Just How Smart Was Lizzie?? Or Just How Dumb???

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:43 pm

I agree with Franz about Lizzie not being the smart criminal we often credit her with being. Of course, this is why we're still talking about the Borden murders 122 years later...because either she was brilliant or incredibly lucky or incredibly unlucky or a combination of all three. Or really dumb by making up lies when the truth might've served her better. When I'm in my "Lizzie did it" mode, I also think one or more people were complicit in the crime, either by helping her or by not acting against her. Here I mean Bridget, Uncle John and/or Emma. And possibly Dr. Bowen. When I'm in my "Not Lizzie" mode then I think about all the clever moves we credit to her and the dumb ones we also credit to her. Here's what I mean:

• Stealing or otherwise obtaining a murder weapon that wasn't seen before the crime (there's nothing to indicate that Lizzie was a talented thief who toted home countless items without being noticed...it's more like she used shoplifting in lieu of Andrew having a Titanium Mastercard.) We decide she lifted the hatchet not because we have prima facie evidence but because it the easiest way to explain the inexplicable. There is absolutely no evidence to support her stealing a hatchet anywhere at any time.

• Disposing of the murder weapon so that it is never found and/or identified (remember, when we give her credit for throwing it on Crowe's roof we are casually dismissing the guy who claimed it as his...despite the fact it may very well have been his and why would he claim it if it were not?) Again, we discount testimony (albeit unsworn) in lieu of what fits easiest with our theory.

• Working around the presence of Uncle John when it would be so much easier (conceding the murders are premeditated) to do it next Thursday when only Bridget will be in the house. Emma just needs to chill at Fairhaven for another week.

• Or we give her credit for enacting the perfect crime after overhearing an evening discussion between Andrew, Abby and John about something that requires her to kill the very next day. How incredibly clever she is to get everything done leaving no evidence with less than 12 hours to plan! Yes, she may have fantasized these killings for years, but there's a lot of difference between daydreaming and action for any endeavor, and certainly for first degree murder.

• She attempts to buy prussic acid at a pharmacy around the corner...huh? Like how dumb is that? Then she lies about not knowing the pharmacy is there.

• Realizing that Abby had to die first for Emma to inherit (why not arrange for Abby to have an unfortunate accident on the cellar stairs??? Then her beloved Father could live happily ever after with his two doting daughters and no one would be defending a murder charge.)

• Not closing the door to the guest room...no one could claim she should've seen Abby on the floor had the door been closed. If Lizzie were really smart, she would've known that Abby's body would be found once Andrew's was found. So get smart and close the damn door.

• Somehow having no blood splatter on her person whatsoever. There's a difference between no blood splatter whatsoever and being covered with blood. I would expect her to have some blood evidence on her person.

• Some opinion holds that she kept clean by wearing Andrew's coat which was then folded and placed under his head to disguise the blood splatter. Except the coat is not where it needs to be to catch the most amount of blood. Why? Because she cannot bear to place it under his head...when only seconds before she was bashing his brains out onto the sofa and watching his eyeball ooze down his cheek. I'm not sure we can have a hatchet murderer who has the stomach to bludgeon her father beyond recognition but the delicacy to not touch the body (think of her grabbing Abby by the hair and whacking away....)

• She burns the murder dress in front of Emma (probably okay) and Alice. Huh? Huh??? Since when is it smart to destroy evidence in front of the neighbors???

• She makes up a reason to be in the barn...she makes up a note Abby supposedly received. She also denies knowledge of the pharmacy. If not the murders, what is she hiding? Or does she lie because Lizzie is a pathological liar and it appears to be the easiest way to appease law enforcement at that moment in time. If she cannot foresee consequence of making up sh*t, then how can she plan and execute these murders leaving no evidence behind.

• She finds Andrew's body within minutes after he is killed...this helps her in some ways. How did she end up without weapon or blood splatter in less than 10 minutes? I know Possum has attempted this, but there is a huge difference between re-enactment and operating under an unknown time constraint as to when either Bridget or Uncle John will reappear...right after bashing in Daddy's face. So why not busy herself in the kitchen or basement and let Bridget or Uncle John find him. If she had the self-control to wait 90 minutes between Abby and Andrew then she should've been able to wait another 15-20 minutes for someone else to make the discovery....

• She makes no effort to downplay her dislike of Abby when a little less vitriol might have served her well.

