Uncle John returns

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:44 am

As I do in considering Lizzie's guilt or innocence, I look at life before and after the murders. I don't see anything in Morse' life that supports his involvement. His life after the trial doesn't suggest anything either. No pay offs or suspicious behaviour that we know of that would point to his complicity.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:10 pm

Franz wrote:
Curryong wrote:Oh no, Franz, you are not trapping me in that corner! John morse had a viable alibi for both murders, attested to by others! Lizzie didn't!
Yes you are right Curryong, John Morse had a viable alibi for both murders. This proves beyond reasonable doubts that he didn't kill them personally, but this could not exclude the possibility that Morse was guilty : having orchestred the murder.

The commission of a crime requires motive unless the perpetrator is mentally ill and thinks the neighbor's dog is God spelled backwards and is ordering him to shoot people. Franz, what do you see as Morse's motive. And everyone else who sees Morse as either committing the crime or hiring it done? Why did he do it?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:30 pm

The author of a perfect crime doesn't let people know, or even guess, his (her) motive or any involvment.

There are many other insolved murder cases, right? There must have been the authors, and their motives. But we don't know.

The killer in the Borden case could have been Lizzie, or another figure in the case, or maybe a person that never entered in our sight in these 122 years, with his (her) motive and involvment unknow to us.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:08 pm

You are absolutely right, Franz. Problem is we don't get any further unless we can prove. I have a good scenario too but I can't prove it. What you and I need to do is FIND other people involved. Old crime records, old newspapers, urban legends. I would feel pretty sure if an intruder/stranger did it, it wasn't his only crime.

Nobody yet knows for sure who was Jack the Ripper. A recent article in 'Ripperologist' made an interesting observation based on a certain element of the crimes. It is a very important point based on modern forensics. We need to study and study to look for proof of our theories.

Closer to home, my friend was murdered over twenty years ago. Nobody knows who/what/why, or for sure when. We can make guesses based on her lifestyle but that is as far as anyone can go. So it's a old case. ANYTHING is possible in that one and thus there are no answers.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:10 pm

Here is a link: unsolved deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_deaths

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:10 pm

That's an interesting list. Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate. There are a lot of unsolved cases not listed there but there are a number of cases I have not heard of. Indeed the Borden case is unsolved because Lizzie was acquitted. Legally it is unsolved. We'll keep our eyes wide open. There has to be somemore evidence out there that will shed light on the case. When I do original research I also think of your theory, Franz. Everyone agrees it is possible because anything is possible.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:10 pm

My favorite unsolved murder(s) The Villisca Axe Murders are not there.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:04 pm

Not to mention some other axe murders and a number of other things. Of course anyone can post on Wiki. Think about it Debbie.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:26 pm

I do post on Wiki once in a blue moon.

If we look at the Borden murders from the classification standards then Lizzie did it. Everything matches the elements of an unstaged domestic homicide. Right to the T. It's absolutely amazing how the facts of the case match the profile. The one element missing from the evidence is the sexual abuse that the profilers who examine the case believe triggered Lizzie's rage. Unfortunately, John Douglas did a slightly sloppy job of writing about the Borden murders in his book The Cases That Haunt Us which causes readers who know the Borden case inside out to disregard everything he got right.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:14 pm

One thing to throw into the mix when looking at patterns is something Stefani said on a video somewhere out there in cyber space. She said she knew of no other case of axe murder where there was a long period of time between killings. That makes the Borden case absolutely unique. The case already breaks the mould so there is nothing to say anything else fits any known classification either.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:25 pm

Yes, as I have said before, no other axe murder in the US in the 19th century was performed by a female, and I know of only one in Britain and one in Australia. Of course, in the Manchester murder the perpetrator there waited a long time after he had killed Bertha for old man Manchester to come home. He would undoubtedly have been killed by the hidden killer if the Portuguese (Corriera) had not become tired of waiting, as he was delayed.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:23 pm

Axe murders were rare because women couldn't always handle the axe as an offensive weapon...not so much the hatchet.

http://listverse.com/2014/04/25/10-gris ... murderers/

If you’re going to be the first woman executed by the state of North Carolina, you might as well get your money’s worth. Frances Stewart Silver hacked apart and scattered her husband so thoroughly that he wasn’t found all at once. His remains were eventually buried in three separate graves. In addition to an ax murderer, Frankie was something of a twisted fire-starter as well. She became the prime suspect in her husband’s disappearance when a snooping neighbor poked around the couple’s fireplace and found ashes oozing with fleshy oils. It didn’t help that a pool of blood “as big as a hog liver” was discovered under the floorboards of their home. The eventual discovery of what remained of Charles’s head and torso sealed the deal.

