To poison or not to poison...

[PossumPie]

Fran's, you are wrong. Look at bridget's testimony. She states Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan.
No disrespect but you don't live in the USA. No women would EVER answer a bell and see a stranger standing far away on the sidewalk and go out to him. First with all the fear having multiple locks on the door, she would have opened it a crack and wondered why someone rang the bell then ran away down the sidewalk. I don't know about your country, but here that behavior would be suspicious NOT respectful as you guess.

[Aamartin]

Fran's, you are wrong. Look at bridget's testimony. She states Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan.
No disrespect but you don't live in the USA. No women would EVER answer a bell and see a stranger standing far away on the sidewalk and go out to him. First with all the fear having multiple locks on the door, she would have opened it a crack and wondered why someone rang the bell then ran away down the sidewalk. I don't know about your country, but here that behavior would be suspicious NOT respectful as you guess.

Most men would beckon someone to the door! Not many people would be lured out of their house by a stranger. Granted, in these times-- there is more danger-- but Abby believed she was being poisoned and I don't think for a minute she would hand over property of someone else to a stranger-- note or not. The Bordens did not have a telephone-- so no one could call and ask her to give a courier something to bring to them.

[Franz]

... I don't believe that the killer had some special hatchet that did a better job of chopping than any other hatchet he could have just bought to do the job.
...
Why not leave some man sized footprints around in blood? If the killer (the intruder) in your opinion, wanted to make the scene as gruesome as he possibly could so that nobody would suspect Lizzie why was the scene so CLEAN? No blood everywhere? Nothing disturbed or ransacked? Just blood on the bodies and no weapon left behind.

And if Lizzie did do it, and did it alone, she would have had no choice but to hide the weapon in the house. There was no place else she could have hidden it. She couldn't leave the house and come back after discovering the bodies. She had no one to carry it away for her, and the house was being watched by police afterward. So the weapon not being found, if Lizzie did it, could only point to she knew a great place to hide it.

I don't need to prove Lubinski's testimony was false Franz. Because they never PROVED that the woman he saw was Lizzie at all. Why do I need to prove testimony false that was never proven in the first place? Explain that?

1. As I said, it is not proved that the weapon was a hatchet. This is only a speculation. We should not forget this.

2. The murder was in itself a so horrible one, the two bodies were there to speak to us. If the intruder did all you mentioned above, he not only run the risk to make noise, but also to loose more precious seconds, to catch more blood. In my opinion, all this is just innimaginable.

3. If Lizzie did do it and hid the weapon in this "great place", what made her be so sure (absolutely, 100%) so sure that the police would not find it? We could be so sure to hide something when we are playing, having a game wuth others, and if the hidden object is found afterwards, it would not happen nothing, but here was the murder weapon!!! How Lizzie could be so sure? If the weapon was found (it's always possible), Lizzie's guilt would be almost proved! I still think that it would be preferable for Lizzie to leave her weapon there, instead of hiding it, no matter how her place was "great". Emma believed that Lizzie was innocent because the weapon was never found. I think she had reason in thinking so.

4. Yes, Allen, Lubinsky's testimony didn't prove that that woman was Lizzie, but in my opinion, his testimony strongly demonstrated that Lizzie's being in the barn (as she said so) could be true (what she was doing in the barn is another thing.)

[Franz]

Fran's, you are wrong. Look at bridget's testimony. She states Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan.
No disrespect but you don't live in the USA. No women would EVER answer a bell and see a stranger standing far away on the sidewalk and go out to him. First with all the fear having multiple locks on the door, she would have opened it a crack and wondered why someone rang the bell then ran away down the sidewalk. I don't know about your country, but here that behavior would be suspicious NOT respectful as you guess.

Most men would beckon someone to the door! Not many people would be lured out of their house by a stranger. Granted, in these times-- there is more danger-- but Abby believed she was being poisoned and I don't think for a minute she would hand over property of someone else to a stranger-- note or not. The Bordens did not have a telephone-- so no one could call and ask her to give a courier something to bring to them.

1. In my theory, the meseneger stood at the fence separating the property and the street. If Abby came down, she was still in her property, between the messenger and her house.

2. Always in my theory, the messenger said: "Mrs. Borden, here is note for uour, from Mrs. X", the name of her friend. For me it was possible that Abby didn't suspect.

[Aamartin]

so-- he knocked or rang the bell then went to the fence?

Does anyone know if that door had a peephole?

[PossumPie]

Page 71 of the trial testimony Bridget: "Lizzie said she was in the yard, heard a groan, ran in and found her father" You can't just ignore statements that don't fit. This could not be a misremembering...it was said less than one minute after Lizzie found her father- what- she forgot what she was JUST doing? Lizzie hollered for Bridget, Bridget came down, Asked what happened, asked where Lizzie was. Less than 1 minute after Lizzie discovered Mr. Borden's body Lizzie stated she was just in the yard and heard a moan, ran in and discovered him.

