Trial testimonies: Part 1 ( Beyond Justification )

[Curiousmind2014]

I have been reading the Borden case Trial lately.

As of now, from what I have read, following are the points which are beyond my understanding.

1. John Morse said that he was seated in the sitting room since 6am in the morning. Bridget came downstairs at 6:15am from the rear end staircase to the kitchen. Kitchen is right next to the sitting room. If Bridget could hear if the front door was shut or open being in the attic, she definitely would have heard John Morse in the sitting room doing something. Unless we believe John Morse was just seated there for an hour doing nothing. Bridget claims that she only notices John Morse at breakfast.

2. Apparently a Marshall saw Dr. Bowen burn a note.

3. It is interesting how all the key suspects seem to distance themselves from each other before the day of the murder. Bridget was out with friends and came home late and never saw John Morse and Lizzie that evening. Lizzie never sees Morse and Bridget that evening. Emma is supposedly far off in Fairhaven. I am not sure if this is a mere coincidence and I wonder what would have happened if the cops did not mess up the inquest testimonies.

Given the way things are, it definitely seems Lizzie or/and Bridget were the only ones who could have let someone in.

[Curryong]

Hello CuriousMind! Welcome back to posting!

I am staying away from home without my notes, but I am sure Bridget stated in her testimony that she would have heard the SIDE door open and shut from her attic room not the front door. She had already opened the front door to let Andrew in (if you are talking about her testimony with reference to Andrew's murder.) She wasn't in the attic for Abby's demise.

Bridget was given ample time off by her employers. There's nothing sinister or unusual that I can see in her having an evening out with friends on the Wednesday night. If there had been then Abby would have told her off the next morning.

Lizzie wasn't keen on her Uncle John. She had not spent time with him on previous visits. She had heard John on the Wednesday afternoon from her room (where she was reportedly feeling nauseous) and went out that evening (to Alice Russell's) and came back from her visit without greeting John or her parents, going straight upstairs to her room. According to Abby's relatives Lizzie had a habit of ignoring people. Why would she specifically see Bridget if she came down the front stairs and out the front door to go out to Alice's? Bridget never used the front door or front stairs.

John Morse was a country boy, early to bed, early to rise. If he came down before Bridget, sat in the sitting room alone before Andrew's arrival why would he be making a noise? He might arranged the shutters when Bridget was in the cellar getting wood for the stove, then have sat in a chair, had a snooze, read a paper, while she was getting the stove to light, rattling the pans about, getting food ready. She wouldn't necessarily be standing around wondering whether there were sounds in the sitting room.

[Franz]

...
Given the way things are, it definitely seems Lizzie or/and Bridget were the only ones who could have let someone in.

Curiousmind2014, I don't understand why you exclude Morse? I think it should not be impossible that he let someone in that morning, and this someone (so the killer) hid himself, for example, in the closet understairs towards the first floor, and the entry was in the sitting room.

[Curryong]

Looking forward to hearing your responses, Curiousmind.

Take a look at the other live thread in which debbiediablo and I discuss Dr Bowen a couple of days ago. It wasn't a Marshall who saw old Bowen tearing up papers and putting them in the stove, but Officer Harrington, a very observant young man.

It wasn't 'the cops' who messed up inquest testimony. The Mayor, John Coughlin, made a blunder when he and Marshall Hilliard paid a visit to the Bordens after the funeral. He intimated to Lizzie during the course of conversation that she was, as we would say today, 'a person of interest' to the police. This enabled Lizzie's defence team at her trial to mount a case (successfully as it turned out) for the whole of her Inquest testimony to be ruled inadmissable.

Emma couldn't have been at two places at once. She was undoubtedly staying with friends in Fairhaven. The police checked on it. She came home on the 3:40pm train the day of the murder.

[Aamartin]

2nd street was said to be a busy street-- it was right in the middle of the day, etc....

But ever notice how quiet your house is when the electricity goes out?

[Curryong]

The last time we had an electricity blackout it was after dark in the evening and we all sat looking at each other through the gloom with the aid of candles for two and a half hours! We might as well have been in some medieval hovel!

Is your point just an observation about modern life, Anthony, or am I just being dumb? The roar of the traffic on 2nd St would probably have been heard as a dull, incessant hum, I would think, unless a heavy wagon was particularly loud.