The motive is unclear, with theories ranging from jealousy to self-defense of herself and their infant daughter. Either way, 1830s society didn’t take kindly to wives dismembering their husbands. Controversy swirled around the trial, and Frankie was nearly acquitted. Despite public support shifting toward pardoning her, Frankie needed a jailbreak by her father as a last gasp at dodging the hangman’s noose. It was not to be. Following her recapture, the petite Frankie was hung from the neck until dead.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:37 pm

That's a terrible case, Debbie. It makes the Borden case look like a genteel, polite axe murder.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:09 pm

OFF TOPIC:

Yes, it does. One source says 10,000 people came to see her hanged!

On December 1831, several residents of Mitchell County searched for Charlie Silver because he had not returned home after a hunting trip with his wife along the Toe River. However, the search proved fruitless until Jack Cullis, a local hunter, discovered human remains inside a fireplace at the Silver’s mountain cabin several miles from Kona in Mitchell County. In addition, more body remains were found throughout the property, including beneath the cabin’s floor.

After the discovery, Frankie Silver was arrested and charged with first-degree murder of her husband in January 1832. Later in March, Silver’s trial was held at the Burke County Courthouse. It lasted for only two days. Hardly any evidence was presented against Frankie, but the jury remained convinced that jealousy prompted her murderous action. The prosecutor alleged that Frankie believed Charles was being unfaithful.

Some residents believed that Frankie was an abused wife and that Frankie murdered her husband to stop the abuse. Even B. S. Gaither, the clerk of court, remarked that there was strong evidence about Charles’s abuse and “that if his wife had admitted the killing and pleaded self-defense” then she more than likely would have been acquitted (Encyclopedia of N.C., p. 1036).

Regardless of the evidence, Frankie Silver never gave her testimony. In the early nineteenth century, women were not allowed to do so, and she never confided in her attorney or the judge concerning what really happened. The jury found Silver guilty of murder and she was sentenced to hang.

Silver’s attorneys filed several appeals while women from Burke County petitioned the governor to show mercy on her. However, the appeals were denied, and her family broke her out of jail. Yet Frankie was eventually captured, and her execution date was set for July 12, 1833.

According to Noel Yancey and other historians, Frankie Silver, who was detailed as a “bright eyed, very pretty little woman,” has been “considered the first woman ever executed in North Carolina” (Encyclopedia of N.C., p. 1036). Silver was only eighteen years old at the time of her death. Legend holds that Frankie wrote a poem, “Frankie Silver’s Confession,” and that she sang her ballad before being hanged in Morganton.

Numerous plays, stories, and books have stayed the legend of the Frankie Silver murder case in the hearts and minds of North Carolinians. Sharyn McCrumb wrote a novel concerning the event, entitled The Ballad of Frankie Silver (1998), and Perry D. Young and William Gregg adapted a play, Frankie (2001), about the story.

The Ballad of Frankie Silver from the North Carolina digital history collection:

This dreadful, dark and dismal day
Has swept my glories all away,
My sun goes down, my days are past,
And I must leave this world at last.

Oh! Lord, what will become of me?
I am condemned you all now see,
To heaven or hell my soul must fly
All in a moment when I die.

Judge Daniel has my sentence pass’d,
Those prison walls I leave at last,
Nothing to cheer my drooping head
Until I’m numbered with the dead.

But oh! that Dreadful Judge I fear;
Shall I that awful sentence hear:
“Depart ye cursed down to hell
And forever there to dwell”?

I know that frightful ghosts I’ll see
Gnawing their flesh in misery,
And then and there attended be
For murder in the first degree.

There shall I meet that mournful face
Whose blood I spilled upon this place;
With flaming eyes to me he’ll say,
“Why did you take my life away?”

His feeble hands fell gently down,
His chattering tongue soon lost its sound,
To see his soul and body part
It strikes with terror to my heart.

I took his blooming days away,
Left him no time to God to pray,
And if his sins fall on his head
Must I not bear them in his stead?

The jealous thought that first gave strife
To make me take my husband’s life,
For months and days I spent my time
Thinking how to commit the crime.

And on a dark and doleful night
I put his body out of sight,
With flames I tried him to consume,
But time would not admit it done.

