing to recollect and could hint at a motive for Lizzie, like Mrs. Borden would never humiliate her again by dressing poorly. On the other hand taking this together with the rest of the mundane conversation Lizzie remembered, it doesn't sound like there was unpleasantness or friction.

Lizzie's testimony and various reported statements are a mess. Recently writers have made quite an issue of her being on morphine for her "nerves" following the murders. She definitely sound out of touch. Shock and drugs? I have wondered IF it was Lizzie who inquired for prussic acid, if she may have considered suicide rather than murder. With a great many drugs and tonics available without prescription, is it possible Lizzie was habituated to some seemingly harmless but dangerous preparation previous to the murders and could this affect her perception of events? Pure speculation but a lot of what she had to say was odd.

One thing that could be of great interest in this case would be for modern science to go over the broken hatchet looking for blood and DNA. I bet there could be some left, possibly soaked into the wood or in a notch in the head. I can't find where this was done. Possibly cost has prevented this? Possibly a Patricia Cornwell type who can sink a lot of money into research could pay for something like this? Some level of proof might be found on the broken hatchet. Would absolutely no human blood/DNA thereon mean it absolutely is not the murder weapon? If such was found on the hatchet, especially if DNA could be matched, it would go a long way to proving Lizzie did it because then it would take an extraordinary effort to try to prove an intruder would have cleaned, broken and secreted the hatchet as it was found.

[Curryong]

I too have often wondered about the whole Prussic acid incident, irina. It might even have been a case of mistaken identity, although I don't think so.

Lizzie spoke of feeling low when she was with her friends at Marian, and of feeling that something was hanging over her when in conversation with Alice Russell.
There was a bit of speculation about Prussic Acid being used for suicide, in earlier threads. Have to look it up. Prussic acid would be an awful and unstable drug to have to administer in a murder attempt. Much more likely in my view that Lizzie may have had suicide in mind if she did try to buy it.

I believe that the Fall River Historical Society did have the hatchet blade in their possession tested some years ago, for a fee, if I remember right of about $2,000. It came up blank. I don't know if they have the broken handle.

The axe bits were sent to Professor Wood at Harvard before the trial and his frustration at the ashes on the blade sticking to it like a thick glaze comes through in his testimony. Poor man, it's quite amusing in a way. debbiediablo posted a way of cleaning axe blades on this forum that must have been known at the time, but apparently not to Wood and his colleagues.

Nothing ever came up about Lizzie being an habitual sampler of anything medicinal at the time. However, some of the concoctions and potions in Victorian medicines, both patent and otherwise make you gasp, don't they?
Opiums and laudanum mixtures, pinches of arsenic and cocaine etc. Perhaps Lizzie used to go and sample some coca cola at the pharmacy.

On the other hand, Andrew seems to have relied on homespun remedies. He wasn't a smoker and it has been speculated that the handful of tobacco found in one of his pockets after death was supposedly bought because chewing tobacco was thought to ease an upset stomach!

[PossumPie]

The first thing that helped me separate "FACT" from legend, from outright fiction was looking as sources. Mind you, the source does NOT prove it was fact. Obviously direct witnesses who were there that day contradict each other, so putting weight on someone's testimony isn't completely fail-safe. Next is legend. We had a member here named "grandma" who knew someone who knew someone who was Lizzie's supposed nurse...You see where I'm going with this. This hold Zero weight with me. Any one of the people could have been lying, or at least exaggerating the truth. Some members here jumped on her theory of Lizzie having a motorcycle riding boyfriend who killed them with zeal, saying we have a 'direct link' here! Poppycock. You don't know that it was a 14 year old kid with an avitar named "grandma" making it all up...but we had a lot of excited people here eating up the 'new information'
Lastly is pure fiction. This is passed on as fact. "It was the hottest day on record" I have thrown books away about the Borden case that started with that totally false 'fact' A check of newspaper archives for the area at the time show it was no hotter than low 80's. YET people pass that heat thing around like gospel truth.
The Prussic acid account is tenuous at best. The man did NOT know Lizzie, but had seen her once, was dragged in front of a alledged murderess and asked it this was "the woman" he said yes. That is so grossly unfair, and wouldn't stand up in any court. It may have been her, but we can't be sure. My suspicions are arised b/c she was born in raised in Fall River, lived a long 2 blocks from the pharmacist, yet denied even knowing where his shop was or that it existed....imagine living in a city and not knowing a shop two blocks away???? At that point she was lying to not seem more suspicious than she was. Why not say "Yea, I've seen it many times, never been in. We use XYZ pharmacy" That seems more plausible.

[irina]

A different thread here goes into peoples' perception of time. Perhaps what I am going to say belongs there but it is also a way to look at events surrounding Andrew's death and I have never seen it suggested before. Sources put Andrew's arrival back home at around 10:40-10:45 am. Clocks and time were notoriously inaccurate in those days but give or take, those times seem acceptable. It also seems correct that Lizzie called for Bridget just about 11:05 am and police were contacted about 11:15. I' sure we all agree that whoever killed Abby FIRST, also killed Andrew at some time later.

Lizzie and Bridget testified that Andrew did certain things when he arrived home. Minimally he had trouble getting in, went upstairs and came back down, conversed with Lizzie, prepared to take a nap and laid down, got murdered. Those are five activities in the realm of fact. In other words he didn't walk through the door and get bashed on the head. He must have laid himself down on the sofa.

Suppose we say each of those separate activities took 3 minutes? Some may have taken a bit more, some less, but suppose each took 3 minutes. That is fifteen minutes all together. If he arrived on the front doorstep at 10:40, by this reckoning he was dead by 10:55. If the activities began at 10:45 he was dead right on 11:00.

My point is this: five to ten minutes is a ridiculously short time for Lizzie to clean and break the hatchet, cover it with ashes and hide it. It is not necessarily too short a time for Lizzie to go into the yard, throw the hatchet onto the neighbor's roof and return to call Bridget. It is plenty of time if the weapon was secreted another way. (I can't remember all the various parts of a wood cook stove but I always wondered why the hatchet couldn't have been stuffed under ashes right inside the stove. Would the police have known enough to check every nook and cranny there?) Considering any of the Lizzie did it scenarios I then wonder why she called Bridget so soon. With this short time she barely had time to take a deep breath or check her appearance in a mirror or wash her hands.