It's difficult to imagine a world without electricity and yet as late as the 1930's some houses still relied on gas or lamps. When I was a child I remember an elderly woman on TV saying it was the most important innovation she had seen in her lifetime, and indeed it's hard to fathom how modern households would operate without it.

[Aamartin]

just how quiet your house is without the humming of appliances, fridges, etc.

When my electricity goes out, I can hear the grandfather clock in the living room ticking in the kitchen-- but otherwise, no.

[irina]

In her trial testimony Bridget told of her various activities and only mentions Morse as showing up when she served the breakfast.

I believe there was cross examination about her ability to hear the side screen door. The final version (and I think this is what she originally said but it was amplified, probably by cross examination) was she could hear the screen door if it was shut carelessly as in hard or slammed. Otherwise people could come and go and she would not hear it. I know Lizzie doesn't get high marks for honesty but she testified and stated otherwise that when she came back from the barn the screen door was "open". Not unlocked but latched (if the door had a latch beyond the lock). She uses the word "open".

Reading through Bridget's trial testimony about where people were on Thursday morning before she went outside did make me wonder about sounds in the house. I own a couple two story houses built in the late 1800s. In the larger one it is easy to hear footsteps upstairs and down. Bridget testifies to who she sees and where she sees them but never mentions hearing anything. Some researcher tried to make a big deal about Abby falling like a ton of bricks when struck and that this would have caused a loud noise as well as vibration. I never believed that theory for many reasons. I do however wonder about hearing footsteps going upstairs, walking overhead, etc. Bridget seems to have not a clue where anybody is unless she sees them.

I think maybe large homes of the vintage of 92 Second that were built in the east, might have been built sturdier than our homes in the west so maybe I don't know what I am talking about.

All of us get used to sounds. Some of the trial testimony surprises me because it seems various people were oblivious to each other. On the other hand Bridget for example was a servant. I have never had servants working in my home though we did hire a gardener in California. I never paid much attention to the gardener being there. Maybe the various people in the Borden household ignored each other at least part of the time, and that was how they maintained their sanity. I have never lived with any more people than two parents when I was a kid and one husband as an adult. In larger households how natural is it for people to really know where everyone is at any given time?

Beyond that when living in towns most of us block out sounds unless they get our attention. I lived in a town bisected by a railroad. The noise drove some people crazy but I tuned it out and forgot it was there. I would guess Bridget might not have noticed a door being closed unless it was a noise out of the ordinary like a slam. Since I believe Lizzie was innocent I wonder about the murderer running out of the house, down a couple steps, etc. and making noise or if he crept out quietly.

Interesting thought for no particular reason: Did Fall River have a railroad track and how close might it have been to Second St.? Guess they did have a train because Emma came home on one. Could train noise have covered anything the murderer was doing? Hmmmmmm......

[Curryong]

Watuppa Station is no more, but it was located in the east of Fall River convenient to the mills (in order to load textile supplies I suppose) near Front St. Has anyone a good map of Fall River, please?

I agree with you about noise variables, irina. I grew up in England in a home where the walls were two bricks thick in parts. It was a double storey house, and I was an only child. Noises upstairs were muffled, if heard at all.

When I came out to Australia I discovered that the vast majority of homes were (and are) one-storey. Many are California bungalow style. Depending on layout, workmanship of course, noises can travel in these sort of homes. I had three children and my single-storey home wasn't large. I could certainly hear them (and see them) from the adjoining kitchen if they were in the sitting room, but not if they were in their bedrooms on the other side of the house. (I should say, not usually!)

[Curryong]

I've Googled the distance. Modern map, but it's about 2 or 3 minutes driving time between the two locations. Don't know what that would equate to in 1890's terms, at walking pace, though, or how near the railroad was to 2nd Street.

[PossumPie]

One thing people are forgetting (or Franz just ignores) is that the front door in all probability was never opened at all on the day of the murders UNTIL Andrew came home from his errands...right before he was killed.
There were 3 locks, the middle one required someone going to get a key and unlocking it from the inside. Lizzie was in the habit of unlocking that "night lock" early in the morning, and just leaving the other two locks locked during daylight hours. That is why Bridget fumbled with the locks and said "Pshaw" She assumed like every other morning that it had already been unlocked for the day. IT WASN'T. No one sneaked in or out that front door before the murder of Andrew. The only (very unlikely) possibility would be that someone unlocked it, let someone in or out, then re-locked it...very unlikely.
For whatever reason Lizzie lied about being upstairs when Bridget let Andrew in. She said she fumbled with the locks, and then heard Lizzie laugh from the steps. Lizzie confirmed that she indeed had been upstairs then the next day of deposition she changed her story, denied being upstairs, denied laughing, and even denied that she had originally said that she was...even though it was in black and white on paper from just the day before!