You all see me and on me gaze,
Be careful how you spend your days,
And never commit this awful crime,
But try to serve your God in time.

My mind on solemn subjects roll;
My little child, God bless its soul!
All you that are of Adam’s race,
Let not my faults this child disgrace.

Farewell good people you all now see
What my bad conduct’s brought on me—
To die of shame and disgrace
Before this world of human race.

Awful indeed to think on my death,
In perfect health to lose my breath.
Farewell, my friend, I bid adieu.
Vengeance on me must now pursue.

Great God, how shall I be forgiven?
Not fit for earth, not fit for heaven;
But little time to pray to God,
For now I try that awful road.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:56 pm

Franz, what do you see as Morse's motive. And everyone else who sees Morse as either committing the crime or hiring it done? Why did he do it?

I'm not Franz but my view is (if Lizzie didn't do it) that Morse didn't plan or hire the murders but had suspicions about the men he was involved in horse trading with. I still give Arthur Phillips's letter credence that there was a horse deal which somehow involved Andrew and Morse and it went awry. I explain Morse's weird behavior with a guilty conscience, not actual guilt. I think he was a middle man, responsible for putting parties together, and once he learned of the murders on the way home, he had a pretty good idea of who might have done it. I don't think he thought Lizzie did it simply because of his obsession with house locks post-murder. He perceived threat from outside. I think he worried they'd come back. Lizzie and Emma had bars on their windows at Maplecroft the rest of their lives and he transmitted that fear. Why someone with a burned horse deal would kill Abby and wait 90 minutes to kill Andrew, I can't explain. Except to say the defense clearly gave this story weight; it's the only record we have from the defense team that mentions any other possible motive. Obviously Phillips was the last lawyer to survive and he waited decades after the fact to drop this tidbit.

I've always thought Morse was dodgy but not a conspirator. More someone who had intimate knowledge and chose to keep that close.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:32 pm

OFF TOPIC:

IMO: The Frankie Silver case is a lot more gruesome than the Borden case. Check out the following links if you’re interested in the Frankie Sliver Case.

It was probably Frankie's behavior after the killing as much as the killing itself that sent her to the gallows. Clearly, she was frightened. She was a woman in a male-dominated society and she'd just killed her husband. Justifiable homicide did not enter into her thinking. http://blueridgecountry.com/archive/fav ... ie-silver/

Frankie was hanged on July 12, 1833. As she was led to the gallows, Frankie tried to make a final statement, but her father drowned her out by shouting "Die with it in you, Frankie!" What exactly she planned to say remains a mystery to this day.

Frankie's father had intended to bring his daughter's body home and inter her in the family burial plot, but extreme heat and humidity in North Carolina that year forced him to bury Frankie in an unmarked grave behind the Buckthorn Tavern a few miles west of Morganton, North Carolina. For many years, the exact location of Frankie's grave was unknown, but it is now thought to lie in a remote corner of the present day Devault farm. In 1952, a granite stone marking the probable location of the grave was placed by Beatrice Cobb, editor of the Morganton newspaper. http://murderpedia.org/female.S/s/silver-frankie.htm

How much of the Frankie Silver legend is true? No one is quite sure. http://www2.lib.unc.edu/ncc/ref/nchisto ... index.html

Frankie Silver Documentary by Legacy Films Ltd. Theresa E. Phillips takes you on an exciting ride through the Story of Frankie and Charlie Silver and what may have happened based on the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oaoWPaFlVc

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:56 pm

phineas wrote:
Franz, what do you see as Morse's motive. And everyone else who sees Morse as either committing the crime or hiring it done? Why did he do it?
I'm not Franz but my view is (if Lizzie didn't do it) that Morse didn't plan or hire the murders but had suspicions about the men he was involved in horse trading with. I still give Arthur Phillips's letter credence that there was a horse deal which somehow involved Andrew and Morse and it went awry. I explain Morse's weird behavior with a guilty conscience, not actual guilt. I think he was a middle man, responsible for putting parties together, and once he learned of the murders on the way home, he had a pretty good idea of who might have done it. I don't think he thought Lizzie did it simply because of his obsession with house locks post-murder. He perceived threat from outside. I think he worried they'd come back. Lizzie and Emma had bars on their windows at Maplecroft the rest of their lives and he transmitted that fear. Why someone with a burned horse deal would kill Abby and wait 90 minutes to kill Andrew, I can't explain. Except to say the defense clearly gave this story weight; it's the only record we have from the defense team that mentions any other possible motive. Obviously Phillips was the last lawyer to survive and he waited decades after the fact to drop this tidbit.