Five to ten minutes would be sufficient time for an intruder to leave through a door or window, to get away in whatever direction and keep on going, before the alarm was sounded.

In reply about the drugs and tonics of those days, there were incredible poisons and narcotics in many non-prescription medications, not to mention alcohol in great quantity. I know people well into the last century were preoccupied with bowel movements and laxatives probably because no one knew what caused deadly illnesses like appendicitis. Many people routinely took various tonics on a routine basis. Heaven only knows what Lizzie might have taken for her "nerves" to get through the family strife. I too discount the prussic acid accusation except for what seems to be her lie about the pharmacy and the mention of a seal skin cape. On the other hand Bridget made a comment about if she knew where Mrs. Whitehead lived, she would go fetch Abby. Seems to me Whitehead's wasn't that far away. Were these people clueless about their neighborhoods? Possibly Lizzie was intentionally lying about not knowing of the pharmacy in an attempt to distance herself from the subject. She was a lousy liar which is another reason I think there is a lot of truth in her various comments. (Her official testimony is a mess whether from morphine or aggressive prosecution, I have no idea.) I think if there was no note for example, and if the whole thing was a lie, she would have really messed it up. There may have been no note but she apparently thought there had been one in my opinion.

Anyway, if everyone considers individual activities when Andrew got home, in three minute increments, let's see what we all come up with. Lizzie's activities seen in this way, seem to fit a 15 minute time frame. Bridget's to me are problematic because she was finishing washing windows. Don't know if that matters. Bothers me that Bridget never mentioned putting away her step ladder which she said she used inside the house. She rinsed out & hung up her rags but never mentioned the ladder. I'd figure it belonged downstairs or in the barn and that it would have taken time to put it away. Maybe is was a very short item like we might today call a step-stool. The Borden home does not seem like the kind of home where chores were left half done.

[PossumPie]

Look...no matter WHO killed Andrew, they had the exact same amount of time. Either Lizzie killed him, wiped the hatchet off with a rag, went out back threw the hatchet on the back neighbor's roof, and came back in. Wiped her hands on the rag, threw the rag in the menstrual bucket, and called for help.
OR
A stranger sneaked downstairs from the spare room having killed Abby an hour and a half earlier, hacked up Andrew, wiped the hatchet with a rag, cleaned his hands with a rag, looked out to make sure no one was watching, and sneaked out and down the street.

Either way they both had the same amount of time. I guarantee a blood splattered fiend carrying a bloody hatchet didn't hop the trolly to get away.
WHOEVER it was had to kill, clean up, and hide the weapon all in the exact same amount of time...

[debbiediablo]

This is in response to Possum but there are now so many quotes in that thread that I can't quote:

First of all, I do understand Occam's Razor; I just don't agree that it's all that useful in the Borden case....:-) Occam's Razor is a vestigal remnant from Medieval science which has been used repeatedly within the scientific community to appeal to the non-existence of such interesting phenomena as reverse transcriptase, ball lightning and even the atomic theory. One of the arguments against the Razor is laid out by English mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.”

I totally agree with your viewpoint when we move into far-fetched theories where there's little or no supporting data beyond what seems to be imagination; but once we discuss hypotheses where it could only be one or two or three ways, then it's how much weight to the probability or the improbability each of us as individuals assigns the variables when all else is fairly equal. The whole concept of Occam's is to choose simplicity when all else is equal. Except when is anything truly equal? Simplicity fails the Borden case just as it failed the atomic theory until Einstein happened along. There's too much we cannot access right now, probably forever, or at least until somebody cracks the safe in Springfield (just kidding to the FBI, CIA, NSA). Plus, Occam's is about choosing hypotheses to test, not explanations.

For instance, we must agree that the killer either came from inside the household or from the outside (this would include Emma and Morse on that particular day unless they were somehow hiding in the house).

Regarding the time Lizzie had to commit the crime and clean up – the variables here are the same for Lizzie and Bridget because they're members of the household who came under immediate observation by police. You have said yourself, several times, that blood splatter would be minimal despite the physical damage. So Lizzie (or Bridget) needs to clean up, dispose of the weapon in a relatively nearby location and be ready to interact with police, family, neighbors and each other within the same time frame. The premises will be searched and each of them will be studied for any signs of the crime. Granted, the police may have failed in their thoroughness but this becomes relevant only later. If the killer is Lizzie or Bridget, she has no idea the police will prove semi-incompetent.

The variables (and time frame) for an outside killer are somewhat different although not necessarily more simple or complex. Just different. He/she has to get in and get out unseen or at least unnoticed (keeping in mind the unreliability of eye witnesses) PERHAPS while Lizzie and Bridget are preoccupied. Given that blood splatter would've been limited, the killer might be able to blend in on the street with minimal clean-up, perhaps less clean-up than Lizzie and Bridget who are being scrutinized by police. A hatchet would be easy to conceal in a parcel (or a medical bag) or could thrown on the neighbor's roof. Wisdom would say he/she needs to get out of the neighborhood PDQ. Police experience says the perpetrator will come back later to see how things are progressing with the investigation. (Franz: PDQ=Pretty Damn Quick...:-)

I know you cannot imagine a murderer hiding in a closet for 90 minutes. Strangers could walk in and out of my home, and I wouldn't notice unless they appeared in my direct line of vision. An entire football team could be living in the closet off the back downstairs bedroom, and they could be there for days if they had a mini fridge and a chamber pot....:-) I would start investigating only after I found the dead body on the sofa or a football came sailing out into the dining room. On the other hand, if I tried to throw a hatchet onto a roof the likelihood would be it bouncing back and hitting me smack between the eyes. Making the perfect alibi!