[Franz]

One thing people are forgetting (or Franz just ignores) is that the front door in all probability was never opened at all on the day of the murders UNTIL Andrew came home from his errands...right before he was killed.
...
No one sneaked in or out that front door before the murder of Andrew. The only (very unlikely) possibility would be that someone unlocked it, let someone in or out, then re-locked it...very unlikely.
...

1. PossumPie, why do you say that I ignore? In my theory I said exactly that Abby might have opended the front door in response to the false messenger, and the reall killer sneaked in the house at that moment. You say here "unlikely", you don't say "impossible", right?

2. You say: "No one sneaked in or out that front door before the murder of Andrew." You are stating an hypothesis as a fact. In my theory I conjectured that the killer sneaked in that front door while Abby was chatting was the messenger. You can certainly consider my theory improbable, but you can't state your phrase as a fact using indicative form of the verbs. I can agree if you had said something like: it's highly inlikely that anyone sneaked in or out...

[PossumPie]

One thing people are forgetting (or Franz just ignores) is that the front door in all probability was never opened at all on the day of the murders UNTIL Andrew came home from his errands...right before he was killed.
...
No one sneaked in or out that front door before the murder of Andrew. The only (very unlikely) possibility would be that someone unlocked it, let someone in or out, then re-locked it...very unlikely.
...

1. PossumPie, why do you say that I ignore? In my theory I said exactly that Abby might have opended the front door in response to the false messenger, and the reall killer sneaked in the house at that moment. You say here "unlikely", you don't say "impossible", right?

2. You say: "No one sneaked in or out that front door before the murder of Andrew." You are stating an hypothesis as a fact. In my theory I conjectured that the killer sneaked in that front door while Abby was chatting was the messenger. You can certainly consider my theory improbable, but you can't state your phrase as a fact using indicative form of the verbs. I can agree if you had said something like: it's highly inlikely that anyone sneaked in or out...

If every other morning the first person to unlock the middle "night lock" left it unlocked for the daytime, WHY would Abby unlock it, go out to talk to a stranger, then go back in and relock it??? That makes no sense. It was only locked at night...

[irina]

PossumPie: In this one case I absolutely agree with you. It has always sort of been assumed a note came via the front door or that a man came THAT MORNING to talk to Andrew via the front door. I think the door was never unlocked till Andrew came home.

[Franz]

PossumPie: In this one case I absolutely agree with you. It has always sort of been assumed a note came via the front door or that a man came THAT MORNING to talk to Andrew via the front door. I think the door was never unlocked till Andrew came home.

1. Irina, in order to follow the discussion immdediately I permit me not to check out the sourse (I would do it after), please you and other members forgive me. I am pretty sure to have read somewhere that in the case there were calls at the front door, usually it was Abby to response. Could any member give me some indication to find this source? or if I am wrong, please correct me, thank you.

2. There is a detail that makes my always think: Bridget found that morning the front door extremely difficult to unlock. Irina, did you think about this detail?

[Franz]

Irina, we know as a fact that before Andrew's return, neither Lizzie nor Bridget unlocked the front door. Ok. But that morning in the house there was a third person: Abby, who was killed before Andrew's return. Could it be possible that Abby, in response to a call from the front door, unlocked it and then relocked it?

If you think that the killer was most probably an intruder and meanwhile you think the front door was never unlocked before Andrew's return, I would like to know, according to you, when, how, and from where did the intruder enter the house? Thank you.

(P.S.: Sorry, my first phrase is not correct. I must say that, according to the testimonies of Bridget and Lizzie, they two didn't unlock the front door before Andrew's return.)

[Curryong]

Franz, it was Lizzie's 'duty' to unlock the door in the mornings, at least while Emma was away. We could debate about why Lizzie didn't unlock the front door on that Thursday morning as usual until the cows come home, (another rural saying for the collection, Franz), but the fact is that she didn't. We are agreed upon that?