The experts took Andrew's skull, took the hatchet head found in the basement, and it fit PERFECTLY in the wounds. That is NOT to say that it was the same hatchet, but it WAS a hatchet.

I repeat, The Borden's were afraid. They had multiple locks on all of their doors. They locked everything even if they were out washing windows, or in the house. A strange man comes to the door, rings the bell or knocks, then runs down the steps and out onto the sidewalk, I know of nobody who would not be suspicious of that. I repeat that there was a scam where people lured the homeowner away from the front door, an accomplice sneeked in and stole things, then ran out the back. Obviously I wasn't there, but I am SURE Mrs. Borden would not unlatch all of the locks, throw open the door, and walk down to the sidewalk if a strange man was standing there...I am a 48 year old healthy man living in a safe area, but when strangers come to my door I NEVER walk outside to speak with them. That is inviting trouble. I stay safely in my doorway. She was an ELDERLY woman, in an unsafe area. NO WAY SHE WOULD WALK AWAY. There also was no place for an accomplice to hide. It is open, small, and on the street.

[PossumPie]

so-- he knocked or rang the bell then went to the fence?

Does anyone know if that door had a peephole?

There is no peephole mentioned anywhere that I can find. Several witnesses made a point to mention there were 3 locks on the front door, including one that must be opened with a key even from the inside. They mention the knob lock, and the "spring lock" I don't see a description of the 3rd lock but I'd bet it was a chain. That way they could open the door a small crack and nobody could force their way in. They had a lock on every other door, lock on the back door, a hook and eye lock on the screen door. These were scared individuals. They kept the house locked up even when home. The "man of the house" was elderly, the rest of the occupants were women. There is no FREAKING WAY that old woman allowed herself to be lured out of her house and onto a sidewalk by a strange man. I think it is an inborn suspicion or fear we Americans have if a stranger knocks on our door. Our home is our "safe place" strangers immediately raise our suspicions even just a little. As I said earlier, I am not a fearful man, but I know I couldn't be drawn away from the safety of my front door by a stranger 15 or 20 feet away on the sidewalk.

[Allen]

Franz, once her life was on the line why did she stick to an alibi nobody would believe like looking for lead for sinkers instead of just admitting the truth. I'm not talking about that day and at the inquest. I'm talking about after she was arrested and was in jail and knew that telling such a stupid story did not fly...

You are right Allen. But Lizzie's inquest testimony was judged inadmissible. And I remember I have read somewhere that when Lizzie was told that her testimony would not be intruduced in the trial, she burst into tears. I am not sure if this is true or not, and you could certainly give me more information about it. My point is: when Lizzie knew that her testimony was not admissible, she would not touch any more that subject. It concerned just something that she wanted to cover up (certainly, I am stating my own theory, nothing else.)

By the way, if I am not mistaken, we are not sure if the weapon was a hatchet or something else. This could be the most plausible conjecture, but not accepted as a fact, right?)

Franz, Lizzie's inquest was deemed inadmissable. But not her alibi for where she was when her father was killed. They were still very much concerned with where she was during the murders. She had to have an alibi. That has nothing to do with her inquest testimony. I'm not sure why you believe it does. They state cannot have just decided they could not worry about where Lizzie was when her family was killed because her inquest testimony is inadmissible. One has nothing to do with the other. And there were plenty of other witnesses who testified to what Lizzie said she was doing during the murders. They didn't need her testimony for that anyway. So again, why didn't she say what it was she was really doing in the barn? Lizzie was never in the barn. And Lizzie claims to have laid down her hat when she walked in and found her father. Lubinski said the woman he saw did not wear a hat.

[Allen]

Franz posted:

2. The murder was in itself a so horrible one, the two bodies were there to speak to us. If the intruder did all you mentioned above, he not only run the risk to make noise, but also to loose more precious seconds, to catch more blood. In my opinion, all this is just innimaginable.

3. If Lizzie did do it and hid the weapon in this "great place", what made her be so sure (absolutely, 100%) so sure that the police would not find it? We could be so sure to hide something when we are playing, having a game wuth others, and if the hidden object is found afterwards, it would not happen nothing, but here was the murder weapon!!! How Lizzie could be so sure? If the weapon was found (it's always possible), Lizzie's guilt would be almost proved! I still think that it would be preferable for Lizzie to leave her weapon there, instead of hiding it, no matter how her place was "great". Emma believed that Lizzie was innocent because the weapon was never found. I think she had reason in thinking so.