• Supposedly she kills Abby first so Emma can inherit, and then Andrew because he denies the family indoor plumbing, electricity and a telephone. But think about this: when Lizzie really wanted a European tour, what happened? She got it. When Lizzie and Emma got their backs up over the Whitehead house, what happened? Andrew gave them a house, too, for $1. And when they were dissatisfied with that, what happened? He bought it back for $5,000. Andrew Borden may have been a skinflint, but when Lizzie wanted something, she got it. So why kill him when her powers of persuasion have been successful in the past?

I'm pretty much in Franz's camp on this one: Lizzie probably wasn't a smart criminal even if she turned out to be a successful one. For sure she would lie, perhaps pathologically so, without considering the logic or consequence of her stories. But the world would be running rampant with murderers if everyone who lies pathologically were also a killer. Somehow the inept confabulation doesn't fit with same person who was clever enough to plan and execute these murders, perhaps with less than 24 hours to plan, while leaving zero physical evidence behind.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Excellent post! Chapeau!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:33 pm

Franz wrote:Excellent post! Chapeau!

Thank you, Franz!

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:34 pm

Wow Debbie. You ought to publish that piece! 'LBQ', 'The Hatchet', other places? That is really a great summation! I don't really have anything to add. I have said what I think about this subject before, but not as eloquently as you just did. Fantastic!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:37 pm

irina wrote:Wow Debbie. You ought to publish that piece! 'LBQ', 'The Hatchet', other places? That is really a great summation! I don't really have anything to add. I have said what I think about this subject before, but not as eloquently as you just did. Fantastic!

You are welcome, Debbie!

Yes, Irina, good idea, why not? Stefani, are you there?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:48 pm

I hate to inform all of you of this, but as of September, 2014, The Hatchet: A Journal of Lizzie Borden & Victorian Studies publication ceases to be.

END OF AN ERA

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetOn ... an-era.htm

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:59 pm

Oh my God! Even an annual pubblication would not be possible?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:11 pm

It doesn't sound like it, Franz, but you could send Stefani a PM and ask her.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:23 pm

twinsrwe wrote:I hate to inform all of you of this, but as of September, 2014, The Hatchet: A Journal of Lizzie Borden & Victorian Studies publication ceases to be.

END OF AN ERA

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetOn ... an-era.htm

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:20 am

Lizzie was of average intelligence in my opinion and was incredibly lucky.
The trouble is we don't know so much that is vital. We don't know the undercurrents that were operating at No. 92 at that particular time at that morning. We don't know what, if anything, started an argument off that Thursday morning that resulted in Abby being killed.

(1) I believe she did purchase a gilt edged hatchet. Remember that she joked in a letter to Miss Johnstone that she was bringing a 'nice, sharp axe' down to Marion. I don't believe she meant anything sinister in that letter, by the way, simply that she probably had purchased a new hatchet months before. No-one knew about it because no-one went in her room but Emma and herself.

(2) I believe that the Crowe's Barn hatchet was hers because she had an opportunity after Andrew's murder to throw it up there. Moreover, it is a huge coincidence that such a thing should turn up there, only months later. However, as Possum has pointed out many times, there are many places you can hide things in an old house.

(3) Victoria Lincoln is often accused rightly of being very imaginative. However, just suppose she was correct in her assertion that it was known at the Fall River Union Bank that Andrew was dissatisfied with how the Swansea farm was being run, that he intended to put John Morse in charge for a while and that he intended to sign over the deeds to Abby.

(4) Remember, Andrew burst out to an acquaintance only a short while before the murders that 'there is trouble at home.' We don't know, of course, but if gossip had trickled out of banking circles about the Swansea farm going, would John's turning up at No 92 not act like a red rag to a bull to someone who was certain that her and her sister's inheritance was being disposed of piece by piece to a hated step-mother? Did she not say to Carrie Poole 'I don't know whether we will get anything from father's estate?'

(5) Under those circumstances a little spark, something said by Abby that morning, a dig, a little jest, and in that moment it wouldn't matter to Lizzie about whether Abby was killed first or not. She was there, and Lizzie hated her and wanted her gone.

(6) Lizzie's attempt to buy Prussic acid was stupid. There is a jagged pattern of stupid lies and actions, and stories made up on the spot, some of which worked and some didn't, strokes of luck and the social conventions of another age which helped and hindered, which litter the Borden case.

(7) I believe she wore the paint spattered dress under, first Abby's gossamer, and second Andrew's coat, to kill her parents. I believe she was saved from close examination afterwards by shell shocked friends and Dr Bowen not taking a close look to see blood splashes among the paint on cloth, in dim rooms shuttered against sunlight. As soon as more senior police arrived Lizzie quickly changed.