Why therefore, did Abby, knowing that the front door should be unlocked at that time of day, go to all the bother of locking the front door again after receiving your messenger? Surely the most logical thing would be for her, thinking to herself no doubt, "That silly girl has forgotten about the door!" to leave it unlocked, as it was every other day of the week!

[irina]

Franz: It is not impossible that Abby unlocked and locked the front door. One needs to be very careful with the front door issues. Some authors have used Bridget's difficulty opening it as a sign of Lizzie's guilt~that she triple locked it and latched the screen door in order to kill Abby without interruption. Sometimes it is helpful to write down all versions and compare them. I believed for a long time that a man called for Andrew THAT Thursday morning and that there was an argument. Writers have encouraged this belief. Then we go back to Lizzie's testimony and find the man may have been there within two weeks, a week, maybe a month. NOTHING says Thursday morning.

I have considered that Morse let someone in the front door early in the morning~or late the night before. That idea doesn't feel right plus, did he have the key to lock that particular lock? Maybe, maybe not. Some of those old locks were more securely locked if the key was left inside the lock so maybe the key was there.

My theory is that a stranger (or possibly acquaintance of the family) came to the BACK door which was unlocked due to the window washing. I speculate that Abby had words with the person, probably a man and he became enraged. I have speculated maybe Abby caught a bum stealing pears and she told him in no uncertain terms to leave. Maybe she was insulting. I speculate the man was drunk. I absolutely reject PossumPie's idea that alcoholic breath would absolutely have been smelled . That would be a huge extra post why I believe that. Alcohol could have been smelled or not. Smells like noises can make up a background. What we do not realize in our modern lives is that over a hundred years ago there were LOTS of smells, probably more than one would find in a modern farm barnyard.

Anyway I think a man who was to some extent inebriated got very angry with Abby, entered the house by the unlocked screen door at the back and crept upstairs. Alternately I think it would be possible for a criminal to have entered for the purposes of burglary or rape. Stranger things have happened. Neither Abby's age nor physical description would preclude a sexual predator from possibly attacking her. That there was no physical sign of rape does not mean she was not murdered in a sexual attack. How far up were her skirts and does it matter? Maybe that is nothing or maybe it means something. Rape is about control not sex and gratification can come in many ways. Perhaps killing them peeking under skirts in Victorian times was sufficient. Jack The Ripper had no sexual activity with his victims yet he is labelled as a sexual pervert. (However Tom Westcott has just published "The Bank Holiday Murders" about the case, and he does suggest a non-canonical victim might have been sexually abused with an object.)

That is my thoerizing which I can't prove. Hope I answered your questions.

[Franz]

Thank you Irina.

Within the intruder theory, the biggest question, IMO, is this: when, how and from where did the killer enter the house? Me too I have considered the possibility that Morse let him in early that morning or during the night. The discussion is certainly open.

[Curryong]

If John Morse let the intruder in, (whether during the night or in the morning) how did he know that Abby was going to be in the guest bedroom primping the bed up? Abby only had the conversation with Lizzie about putting new slips on the pillows (according to Lizzie's own testimony) AFTER John had left to visit his relatives. Otherwise, it would be an extremely long wait in the guest room. Until Morse retired for the night?

Abby had apparently already made the bed earlier. Why didn't the murderer strike then? Or, if John let someone in during the night, why didn't he direct him to the back part of the house, where two elderly people lay sleeping in their own bedroom?

[irina]

I think it is very unlikely Morse let anyone in. I said I had considered it and thought about it. It is plausible to me an intruder could hide in the room for 90 minutes after the first murder. It is not believable that a murderer whose preferred weapon is an axe/hatchet would hang around however long till he got a chance to kill Abby. It's one of those things that can be pushed and pulled till it's all explained and it fits, but it is extremely unlikely.

I think a basic research technique for conspiracy is to identify the conspirators. Morse has long been considered a suspect. OK so he is there, but who else? Until there is proof it has to remain in the realm of fiction where anything is possible if the author can explain it.

Since your article is published, Franz, many will look at it and critique it and just possibly someone will offer some proof or family stories or something of that nature and you will be able to develop the basic idea with real people, etc. New things pop up all the time.