I don't see people on this forum "eating up" misinformation so much as exploring it because it's new and different...sometimes when it turns out not to deserve exploration and sometimes when we end up not knowing much more than when we started. Information is only misinformation after it has been examined....and sometimes not even then. (Remember the atomic theory....those invisible particles were there all along...finally proven to exist after Einstein demonstrated Brownian motion!) Yes, Grandma could be some smartass making up sh*t or she could be telling the absolute truth as she recalls at her advanced age.

We cannot disprove (or prove) David Anthony...we can only examine probability and whether it might make sense. Nor can we prove or disprove Emma or Billy Borden or John Morse without more information. We could probably prove where the Pope was along with the President and maybe the Mayor and Police Chief.

Even the idea that the only new information must come from a safe in Springfield is mere supposition. There might be a Sullivan diary stuck somewhere in an attic in Montana.

Life is not simple. Murder and its motive need not be simple either. The truth may turn on a fact that has not been nor ever will be known. So we are left to our educated guesses. This one's for you Franz: Se non è vero, è ben trovato.

[PossumPie]

DebbieDiablo, Wow! I LOVE your post. You indeed have a logical mind, and I agree with everything you have said. It's refreshing to get a good logical debate going. Indeed Occam's Razor has been over-used when it comes to science, and my example was more what I was thinking about. If I hear a hearty gallop outside my home, I'm going to go with horses not zebra. There is nothing scientific about this, only logically picking the simpler explanation. I could look out, see zebra, and say Darn! I was wrong. The circus is in town and a zebra escaped. Thing is, the odds are against that.

About a member of the house doing it, yes the biggest obstacle would be any blood on clothes and ditching the hatchet. I have shown multiple times in the past and have reprinted at least twice in other threads a picture of a Crime technician, dressed in a white jumpsuit who had just smashed a forensic human head filled with blood with a hammer. Even with this blunt instrument, there was very little blood, most on the forearm of the swinging hand, and on the lower leg below where a dress hem would come. It bothers me less about lack of blood when I began looking more at actual forensic evidence of spatter and less at gory cheap slasher horror movie effects. It still bothers me that the only stain that was found was on a petticoat, and very small at that. The lack of weapon doesn't bother me much...Some people seem to think the cops were so good that no one could hide anything in the house. Bull...I know cops that couldn't find their own gun if it were strapped in it's holster around their waist.

Perhaps I overgeneralized the people "eating up misinformation" But just a tiny bit. If you skim back through old posts, people assume it was hot, assume the complete search was done the day of the murders (it was not). My point was a little research can debunk a lot of misinformation. Trouble is we constantly have people who are new and perhaps are armed only with the misinformation they read. We also have people who have made a life-hobby of the Borden case who know far more than me.

My prejudice comes from the disdain of wild elaborate theories that are full of unprovable facts. I respect "Morse hired someone to kill them" Ok, we can discuss that. BUT I deplore "Morse was defending his adored nieces inheritance by hiring two men to distract Abby at the doorstep while one slipped past up the stairs, killed her, took the fake note back out of her pocket, hid for a LONG time with people coming and going up the stairs, sneaked down killed Andrew without being seen, and out into the daylight to escape. " Then having someone micro-argue each point as "you can't prove it DIDN'T happen.." I enjoy looking at alternatives to Lizzie, but only by looking at the evidence we have available, and going from there. NOT by saying, "I think I will take a person, say he or she did it, then go back and twist the tiny bits of fact we have to fit this idea.

We need your logical mind, keep up the thinking!

[Curryong]

A couple of things in reply to irina's earlier observations. In 'Goodbye Lizzie Borden' by Robert Sullivan there is this with reference to the Whitehead residence. (Sullivan managed to contact, in her old age, Abby Potter, Mrs Sarah Whitehead's daughter, whom 'big Abby' was going to babysit on that fateful Thursday.)

Page 10

'Arriving at Fall River from Mrs Potter's present home in Providence, we had first visited the former Whitehead place, only two short city blocks behind the Bordens'. Mrs Potter was delighted to find that 45 Fourth St was in remarkably good condition, for the attractive small dwelling was where she had been born and raised and where her mother, Mrs Whitehead, had been born, raised, married and lived her entire life.'

Mrs Whitehead was at the Police Picnic of course on the day of the murders. Mrs Potter was very young when her aunt died and had only a few scattered memories of her, including Abby visiting the Whiteheads with delicious mince pies. However, this doesn't mean that Bridget would necessarily know exactly where the Whiteheads lived. Abby's relatives didn't have very good memories of visiting the Borden residence apparently, as the Borden sisters would virtually ignore them. It seems when Abby wanted contact with her sister she didn't send Bridget with messages.

I agree with you about the hatchet on the roof rather than the hatchet mangled in a vice making a difference time-wise.
Actually, I've always been a bit puzzled as to why, in a pre-fingerprinting, pre DNA world, the hatchet wasn't just discarded near Andrew's body. That would have been not possible, of course, if the hatchet had any traceable labels or marks on it.

The very short window of time between Andrew arriving home and Lizzie calling Bridget has always been a great point of contention between those who believe Lizzie did it and those who do not. As does the lack of blood on Lizzie's clothing, shoes, except for blood on the sole of one slipper-like shoe and a pinpoint on a petticoat. I'm a 'Lizzie covered herself up in Andrew's coat' and 'Lizzie wore the faded paint-splattered dress to murder' kind of gal, but I agree the evidence on these points is troubling.

[irina]

I have read the article you provided and that was what I was thinking about when I mentioned distances. Thanks for posting it. I'm a curious sort of person who likes to know everything, certainly within a couple blocks of where I live. But that's just me.

[Curryong]

The Borden family were paranoid about locks and keys of course, not to mention the large club that was found under Andrew's bed! Part of this may have been a perception that the area around Second St was going downhill and becoming quite dangerous.

Of course, the Borden sisters may have encouraged that feeling in Andrew in the hope that he would move. It certainly seems to have been a 'mixed' area, boarding houses, shops, commercial enterprises, a livery stables nearby. Not exactly leafy and exclusive! Nevertheless, in spite of apparently seeing strangers lurking about on previous occasions Lizzie doesn't seem to have had security concerns when she slapped on her bonnet and paid a long evening visit to Alice Russell on the Wednesday night.

