Points to Ponder About Andrew's Demise

[irina]

If Andrew's murder was premeditated by Lizzie, when did she plan to accomplish it? Or would killing Andrew have been an afterthought, perhaps as Victoria Lincoln suggested, to avoid losing Andrew's love when he figured out Lizzie, presumably in a rage, killed Abby? What if there had been no opportunity for Lizzie to kill Andrew, if for example Bridget immediately began preparing dinner or Uncle John had returned early? Some things don't make sense no matter what position one takes.

For example it could be argued that Lizzie knew Thursday afternoon was Bridget's day off. Perhaps Bridget would prepare dinner, wash the dishes and go out~perhaps to a fabric sale~and Andrew could be dispatched while he napped after dinner. That would be premeditation with a workable plan.

Looking at Bridget's trial testimony it seems the note first comes up just after Lizzie asks her father about the mail. Q: What did she say if anything to her father? A:(She asked about the mail and there were somethings I didn't understand)"...but I heard her tell her father that Mrs. Borden had a note and gone out." It is a bit later that Lizzie mentions the fabric sale to Bridget with the admonition to lock the door because Mrs. B. had gone out on a sick call and Lizzie says she might go out also.

As I understand it possibly only Andrew knew Uncle John was coming back for dinner, though he may have told Abby who was already dead by the time Andrew came back anyway. One could suppose that in the things Bridget didn't hear, that after Lizzie told Andrew about the note implying Abby would not be home for dinner, Andrew might have made a comment that Abby wouldn't be gone all that long because Uncle John was expected for dinner.

If Lizzie had a murderous plan this would surely have been an "Oh expletive" moment. (something far stronger than Bridget's 'Pshaw', which I always assumed might have actually been one of those colorful Irish curses that start 'Jaysus, Mary and St. Joseph...', and that's why Lizzie laughed) One could suggest that's why Andrew was killed fairly quick after his last conversation with Lizzie, but if Andrew had mentioned Uncle John coming for dinner would Lizzie have dared another murder at that time when her uncle could arrive at any moment? If Andrew didn't mention Morse coming back, and if Lizzie had a well thought out plan which included directing Bridget to a sale down town, then leaving the house herself, why didn't she follow through on that time frame?

Whether or not a well thought out plan that included Andrew could have ever been accomplished is another consideration. It would depend on Bridget either being gone or upstairs in her room, neither possibility being certain. (Bridget may simply have decided to sit under the shade of the pear tree for an indeterminate amount of time, eating pears that afternoon.) To argue that Lizzie killed Andrew on the spur of the moment at the time when he was killed indicates she was willing to risk Bridget coming back downstairs at any time. If so, would she have killed Bridget too? Or would the argument be that Lizzie was insane and the murderous passion overcame her judgement?

The time and time frame around Andrew's death has always bothered me. It's tight for Lizzie or an intruder, yet someone did it. Lizzie knew all the risks and since she wasn't totally insane she also had to have some idea how she would handle various possibilities like Bridget coming downstairs at the wrong time, Bridget not leaving on her day off, Andrew remaining alert and active all afternoon, or going out again before he could be killed. With as little interest as Lizzie seemed to have in the affairs of the household, she would not have necessarily known if any guests might be expected. It has been written though I don't have the source, that people who had business with Andrew knew they could reach him at home around 11:00 am, after he had returned to the house. Surely Lizzie knew this was a possibility though I suppose the locked front door would simply encourage such visitors to go away if they were ignored.

(I probably could have written this better and made a few more points but right in the middle of my writing it sounded like something attacked one of my barn cats. Have had intermittent predator grabbing barn cat problems this winter, but all the predators should be back in the hills by now. Anyway my dog & I had to go out and check around. We didn't find anything but I am distracted. Perhaps there is a murder mystery in the feline population.

[debbiediablo]

Around here the murder mystery of felines involves coyotes.