[Aamartin]

Do we know if the old folks locked themselves in at night?

[Curryong]

I don't believe we do, Anthony. I certainly haven't read any testimony on that point.

Of course, Andrew kept a club under the bed, which frightened Alice Russell when she found it later. It's a bit bizarre really! Did Andrew keep the door unlocked but a club there for burglars, anyway? Or did he lock himself and Abby in every night and just keep the club for added protection in case someone smashed the door in?

[PossumPie]

These elderly folks were paranoid!!! I mean, I worked as a home health nurse with elderly, and they all have some degree of paranoia, but these two are REALLY paranoid. Lizzie fed the paranoia, talking about people hating Andrew and possibly burning down the house, someone broke in and stole Abby's things, (maybe Lizzie, maybe not). They locked every outside and inside door during the day and at night. I just don't accept any theory that someone other than family hid in that house for an hour and a half, or several hours, or overnight. That is silly. Get in, kill, get out. There were many other opportunities to kill either or both of them at other times and places that didn't entail sitting twiddling thumbs for 90 minutes. NO WAY Abby is going to be lured down to the edge of her property by a stranger while another stranger sneaks in. She had been violated before. Someone stole her possessions. One of the WORST feelings in the world is to know a thief violated your home, was standing in your bedroom, pawing through your personal things. It changes people. She isn't going to let herself be lured away from an open, safe, front door by a stranger.

I must disagree with an intoxicated man hacking them both up. First, alcohol takes a LONG time to metabolize. When people consume alcohol the body treats it like a toxin and attempts to break it down into acetic acid. It only manages to metabolize about 90% of alcohol this way and the rest gets excreted in different ways. Some of it escapes with urine but it is also excreted by sweat and through the respiratory system. The alcohol smell on the breath usually comes directly from the stomach. If somebody belches with a belly full of beer it can create a powerful stench. I work with a very nice man who drinks heavily every night. He reeks of alcohol even the next morning. I can walk down the hall minutes after him, and smell the distinct alcohol metabolites hanging in the air. Also, an intoxicated man acting in a fit of rage MAY kill Abby, but wouldn't sit around for 90 minutes waiting for....what? who? why sit? you hear other people in the house...He is going to be horrified at his impulsiveness, and run away.

[PossumPie]

I think it is very unlikely Morse let anyone in. I said I had considered it and thought about it. It is plausible to me an intruder could hide in the room for 90 minutes after the first murder. It is not believable that a murderer whose preferred weapon is an axe/hatchet would hang around however long till he got a chance to kill Abby. It's one of those things that can be pushed and pulled till it's all explained and it fits, but it is extremely unlikely.

I think a basic research technique for conspiracy is to identify the conspirators. Morse has long been considered a suspect. OK so he is there, but who else? Until there is proof it has to remain in the realm of fiction where anything is possible if the author can explain it.

Since your article is published, Franz, many will look at it and critique it and just possibly someone will offer some proof or family stories or something of that nature and you will be able to develop the basic idea with real people, etc. New things pop up all the time.

I agree with Irina: Conspiracies open a whole new realm of "implausibility" Like I always say - NOT impossible, but IMPLAUSIBLE. Conspiracies are rare, and hard to keep the secret.

I think any good theory as to who the killer was must include a simple, believable motive. Money, love, desire, power, revenge...Would someone kill b/c the person scolded them for stealing a pear? Yea, people are sick and twisted. But it is unlikely. Would someone kill to molest an old lady? Yea, people are sick and twisted. But it is unlikely. Would someone order the killings b/c he loved his nieces and wanted them to get an inheritance? I guess, but it is stretching a point. Morse showed more caring and friendship to Andrew than to Lizzie or Emma and he got nothing from it. Did Lizzie and Emma have a motive? They became wealthy enough to live comfortably the rest of their lives without working...Money is indeed a strong motive. But Patricide (killing your father) is uncommon, sick and twisted. What a mystery we choose to explore.

[Franz]

If John Morse let the intruder in, (whether during the night or in the morning) how did John Morse know that Abby was going to be in the guest bedroom primping the bed up? Abby only had the conversation with Lizzie about putting new slips on the pillows (according to Lizzie's own testimony) AFTER John Morse had left to visit his relatives. Otherwise, it would be an extremely long wait in the guest room. Until John retired for the night?