I've always thought Morse was dodgy but not a conspirator. More someone who had intimate knowledge and chose to keep that close.

The defense never has to prove who might have done it, only that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant didn't. So I can understand why there wasn't a lot of effort put into finding the guilty party. Plus it's more effective to cast multiple shadows of nebulous doubt in hopes that at least one of them will resonate to each of the jurors. I don't see waiting decades as making the theory more important, more like an afterthought to me.

I do agree that someone in that house was complicit with either Lizzie or the murderer(s) whether by choice or necessity. Killing Abby (19 whacks) seems a little over the top for a horse deal gone sour. Why not kill Andrew and Uncle John rather Andrew and Abby? Why beat Abby when a knife to the throat would be faster (perhaps messier) and just as effective. Even the Cosa Nostra had rules about the killing of wives and children although that's changed with the advent of South American drug cartels.

Bombs and poison are impersonal means of killing. Guns more personal. Knives, hatchets and axes even more personal. And manual strangulation is as personal as it gets. The Borden murders were personal, carried out by someone who either couldn't or wouldn't choke them, probably didn't have a gun and no access to bombs or poison.

(I still think she planned to burn down the house...:-)

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:30 pm

twinsrwe wrote:OFF TOPIC:

Frankie Silver Documentary by Legacy Films Ltd. Theresa E. Phillips takes you on an exciting ride through the Story of Frankie and Charlie Silver and what may have happened based on the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oaoWPaFlVc

Great documentary and totally worth watching to the end where the Ballad of Frankie Silver is sung in the folk style of Appalachia...there's debate that Frankie actually wrote it, but no debate that copies of the lyrics were sold at her hanging. Thanks Twins!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:22 pm

OFF TOPIC:

debbiediablo wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:OFF TOPIC:

Frankie Silver Documentary by Legacy Films Ltd. Theresa E. Phillips takes you on an exciting ride through the Story of Frankie and Charlie Silver and what may have happened based on the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oaoWPaFlVc
Great documentary and totally worth watching to the end where the Ballad of Frankie Silver is sung in the folk style of Appalachia...there's debate that Frankie actually wrote it, but no debate that copies of the lyrics were sold at her hanging. Thanks Twins!

You're welcome, Debbie. I'm glad you enjoyed this documentary and found it worth watching all the way though. I have always been intrigued with the Frankie Silver story. Makes one wonder what Charlie did or said that made Frankie snap. Frankie's story is such a tragedy on so many different levels.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:12 am

OFF TOPIC:

Amazing that a defendant could not testify in their own behalf until 1857. Frankie is new to me... just recently ran onto her while reading about Villisca and other axe murders....we're such a bloodthirsty bunch here...

I totally love the realness of Blue Ridge Mountain music: http://www.ivycreek.com Thank you for providing one of the more interesting evenings....

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:18 pm

OFF TOPIC:

debbiediablo wrote:OFF TOPIC:

Amazing that a defendant could not testify in their own behalf until 1857. Frankie is new to me... just recently ran onto her while reading about Villisca and other axe murders....we're such a bloodthirsty bunch here... I totally love the realness of Blue Ridge Mountain music: http://www.ivycreek.com Thank you for providing one of the more interesting evenings....

Yes, not only was Frankie denied the opportunity to testify in their own behalf, she apparently didn't tell her story to her attorney either since he had her plea ‘not guilty’. Although I wonder if her father knew the full story, since he did tell her to "Die with it in you, Frankie", when she was going to say something just before they hung her.

Yes we are a bloodthirsty bunch!!! Good gravy, we’ve got a thread going about Jack the Ripper, the Borden murders, and are on this thread discussing the murder of Charlie Silver!

I find it interesting that so many members believe Lizzie couldn’t possibly have killed Abby and Andrew, because she was a woman, who was 32 years old and weighted 175 or 180 (?), along with their belief that it would have taken a man to kill in the manner in which Abby and Andrew were killed with a hatchet. Then we have, Frankie Silver, who was a 90 lb, 18 year old; she not only killed her husband with an axe, she dismembered his body and burned it in the fireplace, as well! I believe that if Frankie Silver could kill in such a brutal manner, then so could Lizzie. Both of these murder cases were definitely due to domestic abuse.