[Curryong]

I've just been watching, on our TV news, a bear which has apparently been getting into this couple's kitchen in the US and raiding the fridge. Puzzled because they got up one morning and their kitchen was in disarray, the couple set up a camera at night and this recorded a bear opening the freezer part of the fridge, throwing the food it wasn't interested in onto the floor and grabbing something which looked like a tub of icecream!

Back to Lizzie! Yes, the time frame is extremely narrow but it can be done. The first thing to be seen to would be to get Bridget out of the way. She tried to do this by chatting about the sale. That wasn't a goer because Bridget still felt queasy. However, she decided to go and have a lie-down. That served Lizzie's purpose just as well. If you are going to murder someone it's always good to have luck with you!

On another thread I read before I joined (can't remember which one) this very question was asked. What would have happened if Bridget hadn't 'cooperated'? "Oh miss Lizzie, its a lovely day I'll just sit in the garden until it's time for me to do the dinner!"

(Someone suggested that Lizzie would have pulled rank and suggested she go to the shops for her on a short errand, or told her to rest in her room. Either of those would have been suspicious, but could have been explained away, especially if Bridget was out, by conjuring up another scenario in which she actually heard an intruder break in.)

Of course, all this would not have been necessary if, as I believe, Lizzie originally thought she had the afternoon to play with as far as killing her father was concerned. I believe she expected to wait until Bridget had cleared away the lunch things and departed on her afternoon off. Lizzie would then have been able to attack at leisure, perhaps while Andrew had a post-lunch snooze. She wouldn't have taken too long at it, but she herself might have been able to establish some sort of a shopping alibi downtown if Andrew had been killed at say 1 pm rather than eleven.

I do not believe in fact that Lizzie did know, until Andrew informed her, that Uncle John was coming back for dinner. It probably was, as you say an "Oh sh-- !" moment! From then on time was of the essence. She could not risk John coming home and deciding to go up to the guest room to comb his beard or something. Nor could she have him littering the sitting room talking with her father for hours. She knew Bridget would be down to prepare lunch before 11:30am.

Sooner or later Andrew would grow worried about Abby. He would start looking. I do think she improvised to a certain extent with Andrew's murder, but again luck was with her. Andrew decided to have a snooze. And the rest, and him, is history.

[debbiediablo]

I do not believe in fact that Lizzie did know, until Andrew informed her, that Uncle John was coming back for dinner. It probably was, as you say an "Oh sh-- !" moment! From then on time was of the essence. She could not risk John coming home and deciding to go up to the guest room to comb his beard or something. Nor could she have him littering the sitting room talking with her father for hours. She knew Bridget would be down to prepare lunch before 11:30am.

I'm still undecided whether Lizzie alone or with help but I do believe Uncle John's presence moved up the murder from an afternoon project to needing to be done before he arrived back at #92 for lunch with Andrew.

[twinsrwe]

I do not believe in fact that Lizzie did know, until Andrew informed her, that Uncle John was coming back for dinner. It probably was, as you say an "Oh sh-- !" moment! From then on time was of the essence. She could not risk John coming home and deciding to go up to the guest room to comb his beard or something. Nor could she have him littering the sitting room talking with her father for hours. She knew Bridget would be down to prepare lunch before 11:30am.

I'm still undecided whether Lizzie alone or with help but I do believe Uncle John's presence moved up the murder from an afternoon project to needing to be done before he arrived back at #92 for lunch with Andrew.

I agree! I think the idea of killing the elderly Bordens had been in the making prior to August 4th, because of Lizzie's conversation with Alice Russell on the evening of the 3rd. The short time frame involved during the time of the murders on 4th, indicates that the murders had to take place that morning, before the noon meal. Perhaps, Andrew and Uncle John were planning to expedite something like a will, putting Abby as the primary beneficiary, and listing Emma and Lizzie as secondary beneficiaries. Whatever was about to take place in the afternoon of the 4th, called for a rush job of two murders in the morning hours. This may also be the reason why Lizzie didn't have her alibi in place, and therefore she couldn't keep her story straight.