(8) The guest room door being left open and the coat being put low on the couch? In the second case speed was imperative and Lizzie just rolled the Prince Albert and shoved it in my opinion. In the first case, who knows--some inner need to display her handiwork, perhaps?

(9) The burning of the dress. In one way it was a stupid action as Alice came in and caught her. In another it was vital that that dress not be examined by the police. She had been told by the mayor she was 'a person of interest' likely to be arrested before too long and so the dress had to go.

I will put it this way to people who believe Lizzie to be innocent. Why, knowing she was likely to be arrested, did Lizzie take the time and effort to burn a paint-stained but otherwise perfectly innocent garment? And why send the police a dress which she knew perfectly well she hadn't worn that day?

(10) Lizzie took chances. She killed Andrew because she had to, and she did it swiftly. She made many lies up on the spot and changed some of them (as NESpinster has pointed out) when challenged. We don't know her reasoning for calling Bridget before John's return. We don't know a lot of things about that Thursday morning and we aren't likely to get complete and full answers to them now. That doesn't mean, however, that just because time was tight that Lizzie wasn't able to murder Andrew, especially if she didn't have to change her clothing.

(11) I think if there had been a way to not have to kill her father, then Lizzie would have taken it. If she could have hypnotised him for the rest of his life so that he would never have suspected her of touching Abby, Lizzie would have done it. She was fond of him, and he did try and smooth things over with cruises and money gifts. But in the end the price, a live Abby, was too much, and so he had to die.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:30 am

I think Lizzie was incredibly lucky. I also think the police were incredibly stupid and inept. They weren't keeping people away from the crime scene, people were coming and going walking about.I think all the key players weren't entirely acting on all thrusters. I think they were trying to protect Lizzie by getting rid of Lizzie, you know circle the wagons, it couldn't have been Lizzie that did this.

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:05 am

GREAT POST DEB!!!!! So if you don't think Lizzie would kill for want of money, could it have been for another reason?? (wink)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:21 am

Curryong and Snokkums, and certainly many others, think that Lizzie was "incredibly lucky". If Lizzie could have been incredibly lucky, why couldn't an intruder have been incredibly lucky as well?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:33 am

Because, Franz, there was no evidence an intruder ever entered the Borden property, so whether he/they would have been lucky or not has no relevance.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:50 am

Curryong wrote:Because, Franz, there was no evidence an intruder ever entered the Borden property, so whether he/they would have been lucky or not has no relevance.

Curryong, if we have evidence for the existence of somthing, we can say that something exists; on the other hand, if we have no evidence for the existence of something, we could not say with 100% certainty that something doen't exist. (I am sure that I will be accused for not being logical.

)

Ok. No evidence for an intruder. But why, in these 122 years, many people think that the killer was not Lizzie (nor Bridget either)?

P.S.: The intruder's being incredibly lucky includes exactly, among others, that he didn't leave any evidence behind him! (I personally think that the ferocity of the murder could be an evidence that the murderer was a man, therfore, an intruder. But I think so only by my feeling, and therefore there is no logic.)

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:15 am

Beautiful animated cat, Debbie. (However cats shouldn't cry~if I see a cat with a drippy eye I run for a tube of medicine.

) Too bad about 'The Hatchet'. I am unclear if this was always an online publication or if there was a print version. Seems like it could continue online. Wish it was.

There is a big difference between those who rely on logic and those who look at things intuitively. That's why Possum and Curryong can always elicit responses from Franz and me. The logical thinkers are actually right and I for the most part let Possum for example have the last word because to reply is simply to say, yeah but there are other possibilities. Realistically to argue another point there needs to be evidence which may or may not be forthcoming. On the other hand the police did a lousy job at the time so we also look for clues the police missed.

There are cases in modern crime that were subject to modern forensics where family members or others appeared to be guilty of murder in the same way Lizzie appears guilty, and were convicted with the same logical reasoning. Later real creeps were caught and convicted, perhaps through DNA. There is a series of crime shows on TV called 'Unusual Suspects' and some of them are unbelievable. For instance in a case from Oregon a husband and wife were killed and the perp was the daughter's daughter's X-husband. He killed on the spur of the moment for money. There are so many of these cases that I can't remember all the specifics. Add in no forensics in Lizzie's day and we know very little about that case.