[debbiediablo]

Lizzie doesn't seem to have had security concerns when she slapped on her bonnet and paid a long evening visit to Alice Russell on the Wednesday night.

Do we know if this late evening visiting was common for Lizzie? If Lizzie and/or Emma hired a killer for that particular day then Morse showing up unannounced the day before may have made it more difficult if she planned to sneak him into the house after a long visit with Alice. The absolutely best hiding place in the entire house was Emma's bedroom with Emma not in it and Lizzie in the outer room. This tends to be one of my favorite theories, albeit not provable, except I haven't gotten him out of the house yet. I would love to see a picture of the local painter who guarded the side door all afternoon. A person can wear a coat to prevent bloodstains but a number of well-placed dabs of paint on clothing and body would also make a great disguise.

[debbiediablo]

LAB.com.png

Has anyone else experienced difficulty with the site this morning?

[Franz]

PossumPie, I don't understand why it is so imminaginable for you the intruder's hiding himself for about 90 minutes. Now let's forget my theory, let's forget Morse ans his accomplice. PossumPie, were you telling me that, whoever the intruder could be, it's hard for you to imagine that he could hide himself in the house for 90 minutes? If we consider the intruder's possibility, we are menawhile supposing that Lizzie was innocent, and therefore, the note story, most probably, should be true. So how to explain the role of the note in the murder plan?

Hiding himself just in the guest room, in my opinion, was the best choice for the killer: only being in that room the killer could have the situation under his control.

[PossumPie]

PossumPie, I don't understand why it is so imminaginable for you the intruder's hiding himself for about 90 minutes. Now let's forget my theory, let's forget Morse ans his accomplice. PossumPie, were you telling me that, whoever the intruder could be, it's hard for you to imagine that he could hide himself in the house for 90 minutes? If we consider the intruder's possibility, we are menawhile supposing that Lizzie was innocent, and therefore, the note story, most probably, should be true. So how to explain the role of the note in the murder plan?

Hiding himself just in the guest room, in my opinion, was the best choice for the killer: only being in that room the killer could have the situation under his control.

I find it hard to believe that a person (who - if he got caught- would HANG UNTIL DEAD) would hide for an hour and a half. Impossible? Of course not. Someone could be hiding in my basement right this minute and I wouldn't know it. BUT if someone killed a woman in a house with three people walking around, and going in and out of rooms, I can't see that killer just hanging out waiting for Andrew to come home, then sneaking downstairs avoiding everyone else in broad daylight. Could it be done YES!!!!! But now let's say if he were caught he would hang...now I can't see it happening.

Franz, close your eyes and imagine something: You are crouched in a strange house, beside a woman you just killed. Every sound downstairs may be someone coming up...every noise outside may be the police-called b/c someone heard something suspicious- Did she make a noise when the hatchet split her skull? did someone hear and call the cops? Your fear increases as the moments tick by...You can't take your eyes off the body...You picture the door slamming open and 3 cops coming in finding you with the body....Fear increases....20 min, 50...an hour....an hour and a half....
Franz, could you sit there?

[irina]

Debbie: Yes I have had trouble with this site. I have it bookmarked and the whole bookmark is messed up. Says the site is "temporarily unavailable". Decided I'd try to get in the back door and just read some postings so went through the browser with search terms. Site isn't down! Decided to make this reply & found out I wasn't logged in which I have been since this site assigned me a password after they didn't like my own selection. They gave me a godawful password that's probably un-hackable and is certainly unrememberable. So I had to find the notebook wherein I wrote it down. I assume I haven't been blocked. I can't have been that obnoxious yet.

I'd say a murderer cooling his heels in a room for over an hour is not unimaginable. Lots of criminals are impulsive and don't thing past the moment. The tendency is worse under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Whoever was darn mad at Abby and relieved frustrations. Then whether it was an intruder or Lizzie the next thought must have been, "Oh (expletive), what do I do now? I think Lizzie going upstairs with her laundry kept the murderer where he was and when she went downstairs he thought about how he was going to leave. Maybe he thought the coast was clear to the front door and then couldn't work the locks. Maybe that's what Lizzie meant about thinking she heard Abby come in; the murderer fumbling with the lock. At that point perhaps the next impulsive plan was to get out the back/side door no matter what it took.

[Franz]

I find it hard to believe that a person (who - if he got caught- would HANG UNTIL DEAD) would hide for an hour and a half. Impossible? Of course not. Someone could be hiding in my basement right this minute and I wouldn't know it. BUT if someone killed a woman in a house with three people walking around, and going in and out of rooms, I can't see that killer just hanging out waiting for Andrew to come home, then sneaking downstairs avoiding everyone else in broad daylight. Could it be done YES!!!!! But now let's say if he were caught he would hang...now I can't see it happening.

Franz, close your eyes and imagine something: You are crouched in a strange house, beside a woman you just killed. Every sound downstairs may be someone coming up...every noise outside may be the police-called b/c someone heard something suspicious- Did she make a noise when the hatchet split her skull? did someone hear and call the cops? Your fear increases as the moments tick by...You can't take your eyes off the body...You picture the door slamming open and 3 cops coming in finding you with the body....Fear increases....20 min, 50...an hour....an hour and a half....
Franz, could you sit there?

PossumPie, when you object the theories judged by you improbable, you very often mention only things or hypothesis in favour of you.

1. Why must we think that the killer totally ignored the inner structure of the house and the routine of the family? The killer could be very well someone who knew well all these things, or was informed by someone else.

2. You underlined always that there were three people walking around. This is not true: these were three people only when Abby was still alive. After her death, there were only Bridget and Lizzie. And Bridget, we know, had no work to do in the guest room so she didn't need to go there. So in reality there was only Lizzie, one person. But the guest room was not a place like the dinning room, the kitchen, or the sitting room that Lizzie would certainly pass through. To be more sure that Lizzie would not adventure into the guest room, the killer might have invented a story and fabricated the note --- certainly he could not be assured if it worked, bu fortunately it did --- because of the note story neither Lizzie nor Bridget thought of looking for Abby that morning before Andrew's return and his death.