[BOBO]

I believe that sexual abuse was going on in that home, and had been for a long time.

[PossumPie]

Irena, I agree with most of your assumptions, BUT even a stranger would have a risk if Lizzie or Bridget puttered around in the kitchen/parlor until Uncle Morse came home. Weighing everything out, a stranger crouching in a room upstairs with a dead body had MORE to lose by the women downstairs staying inside. At some point (after an hour and a half????) the killer must make a move. They are not using a pistol with a silencer, if they come downstairs and come face to face with both women, they cannot kill them both quickly enough that one/both wouldn't scream, bringing half the neighborhood out. A hatchet murderer is NOT a stealthy assassin. I lean towards Lizzie's guilt mainly b/c she had the best opportunity. Her presence anywhere in the house would not raise concern. A stranger sneaking in, upstairs killing Abby, crouching by the body for 90 minutes, sneaking downstairs at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT that no one would see, just HAPPENING to catch the other victim with eyes closed on a couch????? WAY, WAY too many happenstances for my liking. From upstairs you cannot tell where anyone else in the house is. How could a stranger be sure that coming down the steps they wouldn't walk into the arms of 3 or 4 people? It is much too implausible. Given all of the circumstances, I say Lizzie is the best suspect, followed by Bridget and Lizzie together. I just don't see how a stranger could expect to be in that house with all the unknowns for so long and not be caught. People have argued before that they would "just" kill anyone who would have seen them, but again this was not a gun!! You can't hack someone up who is across a hall, or a room. The person would have screamed out and alarmed everyone in a 4 block radius. In the movies Bruce Willis can kill 89 people in ten seconds without anyone making a noise but it just doesn't happen in the real world. The killer knew exactly the right moment to kill Andrew, and unless they had ESP they couldn't have known when that was from the upstairs guest room.

[debbiediablo]

I believe that sexual abuse was going on in that home, and had been for a long time.

Criminal profilers agree, and I certainly do not rule this out. If this were the case, then maybe Lizzie and Bridget had a common cause although this might muddy the waters a bit because Andrew would've died for his sins but Abby (who was perhaps a different kind of victim) had to die for the money. Maybe Bridget had no problem with Andrew's death but Abby's was difficult as they seemed to have a decent relationship. Bridget has avoided scrutiny because her testimony made sense and she didn't want to go upstairs to the guest room...a normal reaction. But maybe she knew what was in that guest room and didn't want to see her employer of whom she was fond hacked to pieces. This might mean that Lizzie killed Abby and Bridget killed Andrew and covered her clean-up with washing windows. As Possum points out, they were the only two with opportunity and, if Andrew took sexual liberties with the maids (BOBO alluded to this and then couldn't pursue his findings) then both of them also had motive.

[Curryong]

Didn't Bridget go on ahead when she and Mrs Churchill went up the stairs in search of Abby? I believe she went into the guest room, though not up to Abby's body, while Mrs Churchill hung back. She stated in her testimony that she saw the body under the bed. "I ran right into the room and stood at the foot of the bed....I did not stop or make any examination. Mrs Churchill did not come into the room".

[irina]

Whoever committed the murders took horrible risks and was extremely lucky. My idea of an intruder is that he felt he got stuck upstairs because Lizzie came up to her room and stayed for awhile. When she went back downstairs he eased out, listened to events downstairs, tried to sneak out but Andrew stirred, etc. It's what I think could be reasonable but obviously I have no proof so I won't push the theory. Forums are for testing and discussing ideas.

I don't think I could ever think of the murders as very much premeditated. Who in the world premeditates axe/hatchet murder? Has it ever been done, short of some primitive societies in more primitive times? How much real experience would a woman like Lizzie have had with a hatchet? I'm used to chopping wood for a fire and I am extremely surprised the Bordens had all their kindling made by a hired man. I had always assumed Bridget must have chopped kindling but apparently not. So if Lizzie wasn't experienced with a hatchet, why would she choose it as a murder weapon? I can understand someone~anyone~grabbing a hatchet in a moment of passion and attacking someone, but I really cannot accept that it was planned. I could even understand Lizzie for example premeditating murder with a hammer, but not a hatchet.