Some of the logical thinking however spills over into the intuitive range. The logic thinkers will say an intruder wouldn't/couldn't have hidden in the house for 90 minutes, because... Well yes he (or she other than Lizzie) could. The Manson Family wasn't in any hurry to leave the scenes of their crimes. In one town where I lived, in my neighborhood, we had two teenage boys who creepy crawled homes. One stole and ate womens' underwear, the other stole rings and wine among other specific things. He used an unusual way to enter homes and seemed to be intuitive. He sat in peoples' homes and drank the wine. A neighbor who was a state cop sat in his darkened home with a gun planning to shoot the kid. As I recall the kid rattled the door knob but didn't enter. Both young men eventually elevated to violence though not murder.

Crime is a study of what is not seen. There are no mysteries when the facts are known and seen. Criminals are all lucky to a certain extent. Sometimes they are seen but potential witnesses don't believe what they saw or they don't want to be involved. If Lizzie did it she was lucky. I believe her intelligence was average. There are a lot of reasons I don't believe she is completely guilty though I accept the possibility that she was involved.

Logical people have firm reasons why Lizzie killed her father then rapidly summoned Bridget, but here they begin to enter the world of those of us who use intuition. The mere act of summoning others within minutes of committing a brutal, somewhat bloody murder, just does not make sense. Intuition can lead researchers to seek other clues where logic would shut the door on searching.

Logic is needed for example in the medical profession. We don't want medical professionals experimenting as they go along. That is how it should be, but meanwhile patients like me with extremely odd genes slip through cracks and suffer needlessly because we don't fit anything on any page in any medical book. I was a pre-med student once, planning to become a doctor and do research. Then I learned that the biochemist can ask "why" and decided I would rather approach research that way.

Logical people can rein in intuitive people if we go too far beyond reason. Intuitive people can shine light through closed doors, allowing expanded thought. Crime usually has a level of illogical. It is so easy to say Lizzie was there, hated her step mother, had a great opportunity, killed her father to cover up the first murder and by the way, inherited a lot of money. However it happened, even if she alone is guilty, I believe the elements are far different from whatever pure logic would say. Guilty or innocent the whole story has yet to come out.

Lizzie was in my opinion a person of average intelligence caught up in something far beyond her intellect or capabilities and the result was the muddled mess no one can unravel~~~yet.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:50 am

Franz wrote: Curryong, if we have evidence for the existence of somthing, we can say that something exists; on the other hand, if we have no evidence for the existence of something, we could not say with 100% certainty that something doen't exist. (I am sure that I will be accused for not being logical. )

Franz, this is called 'evidence of absence' in logic and is considered provable, beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond all doubt, under specific circumstances where investigation has been thorough.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:52 am

BOBO wrote:GREAT POST DEB!!!!! So if you don't think Lizzie would kill for want of money, could it have been for another reason?? (wink)

I have always tied that level of rage and depersonalization with something more than rage fueled by greed.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:37 pm

Irina, I like very much your long post, very objective.

P.S.: You said: "The mere act of summoning others within minutes of committing a brutal, somewhat bloody murder, just does not make sense." Some members think that Lizzie did so intentionally so that people would think she could not have had enough time to commit the murder and then clean her up, and therefore the killer would not have been her. Sounds good.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:05 pm

irina wrote:Beautiful animated cat, Debbie. (However cats shouldn't cry~if I see a cat with a drippy eye I run for a tube of medicine. )

LOL...me, too.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:37 pm

Yes, Franz and that is a big point with me that points to her innocence of actually doing the murders. If she was a criminal mastermind with ice in her veins, I'd go along with folks here who think it was part of a plan. Lizzie was a bungler as far as crime and lying anyway. I still can't think anyone would really pre-plan an axe murder beyond the other well known cases where a perp picked up the family axe at the back door then went in a killed everyone. That IS premeditation but not by much. If Lizzie killed I believe she attacked Abby in a fit of some find of passion and Andrew was collateral damage to cover up. I don't think anyone would try to argue that Lizzie had any previous experience with murder. She would have been a novice. She should have needed time after Andrew's death to sort herself out. It can be a strong consciousness of innocence to call help right away. Many a murderous family member has been convicted of killing wives, husbands, kids, because they waited a long time to call for help. Diane Downs is one and there are many others whose names I cannot recall. I think it is the norm to delay calling for help in a case of guilt. Of course today's help includes police, investigators and forensics. In Lizzie's day help might more likely mean a sympathetic doctor's attention and lots of kindness from understanding friends.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:47 pm

Franz wrote:Irina, I like very much your long post, very objective.