I also enjoy Blue Ridge Mountain music; here is a video that you may enjoy:

Alan Jackson - Chattahoochee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5UEW2k ... kYvc#t=110

Alan Jackson - Appalachian Mountain Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MjCn5Su ... uejI#t=150

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:38 pm

As you have pointed out, Twins, any reasonably sized woman would be capable of killing if the victim was unaware of a possible attack. Maybe Frankie's husband was asleep or in a drunken stupor when she attacked.

I've always found it significant that Andrew was snoozing when he was killed. A man, especially a young, strong fit man, wouldn't be so concerned about Andrew lying prone. (Such a man might prefer it that way as it would be easier, but that's a different matter!)

That's what is a flaw for me in any intruder theory. A stranger wouldn't know about Andrew feeling seedy, or his habit of snoozing on the couch. Andrew's wife and daughters did. After all, Andrew could, as far as a stranger was concerned, have been as fit as a fiddle, sat down talking to his daughter before the midday meal, done some gardening, some messing about in the barn, gone off to meet Uncle John and walk him home, a hundred things besides lying on the couch ready to be slaughtered. What are the chances of that happening!

Has your theory of Lizzie's motive for murder changed lately, Twins, or do you think it was a mixture of things?

For myself I certainly think it was a veritable witches brew of an atmosphere at No 92 in the weeks preceding the murders. No wonder Emma decided on a long holiday!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:53 am

Curryong wrote:1. A stranger wouldn't know about Andrew feeling seedy, or his habit of snoozing on the couch. Andrew's wife and daughters did.
2. After all, Andrew could, as far as a stranger was concerned, have been as fit as a fiddle, sat down talking to his daughter before the midday meal, done some gardening, some messing about in the barn, gone off to meet Uncle John and walk him home, a hundred things besides lying on the couch ready to be slaughtered. What are the chances of that happening!...

1. What about Andrew's brother-in-law?

2. You are right, Curryong. But could an intruder be "incredibly lucky", as you credited Lizzie to be so?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:53 am

Sorry, double post.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:06 am

Well, he could be, Franz, but it's far more likely that somebody used to the day-in, day-out routine of the house would be, if luck was involved.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:03 am

Curryong wrote:Well, he could be, Franz, but it's far more likely that somebody used to the day-in, day-out routine of the house would be, if luck was involved.

This "somebody", in my opinion, could have been exactly an accomplice of Morse. who informed him the day-in, day-out routine of the house, maybe as well as the interior structure of the house.

You said, "After all, Andrew could, as far as a stranger was concerned, have been as fit as a fiddle, sat down talking to his daughter before the midday meal, done some gardening, some messing about in the barn, gone off to meet Uncle John and walk him home..." I personally think that what you said, at least to some extent, is valid as well for the conjecture that Lizzie was the killer.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:19 am

Give us an identity to a possible accomplice who was inside No 92 on that Thursday, and his motive and link to Morse, and everyone on the Forum would kiss your feet! A new viable suspect! Until then your theory doesn't have legs. Sorry, Franz.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:57 pm

Curryong wrote:Give us an identity to a possible accomplice who was inside No 92 on that Thursday, and his motive and link to Morse, and everyone on the Forum would kiss your feet! A new viable suspect! Until then your theory doesn't have legs. Sorry, Franz.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:04 am

In order to get an "accomplice" of Morse to risk his own life killing two strangers, he would have been paid very, very well by Morse....why then didn't Morse just take that money and give it to Lizzie and Emma instead of having their daddy and step mom slaughtered? Wow, that is some screwed up logic....

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:34 pm

Conspirators to murder would have to be motivated by passion or money, the latter also being a passion. Now, who among Morse' associates would be so motivated and willing to risk all, including life? For example a family man would less likely be involved than say a drover who could leave immediately back to Iowa or points farther west. Everyone around Morse needs a good investigation. Who left town, who stayed? Whose financial situation got suddenly better? Did any one of these men turn up mysteriously dead or a suicide soon after the Borden murders? Who were the associates of Morse? Is it true horse wranglers came east with him from Iowa? Was Morse REALLY involved with horse dealings at that time? Was the group of horse wranglers that have been mentioned noted for occasional murders or having murdered customers and associates? Is there a reason why any of these men would carry a hatchet? Instead of a hatchet, is there a similar tool used, say in horse shoeing? Did any of these men have criminal back grounds? Were any of them subseqently convicted of other crimes~~i.e. did any of them have criminal proclivities? There were other axe murders here and there in the US. Could any of these known cases be connected to anyone in Morse' circle of associates? In other words did any of them live in the vicinity at the time of the other crimes, etc.? Lots of room for investigation to prove the point.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:38 pm