Somewhat on topic, I posted on another thread about a hatchet murder that happened in a public park where I lived in a small town. The killer was never caught and it took a long time for police to find the hatchet which had been dropped in a backyard some distance from the murder. One theory was a bad guy had a hatchet in his car & he had it handy, so he used it. On the other hand presumably the killer made quite a trail on foot through a neighborhood, discarding various items pertaining to the crime as he went. There was a creepy kid in that town whose stated dream was to chop up women, but like I said nobody was ever caught. My point is that all it takes is one freak to defy the odds and get away with something horrendous. In the modern crime I mention, in my opinion the killer was walking around the streets with a hatchet, for whatever reason. He used it, eventually discarded it and walked home.

If Lizzie killed Abby in a rage and then figured how to cover her tracks and improvised as she went, Andrew was probably not killed while Lizzie was in a blind rage. Surely she considered what she would do if Bridget came back downstairs at the wrong time. I don't believe Bridget was involved and I don't believe Lizzie would have killed her. I also don't believe Bridget would have kept quiet in the heat of that moment. Uncle John or business associates of Andrew's could have been prevented entry by locked doors, but Bridget was there. It is true that there are almost no impediments to Lizzie killing Abby~plenty of time, security, privacy, ability to clean up...everything favourable. Andrew was an awful risk on so many levels.

The whole question of whether Andrew told Lizzie Uncle John was coming back for dinner is almost a catch 22 in figuring things out. It could be~and has been said~that Lizzie did get this information and that that expedited a murder that was planned for the afternoon when Bridget would likely be out. However that afternoon was Bridget's day off, she wasn't feeling well and she might simply have stayed in her room. Lizzie could have asked her to leave on an errand, but would she when Bridget had the time off? If Lizzie would do that, why not send Bridget out at 10:55 or so when Bridget was still on duty more or less? ven if Bridget had left for the afternoon there would be almost no guarantee how long she would be gone or when she would suddenly return. It also seems reasonable that Lizzie could anticipate Bridget coming downstairs to start up the stove for the dinner as well. (Somewhere it is written that Bridget said the lunch plans were for cold mutton but I think it's in her testimony that she mentioned planning to start up the stove in plenty of time. I rather assume any hot water came via the stove.) If Lizzie then disposed of the hatchet outdoors, like on the Crowe's barn roof, she would risk running into Uncle John or any number of people or watching neighbors. Of course she could easily have hidden the weapon somewhere in the house as we have discussed.

It's a horribly flawed plan if it was a plan. Or Lizzie didn't do it. Except for the possibility that Abby's death was the result of rage, I would have to think Lizzie did want to preserve her place in society, that she was capable of thinking ahead to consequences and that she could control many of her actions. With Andrew there are just too many risks involved for anyone with a modicum of sanity.

[debbiediablo]

Ax murders are not common today because people do not use the ax in their daily lives as they did at turn of the century. Back then ax murders were not at all uncommon. I'm fascinated by the Villisca ax murders which are thought by some to be part of a pattern of ax murders across the Midwest in 1911-12 where as many as 30 men, women and children were hacked to death. Google "ax/axe murders" and you will be amazed!

If it was a horribly flawed plan then it worked exceptionally well since we're still talking about it, books are being written about it, people are visiting the bed and breakfast, and no one has definitively solved it 122 years later...

Maybe the risks for killing Andrew were extreme, but it's important to remember his is murder #2. Lizzie will hang if convicted of killing Abby. So there's really no choice: either she takes the risk and kills Andrew or she stands a strong chance of going to the gallows. Sun Tzu states that men in war fight their best, at their strongest, when on desperate ground... meaning there's no way out other than by victory or by dying. I think Lizzie recognized that Abby's death placed her on desperate ground and that she had no choice but to act fearlessly or end up at the end of rope.