Abby had apparently already made the bed earlier. Why didn't the murderer strike then? Or, if John Morse let someone in during the night, why didn't he direct him to the back part of the house, where two elderly people lay sleeping in their own bedroom?

1. Curryong, this might have been the role of the note, the note (not the note itself but another oral message, certainly, an hypotehsis) might have deceived Abby to go into the guest room, and to be killed there.

2. To kill them during the night was not a good solution, IMO, for two reasons: 1) Morse didn't want to be suspected; 2) it would be difficult to established a difference of death's time of the two victims. I think most probably the Abby's being killed obviously before Andrew was not accidental but intentional. Since by doing so Lizzie would benefit the death of the two victims and could become a suspect for the crime, the killer, therefore, overkilled, so that people would think the killer could not have been a woman,

[irina]

Establishing motive is so difficult that US criminal prosecutors are not required to try to provide them as part of their cases. I do agree with PossumPie's rundown of motives and comments on those motives. Sums it all up real good.

Like I just posted on the other thread for Franz: Write an historical novel that covers every aspect of your beliefs. Could be a best seller. With your passion I would certainly consider it. Don't think I haven't thought of something similar. I actually belong to a couple of forums and once I got involved I was overwhelmed with the fantastic research dedicated people are doing. At that point I decided I would be a member of a group and if answers are ever found we all share in the discovery. (If I found a bit of memorabilia I might write my own book but I would also share what I found with the groups.)

In solving historic mysteries on forums and in books the most rewarding approach in my opinion is the efforts that simply compile knowledge. Evans and Skinner or Philip Sugden on Jack the Ripper for example.

Were the Bordens excessively paranoid or were they prepared in a time when 911 and telephones didn't exist? Their neighborhood had changed and maybe it came with a shock. I lived in one medium sized town for years. Nobody locked their doors. Late 60s, mid-70s there was a lot of crime, suddenly for a lot of reasons. Lots of it just theft. I now know one mother taught her children to shoplift among other things. They formed a burglary ring eventually. There were a few perverts also, including a kid that crept into houses, stole underware, took it home and ate it. My husband kept a pistol by the bed. We depended on our dogs for warnings and defense. Etc. Too bad the Bordens didn't have any dogs.

I am well aware of the break down of alcohol but will argue the perceptions of others concerning same. Senses of smell differ from person to person. I for example have almost no sense of smell due to a nasal surgery. People with allergies may have impaired sense of smell. In Victorian Fall River there would have been many competing smells, including body odor and bad breath. Who is to say those first on the scene had not been drinking? I understand there is an overwhelming smell associated with blood and carnage, such as Abby upstairs in the guest room. I personally don't know. Perhaps the shock of what was found prevented people from smelling. Smell is the last sense most of us humans use. Anyone with an accute sense of smell in those days would have been continually offended.

One of the main reasons I will argue this point is that I am fighting a legal battle over my permanent ObamaCare electronic records. I was badly damaged by an injection for pain which caused me to be mildly psychotic for several weeks. At one point I ended up in the ER and have been OFFICIALLY written up as a chronic user of VODKA! BECAUSE I appeared to be "INTOXICATED" but NOBODY COULD SMELL ANYTHING and everyone KNOWS VODKA HAS NO SMELL!!!!!!! That a collection of incompetents can get away with this implies the odor of alcohol on the breath isn't quite as scientific as you would suggest. This mess may well kill me literally as I have to be careful in accessing medical care because I will always be judged alcoholic in the EHR. I have a heart condition and I avoid doctors as much as possible because I can't correct this thing. They insist they are right! Obviously I don't want to discuss this but this is another part of my reasoning on whether or not a drunk assailant would have left behind an overwhelming smell of alcohol~or if anyone would have noticed it.

[Curryong]

I admired the late Philip Sugden so much, irina, especially when one contemplates so many other Ripper writers.

I am so sorry about your troubles. To be characterised in the way described is completely bizarre!
How is the introduction of ObamaCare going, anyway? We have a nationalised healthcare service here called Medicare, and I come from Britain with the NHS, so that I can't imagine operations etc not being free.