In addition, a theory based on what could have happened is kind of what's happening in the Jack the Ripper world, except there is DNA evidence that points in a certain direction. Problem is, even with DNA there is no proof of murder or even the actual names of the donors of the biological samples. Research has pointed to a possible scenario.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:26 pm

I've just been looking at Rebello. Now, Uncle John seems to have been quite a casual sort of man in lots of ways, travelling light etc. However, although he maintained a friendship and therefore presumably a correspondence with Andrew he didn't usually, so far as I can make out, visit the Borden home on a very regular basis until mid 1892. We then get one visit to Fall River in June, then another on July the 10th and then the one on August 3rd. It seems to be an unusual pattern.

I suppose those posters who believe that John Morse may have had something to do with the murders would say that he was setting up a conspiracy.

However, although John did give a letter to Knowlton from Andrew about a possible manager for the farm, these three visits close together and obviously involving the Swansea property (John visited the farm each time he came) might have set off alarm bells for the Borden sisters. There may have been discussions between the sisters as to what they were going to do if another piece of real estate (and one they'd been fond of since childhood) was going to be settled on Abby.

Emma went off on holiday in late July, (to get away from it all in more senses than one?) but spoke to Alice about how she hoped that Lizzie would go on holiday as she seemed under strain. Uncle John may well have seemed a bird of ill omen to Lizzie, especially if gossip had escaped into the town about the future of the Swansea farm.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:42 pm

Somebody somewhere said Andrew was considering donating/ turning the farm into a home for old ladies. Perhaps Lizzie and Emma took offense at that. Think about it.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:04 pm

Yes, two very embittered old ladies, living out in the country! I think that was just a casual musing to uncle John though. Andrew hadn't done anything about charitable donations.

Andrew and Abby were expecting a Mrs Vinnicum of Swansea (the town) to visit the farm with them that summer. (You remember of course that John was Vinnicum Morse.) However, she was playing hostess to a sister who was visiting from the West. John dined at William Vinnicum's house near Swansea when he collected the eggs. John also sent a postcard to William on the Friday, after the murders. (Abby seems to have been very friendly with the dead Sarah's relatives.)

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:37 pm

I'm guessing that Abby was a competent mother to the girls and Sarah's family respected and were grateful for that.

OFF TOPIC:

Tomorrow begins Oscar's Day of Judgment.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:00 am

So sorry, off-topic, but when a man (O.P) points a gun at a toilet door and fires, and does so in a negligent manner but not with intent...! WHAT THE...!! The judge then breaks off reading her judgement, leaving everyone hanging for Part 1,958 of these interminable proceedings until tomorrow. Breakfast is so much more important apparently than delivering the verdict!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:12 pm

OFF TOPIC:

I read comments from a law professor from South Africa who says the only reason the state charged Pistorius with premeditated murder is they thought he was wearing his prosthetics at the time of the murder, and then everyone agreed that he wasn't. Another point not carried in initial media coverage is the defense conducted sound tests: no one heard the gunshots but everyone heard the sounds of beating down the bathroom door with a cricket bat. I do not understand the South African legal system as both attorneys, most especially Nel, had far too much opportunity for personal comment as opposed to testimony. I think Pistorius is nuts, and crazy with guns. But I also wonder how much of the press coverage was sensationalized. Masipa is known as a tough and fair judge. The law professor didn't think there was evidence to support a murder conviction, much less premeditated.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:43 pm

There are suggestions from South Africa this morning that many lawyers, legal experts are puzzled by the judge's interpretation of Pistorius's intent, and several have suggested that there are strong grounds for the State to appeal. Appeals from the State are apparently unusual in South Africa but not rare. It looks as if he will be convicted of the equivalent of manslaughter which can mean an indeterminate sentence in S.A., apparently.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:39 pm

My understanding is that he faces several other gun charges, too, and the sentencing for negligent homicide (or whatever they call it in SA) can be almost as stiff as second degree murder. So maybe he will still do some significant jail time. Legal systems in other countries always confuse me. The United States has no appeal rights for the State; not guilty means it's all over. As per Lizzie...:-) Up until last night my thinking was second degree murder for sure. This is sort of like watching OJ...although I now understand why OJ walked, despite the obviousness of his guilt.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:46 pm

Yes, this reminded me very much of OJ. I read various things on South African sites during the trial which gave me pause. Pistorius is very much considered a hero athlete over there.