[Curryong]

I don't think Lizzie, in her long-term fantasies of killing Abby, contemplated using an axe. I think Lizzie perhaps intended to use that old female standby of the 19th century, a dose or two of poison. However, unlike other female poisoners of that ilk, her shopping expedition to get a supply ended in failure.

I believe Lizzie used a hatchet on Abby because of something that was said or done that morning and she flew into a rage. She herself told the police, when talking of Abby's movements on the Thursday morning, that she (Lizzie) had gone down to the cellar (to use the privy.) A new hatchet may have been down there, she may have kept a new one in her room, ready for the Marion trip, which in the end she didn't take with her.

She had used a hatchet on occasions. There was talk after the murder of a jokey letter Lizzie sent a Marion friend in which she made reference to a previous picnic and a blunt axe. That letter was destroyed by her friends as it was feared it might be misunderstood. She also may have used an axe on similar occasions at the Swansea farm.

I think that if Bridget had not gone up to her room Lizzie would have sent her on an errand. Lunch was going to be potato soup and cold mutton. We don't know about the heat of the stove but the wood or coal was probably still glowing, if quite low, and would have needed just a stir or two with the poker to bring it to sufficient heat to warm soup. Bridget no doubt treasured her afternoons off. Even if she took it easy, did a little shopping, had a glass of lemonade with a friend downtown, I've no doubt she would go out. The vomiting she did earlier probably cleared her stomach.

For the rest, I think you will concede, won't you, that if Abby was killed by Lizzie then Andrew would have had to go too? Even if you don't care for the money motive or that her father would have guessed who Abby's murderer was. Smile.
All murderers need luck. Some murderers get it in spades. Look at Jack the Ripper! Yes, Lizzie did run risks in the murder of her father. Yes, Bridget could have come downstairs. Yes, uncle John could have arrived back early and caught her. No doubt we would then be on some other forum discussing another intriguing 19th century mystery and one of us might post 'Can you remember reading about that awful Massechusetts axe murderess Lizzie somebody, whose uncle caught her in the act of killing her father? Wasn't her father asleep or something...'

[debbiediablo]

Lol, Curryong. Or we'd be discussing how a 5'3" woman managed to hatchet her step-mother, her father AND her uncle to death...all before lunch!

[PossumPie]

Let's look at this microscopically: The killer, if not Lizzie is upstairs hiding. Many modern experiments have been done in the house. There is no way to hear what is going on downstairs from the spare room. You cannot hear voices in a normal tone, or normal moving about. The killer would be completely blind as to "choosing the best time to flee" They wouldn't know that if they came downstairs, 4 people might be standing there. Even sneaking and peeking to see that the front hall was clear, there are multiple rooms and multiple doors someone could pop out of at any time. IF they got to the door to the parlor, Andrew was on the couch back to the door. They would have had to turn, go in there, with the kitchen door in front of them which could open at any time. I just can't fathom anyone taking that chance on killing him and making a noise not knowing that Lizzie happened to be in the barn and Bridget happened to be on the third floor. They had no way of knowing that perhaps both women were standing right on the other side of the door in front of them. Hatchet-ing an old man in the head is going to make some noise. Even if he doesn't scream. Why would ANYONE box themselves in to be caught like that? People have suggested that the killer "simply" would have killed Lizzie and/or Bridget if they discovered him. BUT if they opened the door saw a man hatchet-ing Andrew, they would have screamed before he could have silenced them. I've played and replayed the scenario in my mind, but I just can't fathom anyone relying on the blind luck a stranger would have needed. "All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one" The simplest solution is Lizzie had privacy in that house, knew where Bridget was, and if Bridget saw Lizzie walking around, it was after all Lizzie's home. Much neater, simpler-er a solution.