3. In order to prove the improbability of the killer's hiding hypothesis, you somehow exagerated the consequence of his being discovered. Please, why must he be caught and then be hung? This killer killed so rudely Abby and Andrew, and while hiding in the guest room, he mut have been all time very vigilant and prepared for someone's entering, so why must he be caught by Lizzie who, if she entered in that room, should not be prepared for nothing? So if this happened, it should be Lizzie who was caught by the killer, no the contrary. If the killer was un intruder, so the note should have really existed and the murder plan a very carefully prepared one, so the killer could have very well prepared a second plan: how to react in the case that someone entered in the guest room, right? If he didn't want to kill her, he could inable her to act, he could make her lose her sense. There should be a variety of possibilities, why must he be caught by a woman, please?

4. If no one could hide himself for 90 minutes as we supposed in the Borden case, then, PossumPie, there would not be any professional killer in this world. There is no sense to ask if I, Franz, could sit there for 90 minutes or not, because the hypothetical killer was not me.

5. Let's think a little: if Lizzie was innocent, and therefore the note a true one: so Abby must receive the note first, and went to the guest room and was killed there afterwards, so what link should be between the note and Abby's entering in the guest room? And the killer, was he the messenger himself? If yes, when, how and from where did he enter the house and enter into the guest room and kill Abby? If he was a person other than the messenger, the question is the same: when, how and from where did he succeed to enter the house and execute his murder plan? My theory, even though without prove to support it, at least has the merit, dare I say so? of having given a possible answer to this question.

[debbiediablo]

I'm beginning to lean toward Lizzie (and probably Emma) hiring the killer.

Lizzie sets the scene with Alice Russell the night before as she describes to Alice the killer she knows to be real so her story will coincide with what she supposes will be the conclusion reached by police on the following day. The plan is for Lizzie to bring the killer with his own hatchet into the house when she returns after dark that evening and to hide him in Emma's vacant room...the only way into Emma's room is via Lizzie's room so this is a very safe location. Morse shows up unexpectedly and presents a problem by occupying the guest room next door. Nonetheless, there are no electric lights so Lizzie is able to sneak the killer upstairs and hide him without notice. This is why she neglects to greet Uncle John and goes directly up to her room. Lizzie purposefully "sleeps late" the next day to avoid dealing with Morse or even having her bedroom door open when he is present.

The next morning Morse is up and away early. Bridget describes some brief words between Lizzie and Abby after which Bridget is dispatched to wash windows. All it would've taken is for Lizzie to say something like, "Mrs. Churchill commented on how this hot summer has prevented our windows from being cleaned," and Bridget would be on her way with bucket and brush at Abby's direction. Lizzie knows that Abby will make up the guest room so the killer lies in wait for her upstairs. Afterward he cleans up in the sisters' suite and waits for Andrew to come home. (The front door remains locked to keep Andrew or Bridget from coming in by surprise.) This is also why the murder has to take place on exactly the day it did – to coincide with Lizzie needing a slop bucket within the next day or so.

In the meantime, Lizzie tries to lure Bridget out of the house with a fabric sale, but fails. Finally Bridget is upstairs resting, and Andrew is on the sofa resting. Lizzie makes him comfortable and heads for the barn, less likely for the alibi than she doesn't want to watch the murder of her father. A few minutes later she is back. The killer cleans up again, slips on a freshly ironed shirt belonging to Andrew (or one he brought), and waits for a quiet moment to sneak out the side door. The hatchet is tossed on the roof and the killer leaps over the fence. Lizzie places the coat under Andrew's head as an act of undoing. She then sounds the alarm once the killer has time to walk a few blocks but before Morse arrives for lunch or Bridget comes downstairs.

This explains everything (no weapon purchased or left behind, no bloodstains, Lizzie in the barn, coming home after dark, sleeping late, even Bridget washing windows when she's ill, no bloody murderer on the street) and contradicts nothing. The only questions are how did he get out of the house unnoticed? And who was he?

The murderer kept silent for the rest of his life and the so did the sisters. This might make sense given they all would've been hanged otherwise. Now if Lizzie really had nerves of steel she would've waited until Bridget is out in the front street running and panicking and attracting everyone's attention and then sent the killer over the back fence.

I also think thing there's a high probability that the long cylindrical document burning in the stove was the new will...and the motive for murder.

[PossumPie]

I'm beginning to lean toward Lizzie (and probably Emma) hiring the killer.




I also think thing there's a high probability that the long cylindrical document burning in the stove was the new will...and the motive for murder.

Your plan makes a lot more sense than someone sneaking in in broad daylight with people milling around outside and inside. I give it equal weight to the idea that Lizzie acted alone.
I think those who believe that the killer, if confronted would "just kill the person" totally forgets that the killer wasn't using a pistol with a silencer, they were using a hatchet. If I opened a bedroom door, saw a bloody guy crouched by my dead step mother, I wouldn't wait around for him to kill me too, I'd scream, holler, run and yell...not necessarily in that order!!!

[irina]

I'm with you Franz. Also look at the floor plan of the upstairs. Doesn't the "clothes press" (closet) have a door into the spare/guest room? If I remember that right a man could have HIDDEN there while he figured it out. Maybe the guest room door could be locked from inside. Lots of the old passage doors did. The ultimate goal was to leave but not till the way was reasonably clear.

I feel the murder of Abby was done with a great deal of adrenaline and very little thinking. The thinking about fighting the way out, hiding, rushing for the outside door, etc. came later when the crime could not be undone.

A problem with the perpetrator being a friend of or person hired by and hidden by Lizzie is I would assume she would want him to be far away before the alarm was raised. At most it seems there would have been slightly less than ten minutes between Andrew's death and Bridget being called. Why not give the man 20 minutes to leisurely walk to the other side of town?

[Curryong]

I think the site was out for maintenance purposes. I've noticed that with other forums. A bit disconcerting however, as I was about to reply to debbie about Lizzie's night life!