Australian law still follows British law quite closely. Our Court system is quite different of course as we are a federated nation of States. In Victoria for criminal matters, there is, (as in Britain), a Magistrates Court for petty offences, then we diverge to a County Court (all criminal matters except murder, treason and manslaughter) and the Supreme Court of Victoria, where a modern day Australian Lizzie would be tried.

The Supreme Court has an Appeals Division which deals with appeals from the County Court and its own Trial division. This hears appeals on guilty verdicts from defendants and their counsel, and appeals on lengths of sentence from both Crown (as the prosecution is here) and convicted person. As in Britain and the US., if a person is found not guilty, that's it!

The High Court of Australia sits in Canberra (the capital.) It's the court of last appeal. However, this court mostly deals with Federal/State matters and questions of Constitutional law, and leave to appeal to it on a criminal matter would be rarely granted.

I was on another forum last night that was discussing the Pistorius case and a South African poster was quite certain that leave would be granted for the prosecution to be able to appeal to their Supreme Court of Appeal (a Court of last resort) on the decision of the judge with regard to the murder charge. We will see. I was surprised actually to see how influenced by the Dutch the South African court system is.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:57 pm

Is money always the unique thing in the world to motivate a person to kill for his / her own account or as an accomplice?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:37 pm

Not at all. There are several motives that have been discussed, a few for nearly a decade.

There has been edging round the subject of Andrew's feelings towards his daughters in this forum for many years. No actual evidence has come forth yet of any incest/inappropriate behaviour though.

Anger? An intruder, with or without mental issues. Even Lizzie might have just had enough of Abby that morning and that was it.

As far as Uncle John is concerned, love of his nieces and pity for their situation has been suggested. All that we know of John and Lizzie and Emma shows that no great fondness existed.

A business deal gone wrong and Horse wranglers coming to the house to kill in revenge has been a theory. No angry or quarrelsome men seen on Borden property and no evidence that Andrew and John were ever in business together has come to light.

Same for the theory of a revengeful illegitimate son. Did anyone ever see William Borden and Andrew meet for a discussion, let alone have an argument?

The story of the rejected lover, David Anthony. Love and anger as a motive. Unfortunately, Ruby Cameron proved herself to be a fantasist which tainted that theory.

If you have any actual evidence of John having another motive (hidden so far) and hiring men to kill Andrew and Abby or evidence pointing that way, we'd all, including Possum, love to hear it.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:50 pm

Let’s not forget, John Morse and Andrew were homosexuals. See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2548

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:58 pm

Curryong, my point is, if John was the director of this Borden murder symphony (Pathétique), the executive killer --- his accomplice --- could have decided to help Morse not for money, but for a different reason. I absolutely don't think the money is the unique logic in this world.

I certainly have no evidence and haven't a more precise idea. But I think the discussion is open.

(Hey twinsrwe, your post has just cancelled the mine, I am typing for the second time.

)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:59 pm

twinsrwe wrote:Let’s not forget, John Morse and Andrew were homosexuals. See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2548

Angel: "Stop! I can't stand it!"

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:42 pm

Franz: Since most evidence has been found and discussed~though all of us are probably looking for new, undiscovered information~we fall back on our perceptions.

Money need not be the ultimate motivator but money is a tool that can buy the heart's desire in some cases. For example if a man's wife needs surgery to save her life and only money can buy it, then money would be essential. Some people are sociopaths and psychopaths. They might kill for fun and pocket money for the added enjoyment. Some people have nothing else to lose. Back in Lizzie's day people got sick and died. If a man knew he would die soon anyway he would less fear being hanged if caught participating in murder.

The only reason I could see for two associates of Morse to kill two old people they don't know or know well, is that these associates are criminal by nature and would be motivated by money.

What do you see motivating them? Asian culture is a bit different from our culture. Our ideas about honour and similar subjects are very different. Maybe I could say American life has always been a little business-like. In Lizzie's day the Christian faith was more important or more shared by the majority. Even so plenty of crimes were committed.

If two people enter into an intense criminal conspiracy it can be called a folie a deux~two people in the same mistake. Three could be involved.

Sex can be a motivator but I'm not sure how that would fit here concerning a conspiracy.