[irina]

Anything is possible. Look at the "luck" the Manson Family had. They were more than one of course. I knew people who were friends with the second set of victims. Sadly it was commonly said in Southern California that the victims must have "wanted to be killed" because no one seemed to resist.

It's also possible the killer was known to Abby and Andrew but not to Lizzie and Bridget. Whereas the former could provide a name, perhaps if the latter had seen them all they could do would be to describe him.

Without proof none of it can be exactly described and thus it continues to be a mystery.

On Jack the Ripper Forums there was a poll about "How did Jack get away with it"? There were a half dozen serious or half serious options such as police corruption, Masonic conspiracy, Royal cover-up, etc. The one that got the most votes was, "Jack was the luckiest %*&$# in the world". So Lizzie or the unknown intruder fits that description perfectly.

Also, I thought the story about Lizzie saying or writing something about an axe and a building if I remember correctly, was apocryphal and somewhat of an urban legend?

Other than in anger, where an axe/hatchet might be the quickest thing to grab, or in the case of depraved, insane murder such as Vilisca where the axe was simply available, I cannot imagine axe murders being planned. It seems to me if a person is used to cutting up meat with a cleaver or similar instrument, and it was a comfortable thing to use, a murder committed by such a person would be fairly swift and require few blows. For someone without that experience to choose such a weapon, seems beyond creepy unless it was one murder done in a blind rage. (I can't stand cutting up meat scraps and road kill for dog food with a hatchet or cleaver, but I do because it's efficient. I always think of the Borden murders because I have studied them. Even if I hadn't, I think I would feel a great aversion to cutting up any kind of flesh with such instruments.)

[Curryong]

The letter I was referring to in my earlier post was to a Marion friend (if that's the letter you meant.) The friend consulted mr Jennings and told the police when they came to interview her about the letter, that Jennings had told her she needn't disclose the contents of the letter if she didn't want to, and she didn't so she wouldn't! (It's in the witness statements.)

As I said I believe Lizzie first planned poison, but I take on board Debbie's point about the availability of hatchets, too.

[irina]

I have read about the letter but didn't know what they were suppressing. There was an urban legend type story about her offering to use an axe for something. She supposedly said, "Just give me the axe", and then everyone was embarassed and silent.

Though I do believe in Lizzie's innocence and that she didn't try to buy poison, or if she did it was for the purpose of suicide, she may have had some knowledge of prussic acid. Since I do most of my research on the internet I have misplaced my Merck Index so I'll work from memory. It has a use in bovine veterinary medicine. Very small amounts are used for a digestive issue. Physiologically I don't see how this would work and don't think they do it any more. She may have been aware that a deadly poison called prussic acid was used for this purpose since the family owned a farm.

In that day arsenic and such was so readily available in rat poison and even fly paper that something as exotic as prussic acid to poison the family, is ridiculous. She probably would have killed herself simply opening the bottle the wrong way. I did a bit of research to see if there was another toxic chemical that sounded like prussic acid which she or someone could have asked for and didn't really come up with anything that sounded similar. Of course with all the doctors in Lizzie's life maybe a casual conversation based on curiosity alone led to, "what's the most deadly chemical in the world", and the answer may have been prussic acid.

[Curryong]

Apparently Lizzie joked in the 'suppressed letter' about a picnic months before that she and her friends had been on, and the axe brought along had been blunt and useless. Presumably no fire was able to be lit because they weren't able to chop wood. Hence no tea, coffee, toast, marshmallows or anything of that nature. So she wrote that this time she would bring along a nice, sharp axe that would do the job!

Prussic acid is certainly a strange and very unstable sort of poison to use for murder, I agree. Maybe she had read of its deadly qualities, Moby Dick and all that. Whaling ships out of New Bedford used Prussic acid in their harpoons in Lizzie's lifetime.

[debbiediablo]

Lizzie's denial that she knew where the "prussic acid pharmacy" was located causes me to doubt her denial of attempting to purchase prussic acid there. This plus she was identified by two witnesses under oath.