I'm still in 'Lizzie did it alone' mode, mainly because, as has been pointed out many times on this forum, of the difficulties of several people being able to keep their mouths shut for their lifetimes. However, I do think that if Lizzie was able to contact a man who would be willing she would be cold-blooded enough to contemplate it.

Do you still feel it could be Dave Anthony, debbie, or have you changed your mind? The main difficulty with actually hiring someone would be, for a woman in those days, how to go about it. If it was a crazed or drunken vagrant, then, as I've said before, how fortuitous for the Borden sisters were those murders at a time when there were deep undercurrents of conflict in the home.

Why make it so complicated as to have killers hiding for hours within the home?(All the closets were checked, however carelessly by the police, by the way. Any bloodstains left by a perpetrator hiding would have been seen.)

Lizzie was perfectly able to despatch Abby by herself, and probably happy to do it. It would have been Andrew she would, in my opinion have had trouble with, in an emotional sense. Though I still think she managed to kill him. If she had hired someone she could have just let him in after Bridget retired upstairs, letting him out while she was still upstairs. However, the problems of a woman hiring a killer remain.

[PossumPie]

You guys are giving rational ideas for where to hide for an hour and a half...Ok, I get it...there are places the killer could hide. BUT my point is that IF someone discovered the body, no hiding place will help the killer. What the heck good would hacking an old woman up, then hiding in her closet??? If someone opened the door and saw her in a pool of blood, you hiding in a closet will not stop the shrieks, calls of alarm, etc. you would still have to get out of the "clothes press" out the room, down the stairs, out the side door (front door is key-locked from the inside) and down the street.
You cant rise up and shoot Lizzie or Bridget with a pistol with a silencer like James Bond...you have to race to the door and hack her with a hatchet before she can call out. I'm not sure you guys understand that to get CAUGHT with/near the body means screaming, alarm, people looking out windows...etc. PERHAPS you could split Bridget or Lizzie's skull before she calls out, then escape, but what an awful chance you'd be taking. It's NOT hide-and-seek. You don't get caught, giggle, and say "your it" IF someone finds you, or the body, or both while you are upstairs in a strange house, you are in a world of hurt. Kill, get out...maybe. Kill, sit around for 90 minutes...I just don't think so. Not in broad daylight, with people in the house, and nosy neighbors looking out of every window. Not unless the others in the house were in on it...I would entertain that idea, though more than one person usually can't keep a secret.

[debbiediablo]

This comes around to David Anthony who might be suspect...I doubt he did it for money as his family was wealthy already. So if he were the perpetrator then the reason was personal, that somehow Lizzie convinced him to kill for her. The story Grandma repeated from Ruby doesn't match the facts of the case...however people are not good at repeating verbatim what they've heard, especially when they heard it many decades ago. Moreover, it supposedly passed from Lizzie to Ruby to Grandma. Even if the last two are telling the truth as they recall it, there's lots of time for human error, memory lapse not to mention deliberate distortion. Plus, if Lizzie did plan this murder, she is a psychopath, and her version would not necessarily be the truth...it would be what made her look good and feel good. "He did it because he loved me so much! I had no clue until the awful deed was done!!" Anthony died relatively young, before the age where the need to confess might have been overwhelming if he had a conscience at all. Emma managed to outlive Lizzie by nine days, perhaps she could rest only when the truth died with her sister. If they did hire or otherwise manipulate the killer, only one of them could have been hanged for the crime and that wasn't Lizzie.

I am more inclined to think the murderer was smart enough to execute the crime (pun intended) and then take the money and forever hold his peace...perhaps even relocate. I'd love to know more about Charles Sawyer and other handymen who worked for the Bordens...and about Dr. Bowen whose excuse for burning paper in the stove sounds like balderdash to me. I'd also like to know if Lizzie made habit of walking home in the dark from Alice Russell's given that the Borden household was under lock down supposedly due to crime in the neighborhood.

[irina]

Debbie: I spent the evening reading witness statements which I haven't actually seen before though I have read the inquest and trial testimonies. Concerning your idea of someone coming in with Lizzie the night before, J.V. Morse asks something interesting of John Fleet.

"Mr. Morse afterwards asked if I suspected that the murderer could have been concealed in the house last night. I replied that I did not. Then I said that he might have been in the house, but I could not see how he could have been there without someone seeing him," from the witness statement of John Fleet. I believe Morse asked this of Fleet on Thursday afternoon/evening though this is not clearly noted. That's interesting to say the least. Think of all the implications there. Why did Morse ask that? Did he think he knew something? He apparently suspected a man and not Lizzie. What were his thought processes?

My opinion about a perpetrator hiding out after killing Abby is still that many criminals don't think ahead. If I am correct that a man did it, among various options should Lizzie or Bridget have someway gotten into the guest room, he probably counted on superior strength to do whatever. Punch, slam, knock down...then get out of there. A man once told me that he believed all men are capable of losing control and doing something they would regret, if pushed too hard or something like that. The man who said this to me was gentle, non-violent and law abiding. He thought men were different from women in this way though we all know women can do heinous things. Testosterone or adrenalin or a combination? That an axe, hatchet or something similar was used in this case implies to me the murders were not well planned in advance but were the result of a snap decision to kill at least in Abby's case. No matter who did it a killer WAS in the house waiting until Andrew was killed. I cannot imagine anyone committing murder with an axe thinks very much about consequences. I still see the possibility of a drunk intruder whose "courage" came from a bottle.

[Curryong]

NOooo, debbie, not Charlie Sawyer, who stood for hours in the hot sun, guarding that door, with no-one to talk to but a fearful Bridget, and, what is more important, no refreshments, until he (mildly) complained at the end of the day. He was just walking along 2nd St, minding his own business, when he got hauled in for traffic duty by Officer Allen. He only went to the Bordens occasionally 'for pickles' according to his testimony, and was a neighbour from a few doors down. I think he sounds sweet!
The mysterious 'Sam' who brought the eggs and chopped firewood etc for the Borden household, I know nothing of except that he worked on one of the Swansea farms and did odd jobs for Andrew. I wonder whether he cleaned the upstairs windows?