[PossumPie]

Obamacare is a nightmare. I don't trust politicians to tell me the correct time of day...why would I trust them with my healthcare??? You are correct that the smell of alcohol is NOT scientific in that the lack of smell doesn't prove/disprove use. I'm still skeptical that an alcoholic would hang out for an hour and a half after killing Abby. That is a LONG time to sit and do nothing.

[Curryong]

As a Lizzieite I have always been curious as to how Lizzie occupied her time after she had killed Abby, cleaned up and stowed everything away! Did a few household tasks around her room, read a good book, chewed her fingernails and thought about Andrew? What?

[irina]

I have tried to work out how Lizzie filled her time that morning, whether she killed anyone or not. Anyway I figure it there is half an hour free time. That's not a lot and I can pass several hours on Twitter without knowing it...Lizzie could have looked at an old magazine, laid down, anything; but it's a block of time or numerous wasted minutes which prove absolutely nothing.

Obama Care is a horrendous mess. We have a lot of problems in our country right now. When I set up my membership on this forum I was still pretty ignorant of the ways of computers and I was working with a little phone only. So I chose a "user name" for whatever reason, probably because it sounded like fun...and the rest of my info is in the profile for all to read. Therefore I am Anna Morris. When our Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare I was disillusioned as well as bitter and suffering intensely. I made comments here and there and pretty soon different sites asked me to write for them. I chose Freedom Fighters of America www.freedomfightersofamerica.blogspot.com. I have written various things, not just about Obama Care. I am a technical writer and it is difficult to unravel ObamaCare. One of my favorite articles that I wrote is about the "Readiness Ruler". World class neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson says ObamaCare is not about health. It is about CONTROL. PERIOD!

ObamaCare was created to control every aspect of our lives and to make everything a public health issue. Therefore our private health is now a matter of "national security" as defined in a document on National Health Security Strategy (NHSS). I wrote an article on this a couple weeks ago. I am very careful not to bring politics into forums so I should stop here and encourage anyone who is interested to check out my articles and out site at FFoA. We are expanding rapidly and I think FFoA will be very big in the future. Like I tell the boss we could be the new "Huffington Post."

[Curryong]

I read the 'Huffington Post' sometimes (online, of course, but good.) Thanks for the link. Sounds like it keeps you busy and aware!
I'm sorry ObamaCare isn't working out. As I said before, I have lived in two countries that do have what some Americans would call 'socialist medicine.' Hey, Works for us! Smile.

What about the Canadian or some European models. Do you know those at all? Of course, this isn't the forum to have a debate on this, but it is interesting to me.

[irina]

I try to understand as many things as I can. One thing about our country is we have had fairly excellent medical care and we still lead the world in medical innovation. Price is high and I have no problem with government taxing to provide care for the poor. That is not what we got with the (Un)AffordableCareAct which was "passed so we could read it", without input from the people. As I see it there is a movement for all of us to have less because we have had too much in the past. There are a lot of things going on across the political spectrum. In my opinion ObamaCare was desperately needed so that Big Government can have complete control of our lives. It is very far from simply taxing to buy care for the poor.

Some in Canada and England complain about long waits and deferred surgeries, etc. There is talk of lifestyle rationing in both those countries, the idea that some patients are more deserving than others. At least that is the slippery slope that is being discussed though I do not see the concept institutionalised at this time. My former state of Oregon started something like that about 20 years ago and I saw a couple of my friends almost neglected to death because they were admitted smokers who did not want to quit. Now the government knows there is a lot of money in "smoking cessation" so they "track" and "surveille" it. One Oregon county pays pregnant women to quit smoking which might not seem too crazy except they created a bureaucracy to administer the program. The money should be put into buying care for the poor. The whole thing is so crazy I just write about little bits of it here and there.

I definitely need to shut up about now because believe me I can keep going. My best agitation is done on Twitter and at the site. So far things I saw or foresaw several years ago, experts are just now pointing out.

If our country could drop the ObamaCare insanity and simply provide care for the poor I'd be a Happy Little Vegemiter!

[irina]

I made a reply and looks like it went into limbo.

If such is the case I'll keep it short and sweet:

We should dump ObamaCare (the Un-Affordable Care Act) and simply tax in order to buy care for the poor. That would make me a Happy Little Vegemiter!

[Curryong]

Did you see the ad?

[irina]

I did see he ad! LOVE IT! It made me a Happy Little Vegemiter just watching it. As you can see the whole thing has tickled my fancy!