[Curryong]

Yes, debbie, Lizzie probably was in the pharmacy. However, as we've discussed before, Prussic acid is a strange old poison to want to use to kill someone. It's unstable, dangerous to use and very inaccurate if you don't know what you're doing. It would be great if you wanted a whole household of corpses, due to a little miscalculation.

Whereas with arsenic, what could be easier? A tiny sprinkling of droplets, like cinnamon, on Abby's cream buns daily, care of the tin of rat poison that was no doubt in the barn, and 'Bob's your uncle'. Of course, it's easily traceable at autopsy but the local bakery could come under suspicion. Perhaps it would be blamed on 'summer sickness' and there wouldn't be a post-mortem.

That's why I've always had a little niggle in my mind that maybe Lizzie intended suicide with the Prussic acid, if her plans went awry, if she was in danger of arrest, or maybe before the murders she just felt very, very, down.

[debbiediablo]

I do not see Lizzie as suicidal.

[Curryong]

Yes, well perhaps Lizzie had been studying up on the properties of Prussic acid. Isn't there that apocryphal tale about her having a book on household treatments and medicines and it was found open on the page about 'Prussic acid'? It wasn't in Lincoln's book, was it?

[irina]

I didn't know prussic acid was used in whaling. Interesting.

There was supposed to be a copy of herbal remedies or something in the Borden home. TV dramas have enlarged upon this by showing the book's spine broken so the book opened on the prussic acid page.

As we have noted before Lizzie was identified by Bence because she was pointed out by the police. Masterton notes that there had been a sting on pharmacies at that time, with people (women) trying to buy items that required a prescription. It doesn't make sense that prussic acid would be a logical request for such an action. Because of the faulty identification methods I think it is necessary to discount Bence's identification. On the other hand Lizzie's eyes are startling in their placement (as were her mother's) and that makes me consider a bit deeper. However if she asked for the substance I would think it would be for suicide. Her ramblings to Alice Russell point more to suicide than murder in my opinion.

Arsenic has failed to be detected many times, in some cases until the murder toll was quite long. Even today it slips detection.

I don't understand Lizzie's probable lie about not knowing the pharmacy in the neighborhood. It's a stupid lie and it must be a lie unless she was simply unfamiliar with things in her neighborhood. I still can't get over Bridget saying if she knew where Mrs. Whitehead lived she would summon Abby. In almost three years I'd think she would have an idea where Abby's sister lived. I can't believe people fail to inform themselves of the world around them. In the medium sized town where I used to live I guess I could truthfully say I "didn't know" certain small pharmacies because I never used them. I knew about them but never went there. They were within a mile of my home. What Lizzie said sounded like she didn't know of the existence of the pharmacy. Maybe she didn't or maybe she meant she had never been inside the business.

[twinsrwe]

.

[twinsrwe]

Anything is possible. Look at the "luck" the Manson Family had. They were more than one of course. I knew people who were friends with the second set of victims. Sadly it was commonly said in Southern California that the victims must have "wanted to be killed" because no one seemed to resist. ...

Really? They wanted to be killed? Was this said of the first set of victims, the second set or both sets?

[debbiediablo]

However if she asked for the substance I would think it would be for suicide. Her ramblings to Alice Russell point more to suicide than murder in my opinion.

On the other hand Lizzie's eyes are startling in their placement (as were her mother's) and that makes me consider a bit deeper.

This is cross-posted from another thread:

According to FBI profiler John Douglas Lizzie's ramblings to Alice Russell point more to a staged domestic homicide than to anything else:"Postoffense interviews of close friends or family members often reveal that the victim had expressed concerns or fears regarding the victim's safety or even a sense of foreboding."

Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime.

Regarding her eyes, what do you find of interest?