P.S.: You said: "The mere act of summoning others within minutes of committing a brutal, somewhat bloody murder, just does not make sense." Some members think that Lizzie did so intentionally so that people would think she could not have had enough time to commit the murder and then clean her up, and therefore the killer would not have been her. Sounds good.

IF Lizzie did it, then I don't think she was a Reverse Sherlock Holmes and summoned help to prove the point that she couldn't be the perpetrator due to the short lapse of time between murder and her appearance without weapon of bloodstains. I'm more inclined to think her behavior was psychologically driven. When someone kills a member of their family and makes no effort to hide the body(ies) they want the victims to be found ASAP. Ditto why she suddenly urged on the search for Abby. What bothers me regarding this is Lizzie cooled her heels for 90 minutes between murders which shows she had patience and the ability to act normally, carry on conversation, perform some light work, naturally and pleasantly interact with her next victim--by her own report!!!!!! To me this points to a) she was innocence b) she was both guilty and somewhere on psychopathic continuum.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:58 pm

debbiediablo wrote: ... When someone kills a member of their family and makes no effort to hide the body(ies) they want the victims to be found ASAP....

If so, and IF Lizzie was the killer, we should say that she thought to kill her father as well almost immediately after Abby's death. Because if not, we would have seen Lizzie, after having cleaned her up of Abby's blood, rushing to Bridget who was cleaning windows and hollering: "Oh Maggie, come quick! Someone came in and killed Mrs. Borden, in the guest room!"

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:39 pm

Yes, IF Lizzie was involved in the killing of Abby then she planned to kill Andrew or have him killed ASAP...before he could start searching for his wife.

Or...

here's a thought...given that a number of people think Andrew's nap position looks decidedly odd (me among them) maybe the bedroom door is open because Andrew goes looking for Abby and finds her! He confronts Lizzie, knowing she did it. He sits on the sofa in despair, having to make a choice between justice for his wife versus his daughter going to the gallows. Lizzie expects him to pick her, except he dithers; he may actually opt for allowing the judicial system to run its course instead of siding with his Baby Girl!

Lizzie is enraged that he fails to instantly take her side, and she explodes, initially striking him in the face. Her father's hands come up in effort to defend his head but Lizzie is too fast and furious, and he slumps over to his right. Lizzie moves in from the left for better access to his head with less mess. Plus she doesn't have to look him in the face as she destroys it. Andrew's coat is still laying there so maybe she slips it on. Then, after he is dead, Lizzie tucks the coat under his head and lifts his feet into a napping position--both acts of undoing.

Remember that we have only Lizzie the Liar's words as to what happened once Andrew comes home and Bridget is no longer present.

Just thinking.....

Typo edited

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:40 pm

I'm adding on here mostly to say THANK YOU DEBBIE!!!!!

I learned a heck of a lot and I now have a Borden-appropriate avi, thanks to you! That made my day!

I think if Lizzie killed Abby she had plans to get away before Andrew came home, but if so why didn't she leave? She had to know roughly when her father would return. Possibly she ran out of time. Possibly Andrew didn't exactly buy the Abby-note-sick-person story and that is why Lizzie was reported by Bridget to have been telling Andrew "slowly" about this state of affairs. If Andrew showed any suspicion about Abby going out like that~especially when Uncle John was expected back for lunch, which Lizzie probably didn't know before~Lizzie may have panicked and dispatched him as quick as possible. Then she raised the alarm and looked as innocent as possible before Uncle John arrived. That's how it COULD have been if she was guilty. My intuition tells me a few things are missing in the scenario. I hear big alarm bells so I look for other explanations.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:44 pm

Perfect!

:smiliecolors:And my thanks to Twins who helped me learn how to reduce the animation

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:47 pm

Gosh Debbie, you are the best writer in this group. You ought to write a book on the case, fiction or real. You have talent. You also might have something there about Andrew opening the door upstairs. Hmmmm...... (I'm too happy with my smiling pear avi to think deeply.)

I always hold back a bit when I am discussing people who really lived not that long ago.

There was a blown up and enhanced picture of Andrew on the couch and I see what everyone says about the odd position. I have been known to lie that way for a nap but I have some medical issues and very loose connective tissue which makes that position comfortable. Most people, and probably all stiff, old men wouldn't like that position. I think he was sitting up or just lying down or beginning to arise when he was hit first.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:01 pm

OFF TOPIC:

Now we need to talk BOBO into putting up an avatar...how about Crankin Hank?

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:11 pm

Thanks to you too, Twins! The little smiling pear is like a Christmas present for me. You have no idea how happy he makes me.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:09 pm

debbiediablo wrote:Yes, IF Lizzie was involved in the killing of Abby then she planned to kill Andrew or have him killed ASAP...before he could start searching for his wife.