I had a female friend for a number of years. She was a drug addict and I didn't know it. She told everyone who would listen that her husband severely abused her. I found out finally this was her way of meeting other men to whom she sold her services. It was a very sick thing and I believed this game would get someone~the husband~killed some day. The reason would be passion, to rescue this abused woman, to be the "White knight". I got her out of my life so nothing like that would happen near me. Everyone is still alive but I still think something awful could happen. There are a lot of sick games in the world but what kind of sick game would have impelled Lizzie's uncle and two accomplices to commit two brutal, heinous murders for which the punishment, certainly for a man, was hanging?

One last thought is that horrible things can happen when a third party convinces two others that they are enemies. This is a point in anthropology. Two tribes can live side by side peacefully but a third party can set them against each other to the point of war. Think Hitler using Jews and others for scapegoats. It is an irrational passion. It can happen with individuals also.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Irina, you are right. Money does have a major role in many criminal cases.

Assuming that Morse, for some reason unknown to us, wanted to kill Abby and Andrew, even if he would run the risk to be hung --- I am sorry but I have no evidence to support this conjecture ---. he tried to find some accomplices (in my theory there are two). In order to succeed to motivate his potential condidates, did he tell the truth (his real motive), or did he tell a lie?

What if he told to someone: "Oh my old buddy, I must confess to you a secret for which I have been suffering so much these years. Since my dear sister died, my brother-in-law begins to abuse my two nieces, that's why he doesn't want to marry them, and his second wife just lets the things happen. --- All these words were not true or might not be true ---. I just don't know what I can do to revenge my nieces..."

"What? I can't tollerate such a thing! I will let Andrew and his wife know what my meat clever (Hello Angel!) can do!"

You see, Irina, you said that the conjectural accomplices of Morse must have been two criminals by nature, but I don't exclude the possibility that they were indeed very virtuous men!

P.S.: I apologize for my wild imagination that does not delight everyone, and I know this.

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:32 pm

There have been modern cases similar to what you suggest but the children involved were very young children & sexual abuse of very young children should make anyone raging mad. So I don't follow it for women 30-40. Perhaps the theory could be extended to smaller children. Little Abby didn't go there to be babysat that day; why?

Abby got the worst of it. I think maybe she fought back, yelled or tried to get away from an intruder and he made sure she was good and dead and quiet. That could fit with your idea, that she was to be one of the victims anyway but she didn't go quietly. Or was she the primary target like the Lizzie did it folks think?

The wider problem I see is nothing in the known facts to point that way. For me I need a known direction to work from when I'm dealing with people who really lived and died and still have descendants. It's just my idea of fair play. There may be some question about prior abuse in the household, but maybe not. If one writes a work of fiction then anything goes. One can make up circumstances to fit the plot. History doesn't work that way.

A better place to start would be to see if Morse had any associates that left town/died/committed suicide, etc. soon after the murders. Recheck what is known and learn everything you can about the horse traders Uncle John was supposed to be involved with. Find some ground work to support the theory.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:34 am

twinsrwe wrote:Let’s not forget, John Morse and Andrew were homosexuals. See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2548

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:30 am

I LOVE that theory and I'll join you, debbie.

I especially like John rubbing pears on his dried blood and trampling the pears into the ground afterwards. Also John and Andrew going into the guest room to make love, with Abby and Lizzie nearby! One day we should ask Stefani if we could collate some of the theories that have come up on this forum and our discussions about them. It would make a good book.

Back to John Morse. Why would he necessarily think of murder immediately if he suddenly found out about the incest? As irina has pointed out, Emma and Lizzie were mature women. While it might cause a scandal for young daughters to be suddenly removed from the family home, what was there to prevent John from offering to give two women in their 40's and 30's some money so they could live independently?

They could perhaps be paying guests at relatives' homes. After all, Emma adopted that idea for herself after the Maplehurst years. Being dependants of their uncle might not be what either of them wanted, but at least they'd be out of Andrew's orbit. If anyone asked why, they could just infer that living with their stepmother had become just too much.

Even if John did become horrified and angry, surely someone who had just heard that their nieces had been systematically abused for years wouldn't calm down and coolly go out and find two associates for murder.

He'd be more likely to go and bop Andrew on the nose there and then, telling him that if he ever did anything so disgusting ever again he would go to the police and authorities.

It's doubtful he would blame Abby. Women in those days were regarded as being under their husband's thumb, especially ones as stubborn as Andrew was reputed to be. Instead, we find Abby received far more blows than Andrew the abuser.