All that you say of Grammar is quite true. Like to know whether she was misremembering or adopting a false persona or what. At one stage, during a debate on the Forum about her posts and why she hadn't been active for a long time,
NancyDrew, who apparently lived quite near her, offered to try and get into contact with her, but the offer got lost in all the to-ing and fro-ing. Wished they'd taken her up on it!

[Curryong]

Irina, with regard to John Morse he was quite agitated about the murders. As soon as he got the news he was pacing about outside looking for clues for hours. He remained at no 92. for some months afterwards of course, and gave testimony on how he felt the front door had a faulty spring lock, which he had replaced.

I don't think his statement to Fleet on that afternoon is suspicious. The whole town of Fall River was in a state of panic and uproar over strange men with hatchets murdering innocent citizens. I think it would have been more suspicious had he not mentioned the possibility of intruders concealing themselves, but instead said to Fleet "Well, my niece Lizzie hasn't been able to stand her stepmother for years! She's the murderer, for sure.!"

[PossumPie]

Any intoxicated person hiding in a room for an hour and a half would cause that room to smell like a brewery. It didn't.

"Criminals don't think ahead" - true, but sitting 90 minutes in a room with an old woman you just hacked up gives you PLENTY of time to think...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your "stranger" theory is correct. What do you make of all of the lies, inconsistancies, and suspicious behaviors of Lizzie? "I was in the yard and heard a thump" "I was coming back in from the barn and heard a scraping" "I was in the barn looking for lead for sinkers and heard nothing" "I was in the barn looking for iron for screens and heard nothing" I know that in the confusion of a murder you can get some trivial things mixed up, but Lizzie's testimony makes it obvious that she was just making stuff up on the spur of the moment, then if needed, denying that she ever said it. At one point in the inquest she said she was upstairs in her room, and was coming down when Andrew came home. This seems truthful, Bridget testified that she fumbled with the locks, and cursed. She then heard Lizzie laugh on the stairs. Lizzie then the very next morning denied not only that she was upstairs, she got angry and denied that she ever even said it...even when her direct quote from the afternoon before was read back to her. Guilty or innocent, she lied, twisted the truth, and denied so much that she got her stories mixed up.

[Franz]

You guys are giving rational ideas for where to hide for an hour and a half...Ok, I get it...there are places the killer could hide. BUT my point is that IF someone discovered the body, no hiding place will help the killer. What the heck good would hacking an old woman up, then hiding in her closet??? If someone opened the door and saw her in a pool of blood, you hiding in a closet will not stop the shrieks, calls of alarm, etc. you would still have to get out of the "clothes press" out the room, down the stairs, out the side door (front door is key-locked from the inside) and down the street.
You cant rise up and shoot Lizzie or Bridget with a pistol with a silencer like James Bond...you have to race to the door and hack her with a hatchet before she can call out. I'm not sure you guys understand that to get CAUGHT with/near the body means screaming, alarm, people looking out windows...etc. PERHAPS you could split Bridget or Lizzie's skull before she calls out, then escape, but what an awful chance you'd be taking. It's NOT hide-and-seek. You don't get caught, giggle, and say "your it" IF someone finds you, or the body, or both while you are upstairs in a strange house, you are in a world of hurt. Kill, get out...maybe. Kill, sit around for 90 minutes...I just don't think so. Not in broad daylight, with people in the house, and nosy neighbors looking out of every window. Not unless the others in the house were in on it...I would entertain that idea, though more than one person usually can't keep a secret.

It is generally agreed that the killer killed the two victims with almost the very first blow(s). He could, if someone (Lizzie) entered into the guest room, have made her lose immediately her react capacity, - screaming or something alike, being himself always prepared to do so. PossumPie, you exagerate a dramatic scenario in consequence of the killer's being discovered. The murder should have been a very carefully prepared one. What you imagined could, certainly, have happened, but more probably for me, it could have not.

[Franz]

Any intoxicated person hiding in a room for an hour and a half would cause that room to smell like a brewery. It didn't.

"Criminals don't think ahead" - true, but sitting 90 minutes in a room with an old woman you just hacked up gives you PLENTY of time to think...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your "stranger" theory is correct. What do you make of all of the lies, inconsistancies, and suspicious behaviors of Lizzie? "I was in the yard and heard a thump" "I was coming back in from the barn and heard a scraping" "I was in the barn looking for lead for sinkers and heard nothing" "I was in the barn looking for iron for screens and heard nothing" I know that in the confusion of a murder you can get some trivial things mixed up, but Lizzie's testimony makes it obvious that she was just making stuff up on the spur of the moment, then if needed, denying that she ever said it. At one point in the inquest she said she was upstairs in her room, and was coming down when Andrew came home. This seems truthful, Bridget testified that she fumbled with the locks, and cursed. She then heard Lizzie laugh on the stairs. Lizzie then the very next morning denied not only that she was upstairs, she got angry and denied that she ever even said it...even when her direct quote from the afternoon before was read back to her. Guilty or innocent, she lied, twisted the truth, and denied so much that she got her stories mixed up.

All these confusions, contradictions, or lies in some cases, indicate to me more Lizzie's innocence than her guilt. If I were the killer and prepared the murder, I would have had a ready and perfect answer to every question, a clear wherabouts for every moment. I think I would have done so and I think I am a person with normal intelligence. I don't think I am smarter than Lizzie. And you?

P.S.: Just think this, please: if Lizzie guilty, why didn't she think to lie to Bridget first, and then to the police afterwards: "Oh, when I was going out of the barn, I saw a man rush out of the house and he directed himself in that direction. He dispeared so quickly that I was not even able to see clearly his face..."

[PossumPie]

Any intoxicated person hiding in a room for an hour and a half would cause that room to smell like a brewery. It didn't.