Or...

here's a thought...given that a number of people think Andrew's nap position looks decidedly odd (me among them) maybe the bedroom door is open because Andrew goes looking for Abby and finds her! He confronts Lizzie, knowing she did it. He sits on the sofa in despair, having to make a choice between justice for his wife versus his daughter going to the gallows. Lizzie expects him to pick her, except he dithers; he may actually opt for allowing the judicial system to run its course instead of siding with his Baby Girl!

Lizzie is enraged that he fails to instantly take her side, and she explodes, initially striking him in the face. Her father's hands come up in effort to defend his head but Lizzie is too fast and furious, and he slumps over to his right. Lizzie moves in from the left for better access to his head with less mess. Plus she doesn't have to look him in the face as she destroys it. Andrew's coat is still laying there so maybe she slips it on. Then, after he is dead, Lizzie tucks the coat under his head and lifts his feet into a napping position--both acts of undoing.

Remember that we have only Lizzie the Liar's words as to what happened once Andrew comes home and Bridget is no longer present.

Just thinking.....

Typo edited

If so, Bridget must have heard something and must have lied to the authorities.

(Off topic: lovely avatars of all of you!)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:17 pm

debbiediablo wrote: ... What bothers me regarding this is Lizzie cooled her heels for 90 minutes between murders which shows she had patience and the ability to act normally, carry on conversation, perform some light work, naturally and pleasantly interact with her next victim--by her own report!!!!!! To me this points to a) she was innocence b) she was both guilty and somewhere on psychopathic continuum.

Yes Debbie. By her own report, but Bridget didn't notice nether any strange behaviour from Lizzie's part during those 90 minutes.

Patience, calm, self control, sang-froid, totally normal perfomance, etc., etc. For me this is the image of a professional serial killer, not of a criminal novice that Lizzie, if she did it, might have been.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:21 pm

OFF TOPIC: Debbie and Irina, you are welcome. I'm glad to see the new avatars; they are very cool!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:24 pm

Franz wrote:
If so, Bridget must have heard something and must have lied to the authorities.

I've been convinced for quite some time that Bridget knew more than she let on...and probably Uncle John, Emma and even Dr. Bowen. All five of them lied to some degree.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:46 pm

Franz wrote:
Patience, calm, self control, sang-froid, totally normal perfomance, etc., etc. For me this is the image of a professional serial killer, not of a criminal novice that Lizzie, if she did it, might have been.

Yes, Franz, this is why I vacillate in my opinions. It's important to remember that not all psychopaths are serial killers although most serial killers are psychopaths. Psychopaths come in all walks of life including doctor, lawyer, general, CEO, psychologist and President...and criminals. If Lizzie committed these crimes then she was a novice murderer. But the cool, calm and collected Lizzie (like the old Secret deodorant advertisement) that was the Lizzie she had been since early childhood...if she is guilty.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:14 pm

I discount the idea that Lizzie had a cold, unfeeling temperament because especially in later life she seemed to be a warm and caring person. I have suggested before that I think if Lizzie was guilty she had rationalized Abby's murder, that it was almost an act of self defense in a psychological sense. Having justified it in her mind she could act normal. Then she killed her father while loaded with adrenaline and couldn't handle it. My problem with this line of thinking is it seems to me Lizzie did a lot of things she didn't need to do if she was acting. It's another one of those things that doesn't feel right.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:35 pm

Great avatar, irina. Love the little pear! I will have to do something about my kaola.

The trouble is, isn't it, that, as I said in an earlier post, this is a case from over 100 years ago involving a very self-contained family. We don't know what the family dynamics really were, (though we can have a guess) and beliefs about Lizzie's psychological condition have to be hedged around with a great deal of caution. Plus, there are necessarily huge gaps in our knowledge about what actually happened on that Thursday morning. We are all theorising here, with our different life experiences and ways of approaching the mystery.

To me the problem of Andrew going up and finding Abby in the guest room is surely that Lizzie would follow him up there. She would wait to see his reaction. It would be shock and despair at first, one would think. He was, after all, an elderly man, and he might have collapsed.

Surely he wouldn't immediately leap to the conclusion that Lizzie was the murderer, unless, and this is a big caveat, her behaviour over the last few weeks had given him some cause for alarm. If an argument broke out in the guest room would Bridget, in a room a floor above and at the back of the house, necessarily hear it?