[NancyDrew]

Off topic: The Manson murders are something I've studied intensely for years. The reason the first set (the folks at the Tate house) didn't have defensive wounds (and I think that is wrong in the case of Sebring and Voykowski, both of whom wrestled with Tex Watson) there was a gun pointed at them.

In the case of the LaBianca's (the second set of murders, the next night) Manson himself broke into the house, and tied the LaBianca's up. Rosemary and Leno had just been reading about the Tate murders in the newspaper and were terrified. Manson, in a calm and soothing voice, told them NOT to resist...that he didn't want any harm to come them, and that this was just going to be a simple robbery. Then he left the house and his accomplices (Tex Watson, Patrician Krenwinkle, and Leslie Van Houten) killed them both...the husband first, then the Rosemary LaBianca (although it is worth noting that many have said, including Leslie herself, that she stabbed Mrs. LaBianca AFTER she was already dead...presumably because Charlie had told Watson to make sure "everyone's hands got dirty." )

In terms of luck, however, I disagree. The only reason the Manson murders went unsolved was because of police incompetence. Gary Hinman had been killed earlier, with blood stained messages on the walls (by members of the Manson family). The police in that jurisdiction, when hearing that the word "PIG" was written in blood on Sharon Tate's front door, contacted the police handling the Tate murders and suggested they might have been committed by the same persons. And what did the detectives do? They brushed it off.

In 1969, law enforcement was obsessed with drugs. The fact that cocaine and marijuana were found on the Tate premises sent them on a frenzy to uncover some huge drug ring. AND also, Tate and Polanksi were well-known partiers in the jet-set, not to mention that Polanski made movies with satanic themes. The media had a field day suggesting that the Tate murders were the result of devil-worshipping gone wrong, etc.

The Manson gang, or most of them, had been arrested for auto theft and other charges (not murder.) Susan Atkins, high as a kite from taking acid every day for a year, and sitting in the Sybil Brand Institute for Women bragged to her cellmate that she was the one responsible for killing Sharon Tate. The woman she confessed to told the warden, and that is ultimately how the police solved the crime.

Police incompetence is, in my opinion, responsible for many unsolved murders. OJ Simpson's wife, Jon Benet Ramsey, and Lizzie Borden included.

[irina]

People didn't understand why nobody seemed to fight back in the Manson cases. Some people thought they would have resisted to the death in such a situation. Some people think fighting back hard is the way to go. Others don't. Before Manson there was less reason to believe an intruder would actually commit mass murder. In real life I had my throat cut but fortunately the guy had a dull knife or a screw driver or something and I wasn't much injured. I just stood still because I was shocked to be grabbed like that. Why didn't I knee him in the groin? Don't know. He was taller than me and that's saying a lot because I am tall. He ran away when my dog turned up. That's when he took a couple swipes across my throat. Knowing what we know about Manson and others I do think I would try to fight a home invader, even if he had a gun. I'd rather be shot than something worse. Nobody knows what they will do until they are confronted with the situation. There are however some people who insist they would never be over powered/coerced by a home invader.

[debbiediablo]

It's probably fair to say never, ever be forced into a car...better to stand and fight than to be hauled to someplace remote. The same might be said for allowing oneself to be bound and gagged. At that point there is no escape except at the mercy of the captor.

[Curryong]

Don't we all learn by the horrible previous experiences of others? For instance, the heroic passengers of Flight 93, learned what had occurred earlier on 9/11 and were determined not to be used in the same way. (I still think the terrorists probably intended that plane to crash into the White House.)

The passengers on the earlier flights, knowing that previous terrorists had used passengers as hostages and without the knowledge that their pilots were probably dead, probably thought the hijackers were going to use the tried and true terrorist handbook on this occasion, and of course had no communication from loved ones on the ground because absolutely no-one knew what was about to happen.

Nothing like the Manson killings had ever happened before, and the poor people in the house probably initially thought "They can't kill all of us. If we give them money, promise them we won't call the police after they leave, perhaps they'll go away." Then the time for concerted action passed.