"Criminals don't think ahead" - true, but sitting 90 minutes in a room with an old woman you just hacked up gives you PLENTY of time to think...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your "stranger" theory is correct. What do you make of all of the lies, inconsistancies, and suspicious behaviors of Lizzie? "I was in the yard and heard a thump" "I was coming back in from the barn and heard a scraping" "I was in the barn looking for lead for sinkers and heard nothing" "I was in the barn looking for iron for screens and heard nothing" I know that in the confusion of a murder you can get some trivial things mixed up, but Lizzie's testimony makes it obvious that she was just making stuff up on the spur of the moment, then if needed, denying that she ever said it. At one point in the inquest she said she was upstairs in her room, and was coming down when Andrew came home. This seems truthful, Bridget testified that she fumbled with the locks, and cursed. She then heard Lizzie laugh on the stairs. Lizzie then the very next morning denied not only that she was upstairs, she got angry and denied that she ever even said it...even when her direct quote from the afternoon before was read back to her. Guilty or innocent, she lied, twisted the truth, and denied so much that she got her stories mixed up.

All these confusions, contradictions, or lies in some cases, indicate to me more Lizzie's innocence than her guilt. If I were the killer and prepared the murder, I would have had a ready and perfect answer to every question, a clear wherabouts for every moment. I think I would have done so and I think I am a person with normal intelligence. I don't think I am smarter than Lizzie. And you?

P.S.: Just think this, please: if Lizzie guilty, why didn't she think to lie to Bridget first, and then to the police afterwards: "Oh, when I was going out of the barn, I saw a man rush out of the house and he directed himself in that direction. He dispeared so quickly that I was not even able to see clearly his face..."

If she was innocent, why did she have so many contradictions? She couldn't have been that confused about where she was, what she was doing, who she saw, etc. Just b/c you think that you would plan everything you would say if we were the killer doesn't mean Lizzie planned everything. Perhaps she thought "I'll just act shocked and nobody will think it was me." Then when they started asking questions, her mind gave answers that she later realized looked bad.

I find that in an interrogation, innocent people tend to mix up the order that they did things, or forget small things. Lying guilty people completely contradict themselves and change stories. I would be suspicious if someone didn't confuse any part of their activities, but confusing which magazine she read is trivial. Telling multiple lies about where she was just prior to discovering the body is pure fabrication.

[Franz]

If she was innocent, why did she have so many contradictions? She couldn't have been that confused about where she was, what she was doing, who she saw, etc. Just b/c you think that you would plan everything you would say if we were the killer doesn't mean Lizzie planned everything. Perhaps she thought "I'll just act shocked and nobody will think it was me." Then when they started asking questions, her mind gave answers that she later realized looked bad.

I find that in an interrogation, innocent people tend to mix up the order that they did things, or forget small things. Lying guilty people completely contradict themselves and change stories. I would be suspicious if someone didn't confuse any part of their activities, but confusing which magazine she read is trivial. Telling multiple lies about where she was just prior to discovering the body is pure fabrication.

Lizzie could have been totally innocent for Andrew's murder, but "guilty" for something she was doing when her father was being killed.

You said: "...Just b/c you think that you would plan everything you would say if we were the killer doesn't mean Lizzie planned everything." And you, PossumPie, you just because that you can't sit in that room for 90 minutes, so you think no one could do such a thing, right?

[PossumPie]

Franz, help me understand what you believe the killer was doing for those 90 minutes.

[Franz]

Franz, help me understand what you believe the killer was doing for those 90 minutes.

Why? You need help to such a thing?

Well. The killer was doing nothing but hiding and waiting, meanwhile was being always vigilant to everything occured outside, especially to two things: 1) Lizzie's accidental entering into the guest room (in order to react immediately); 2) Andrew's return (in order to choose the best moment to kill him).

For me this was totally, perfectly possible.

[PossumPie]

Franz, help me understand what you believe the killer was doing for those 90 minutes.

Why? You need help to such a thing?

Well. The killer was doing nothing but hiding and waiting, meanwhile was being always vigilant to everything occured outside, especially to two things: 1) Lizzie's accidental entering into the guest room (in order to react immediately); 2) Andrew's return (in order to choose the best moment to kill him).

For me this was totally, perfectly possible.

Help me understand how they were vigilant to everything that occurred outside, AND ready to react immediately to someone entering the room. They would have to be by the windows looking out, yet by the door ready to crush the skull of someone entering before they hollered an alarm.

[Franz]

I am so sorry PossumPie: if you can't figure out alone what the killer could have been doing during that 90 minutes, this is your affair, not mine.

Since I am not here to convince anyone, therefore I don't feel obliged to give you any more answers to this question.

(P.S.: For you if there are two or more people involved in a criminal case, they -- at least one of them --- could not keep the mouth closed. Ok. Very well. This is your affair, not mine either.)

[Franz]

Hi Franz! I'm guessing you mean the missing note that called Abby to a sick friend. These are the options that pop into my head:
• Lizzie lied about the note. It never existed.
• Abby lied about the note for reasons we don't know. It never existed. Maybe she wanted Lizzie to think she was going out when she had every intention of remaining upstairs out of sight.
• The note existed but Abby lied about its contents.
• Lizzie told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the note, but the person who sent the note either didn't want to get involved after the fact....
• Or the note was a hoax to lure Abby away from the house for the killer to come in and kill Andrew...
• Or for the killer to murder Abby off premises.
• The note is The Most Important Piece of Evidence; Dr. Bowen found it on Abby's body and later burned it.
• Bowen either knew what to look for or it was fairly evident in his cursory examination of her. Which leads to the question as to why the murderer didn't take it.
• The note existed and the killer took it because it was incriminating.
• Lizzie sent the note to Abby to get her out of the house but it didn't work.
• Andrew sent the note to Abby and the contents got both of them murdered.
• Abby's sister lied.
• Lizzie didn't hear anyone come home.
• Lizzie did hear something...perhaps the murderer moving about upstairs.
I give more credence to the red; and yes, some of my theories are in direct contradiction with each other. I still do not have a theory that is defensible at every element.

Thank you, Debbie. I appreciate very much your imagination.

I think that, in front of a so mysterious case with so little known facts, we need to use our imagination, our feeling, our sensibility, our intuition, other than our logical thinking faculty. My intuition told me Lizzie was not that killer in that house in that morning. And my intuition is still telling me so.