If Andrew was in a state of shock and was guided downstairs by Lizzie, would she take a chance and go for Dr Bowen or immediately kill Andrew? What if he kept repeating something like "Who can have broken in and done this dreadful thing?" Would Lizzie have immediately gone for the hatchet in those circumstances, if there was a glimmer of hope that her father wouldn't fix the murder on her? Talk about the horns of a dilemma!

Anyway, if the two have them had gone up to the guest room and in Debbie's scenario an argument had broken out and Andrew had then come downstairs to sit in despair on the sofa, only to be killed there by Lizzie, that gives her even less time to clean herself up than we know she had already.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:30 pm

I keep trying to come up with new and different scenarios...something that fits most of the facts we know or answers some of the salient questions.

One piece of this that bothers me (and leads me to think a la BOBO that there was more to Lizzie's rage than just greed and jealousy of a step-mother usurping a small amount of Andrew's vast fortune) is why make it an obvious murder when the whole problem with Abby could've been solved by Abby meeting up with a fatal accident.

Shove her down the stairs, and if that doesn't kill her then drag her back up and shove her down again. Grab her by the hair and wedge a giant piece of mutton down her throat. Burn down the house with her upstairs and a chair shoved under the knob at the stair door. Drag the chair away seconds before fleeing out the side door. Why bludgeon her with a hatchet as the method of choice...why commit a murder that could never be mistaken for an accident. Why commit a murder than requires the death of Andrew, too.

Looking at Lizzie's behavior later in life to determine that she was a nice caring person may not provide an accurate read of her psychological status. Children who get their own way about everything can be easy to deal with...until thwarted. Adults who have all the money they need to pursue their each and every desire can afford to be kind and generous to the less fortunate. There is no pain in their giving.

Khalil Gibran said, "“Generosity is not giving me that which I need that you do, but it is giving me that which you need more than I do.” Also from Gibran, “Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.” Or from a source I can't recall, “You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.” Lizzie's charitable acts later in life have minimal impact on my opinion of her.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:54 pm

The last quote may be from Bl. Mother Teresa. I love Gibran.

I wasn't thinking about charity. Even Jesus of Nazareth taught about the hypocrites who give without love so that kind has been around for a long time. I was thinking about Lizzie having warm interpersonal friendships. It sounds like she had more social interactions than I have. (I made some personal choices that would probably make others think I'm one of those crazy lone wolves. But I have all the friends I want online without all their problems. :alcohol:

) I would expect something negative about her if she committed the murders~~unless that kind of murder was so far out of her general psychologic make up that it was in her mind an act of self protection or something. In other words rationalized to the point that it didn't happen or so horrific that she had amnesia ever after. Personally I don't think it is either.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:04 pm

Another side to that is Lizzie's relationship with her sister ended forever. Or so we think. I cannot imagine siblings who weathered such tragedy (whether or not she was guilty) and hung together throughout...I cannot imagine what it took to split them asunder for the remainder of their lives.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:25 pm

Yes, I wasn't criticising the fact that you come up with different scenarios, deb. I think it's good. It's just that this one wouldn't be so great time-wise.

I read somewhere years ago an observation about domestic murderers (whether they got away with it at the time or not) that they are often perfectly peaceable and contented people afterwards, simply because the main source of their irritation, their victim, has been removed.

While I don't think that it overly applicable to Lizzie, who seemed to suffer some loneliness, regrets about her location and depression in later life, there is some kernel of truth in it, I'm sure. (Didn't a bird irritate her in later life with its chirping and she wrote a note to a neighbour asking him to remove the 'cause of the irritation'?)

I suppose many murderers killed in a way which isn't strictly logical to us reading about the case years later. For instance, I am reading about a famous British case at the moment. Dr Crippen, an American doctor in London, bumped his overbearing and vulgar wife Cora, off with the poison hyoscine.

He made many mistakes, including purchasing huge amounts of the drug, and burying her in the cellar. As I was reading your earlier post about Abby having an accident, I thought about Crippen. The house where they lived had deep cellars and steep stairs. How much easier it would have been had he given Cora, his wife, a good hard push at the top of the dark cellar steps. However, he didn't, he used his method and hanged because of it.

The truth is, none of us know what rage drove the killer on that Thursday morning at the Borden house. Murderers often describe a red mist descending just before they kill, in which all logic, all planning goes, and what is left is just unreasoning fury. I am more and more convinced that something happened that Abby said or did that set Lizzie off that morning. Frustratingly, we don't know what it was.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:30 pm

It's a MONKEY!!!!! LOLOLOL
See No Evil. Hear No Evil. Speak No Evil.

BTW...OFF TOPIC

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:32 pm

I read somewhere a couple years ago that Emma thought the sisters should live quietly in perpetual mourning and Lizzie's lifestyle was too flamboyant. That's extremely simple and it makes sense to me.

In the purported interview Emma gave in 1913 I noted something of interest. This item also makes me question whether Emma gave the interview as it rings false. Emma said she was certain Lizzie had not committed the murders because she had assured Emma many times that she was innocent.

I would compare that statement to what if my husband was accused of cheating on me? I know he's a good guy and honest. I believe him and he is innocent. He has no need to assure me multiple times over the years that he didn't do it. If Emma said that it tells me she wasn't sure and the subject surfaced possibly during disagreements.

I think Emma couldn't tolerate show business folk. Even Los Angeles in the silent era had supposedly had signs on various rooming houses saying: No dogs. No Jews. No actors. Or variations thereof. I could imagine Emma finding theater people to be a low class of humanity not fit to be in an upstanding home.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:54 pm

Yes, I agree. Theatrical people were considered beyond the pale in the 19th century, especially actresses as it was thought no 'lady' would ever put up with the lifestyle or with saying words of love on stage to a work colleague! I still think it was more likely to be an argument over the chauffeur however, as I don't believe that Emma would ever have sat down with a newspaperman and discussed her family.

By the way, irina, deb, there has been a breakthrough in the Jack the Ripper case. They have found Aaron Kosminski's D.N.A. on a shawl belonging to victim Catherine Eddowes. (Kosminski was of course, as you know, a main suspect fingered by the police at the time)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:14 pm

Curryong wrote:...
By the way, irina, deb, there has been a breakthrough in the Jack the Ripper case. They have found Aaron Kosminski's D.N.A. on a shawl belonging to victim Catherine Eddowes. (Kosminski was of course, as you know, a main suspect fingered by the police at the time)

Oh, really?

Could Dr. Jari Louhelainen help us in the Borden case?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:30 pm

Wow. I didn't know that....makes Walter Sickert and Patricia Cornwell look a little feeble.

Take a look at Twins...she is having fun tonight!

Yes, he could help if the murder weapon would surface. Otherwise the DNA from Lizzie, Emma, Bridget and Uncle John (and even Dr. Bowen) would be difficult to differentiate since they were all over #92.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:32 pm

The trouble is that, unlike the dirty streets of the East End, or one particular shawl, (which was how they tracked Kosminski) family DNA would be in every room of the Borden house, and remember, people bought vinegar and eggs in the kitchen, so strangers' DNA wouldn't necessarily be of any value, anyway. Now, if we could find the hatchet....!

Twins is having a season change! Is it a pear tree?

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:03 pm

Think my comment got dumped. I've been hopping back and forth to JtR Casebook & Forum. All they have is mtDNA~matrilineal line, on a shawl of questionable provenance. I'm having trouble finding the original 'Daily Mail' article. I don't think the JtR experts think too much of this. A new book is based on this finding so of course it will help sell the book. If all they have is mtDNA they don't have much. I could go on but I am seriously off topic.

Whatever happened to the sofa Andrew died on? I know clothing was buried, carpet cut up...but I never heard anything about the sofa. Slipcovers? Waste not, want not.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:13 pm

Irina, it might be this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:31 pm

I wouldn't regard people on the Jack the Ripper Casebook Forum as 'experts'. Several of them have their own irons in the fire and axes to grind, (how's that for mixing the metaphors!) There is, after all, a whole industry wrapped up in him being an unknown anonymous fiend! I think it's an interesting development and requires some study. Funnily enough the news hit in Aus, via the Daily Fail online, before it got into the news in the UK.

Unbelievably, in my opinion, Emma sent the couch her father was killed on to be re-upholstered while she was living alone at No 92. I don't know what happened to the cushions, afghan etc.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:56 pm

Thanks for the article Franz!

It's still only mtDNA. Kosminski's mtDNA may have differed from the regular British population but there were lots of East European Jews in the East End. That a shawl would have that mix of DNA from that area isn't surprising to me and it is far from conclusive. Does that look like a shawl to you, Curryong? If so, what kind of a shawl? Looks like silk, fashionable, not warm.

I can't believe Emma had the sofa reupholstered. Wonder if it had a nice corner at Maplecroft? Yikes! Maybe it is still in existence. That reupholstery job must certainly be an example of consciousness of innocence on Emma's part. Wonder what Lizzie thought about it when she returned home?