[/quote]

Yes, the killer was obviously worried about losing precious seconds after spending over an hour hiding in the guest room. I see. And killing someone with a hatchet doesn't run the risk of making any noise. I see. Murderers have hidden weapons very well before. So well they were never found. It's not a new concept. And if this weapon was so special to the killer, it would have only been special to the killer. If it is so easy to identify the killer by his allegedly special weapon, then Lizzie would have been just as easily identified by leaving her weapon there wouldn't you say? Or does your logic not apply to Lizzie?

[Franz]

Fran's, you are wrong. Look at bridget's testimony. She states Lizzie said she was in the yard and heard a groan.
...

If Lizzie was indeed in the barn, and she went out the barn and walked to the side door of the house, from the barn's door to the side door, Lizzie could not fly over, she must have been in the yard while walking across the yard. If she said at one moment she heard a groan, and in another moment she said she didn't hear nothing, this has nothing to do with her being in the barn. This doesn't prove she was not there.

[Franz]

... And Lizzie claims to have laid down her hat when she walked in and found her father. Lubinski said the woman he saw did not wear a hat.

If I remember well, Lizzie never said that she wore the hat while acrossing the yard. If she had the hat on her head, Lumbinsky would have seen it. But if she took it in her hands, it could have not drown Lubinsky's attention.

[Franz]

... If it is so easy to identify the killer by his allegedly special weapon, then Lizzie would have been just as easily identified by leaving her weapon there wouldn't you say? Or does your logic not apply to Lizzie?

Allen, when I speculate that the killer, if an intruder, took away his weapon because it could revel his identity, I don't think I must speculate that if the killer was Lizzie, her weapon must risk to revel her identity as well.

Many killer successfully hide their weapon, yes. If Lizzie had the opportunity to hide her weapon (if she did do it) in a forest, ok, because even if one day the weapon was found, there would be no reason to suspect her, but hiding her weapon in the house? even if the place was a "great" one as you said, Lizzie was running a great risk. How could she be so sure that the police would not - absolutely not - find it?

[Allen]

No killer can ever be sure of ANYTHING in a murder. It's all a risk. She ran the risk of being caught at every turn. But why is one weapon more easily identifiable than another if this is what you believe? Why would they identify an intruder, someone they had no reason to suspect was ever in the house unless they found evidence that showed his identity, by his weapon being left behind? Did it have his name on it? But they would not suspect a weapon left behind by Lizzie who lived there and probably used one that had come from the house? She should leave that laying in plain sight.

[Allen]

And I am not saying I believe it was a cleaver. I think the authorities and the doctors who examined the bodies were all of the same mind. It was most likely a hatchet. But if it was a cleaver, it would have come from the Borden kitchen. It would have been something Bridget used herself as she did the majority if the cooking. It would be identified. And you want everyone to PROVE that this or that is not possible in your theory when you have no way to PROVE that it is. Not even a shred of testimony. You have things backwards.

I could say I think Mrs. Churchill killed the Borden's because she and Andrew were lovers and he broke it off. She seemed to be very attentive at watching the comings and goings at the house. Why? She saw Andrew leave. She saw Bridget washing the windows. She even knew what day Bridget generally washed the windows. Why was she watching the house so closely? She saw Lizzie at the back door. She was the first one on the scene after the murders. She questioned Lizzie as to what happened to see what she knew. She had a perfect view to see that the coast was clear to sneak in the back door. If she was caught by Lizzie coming in she could abort her mission and play it off as a social call. She was out of the house, by her own admission, sometime around the time Andrew was killed. There is some mix up in time between Churchill and the grocer as to what time she was actually at the market. She killed them both and then rushed over because she KNEW Lizzie was upset because she had just discovered her handiwork. She knew it when she saw Bridget hurry across the street. This is why she spent so much time at Hall's stable when she went to supposedly get a doctor, she was talking to possible witnesses. This is how she knew Lizzie was distressed. This is why she cannot pin down what it was that Lizzie did that told her she was distressed. She already knew because she killed them both and the bodies had been discovered. It was time for her to put on her concerned neighbor act. This is how she knew to look under the bed as she went up the steps to find Abby's body. She knew where Abby was.

Can you prove any of this is not possible?

[Franz]

No killer can ever be sure of ANYTHING in a murder. It's all a risk. She ran the risk of being caught at every turn. But why is one weapon more easily identifiable than another if this is what you believe? Why would they identify an intruder, someone they had no reason to suspect was ever in the house unless they found evidence that showed his identity, by his weapon being left behind? Did it have his name on it? But they would not suspect a weapon left behind by Lizzie who lived there and probably used one that had come from the house? She should leave that laying in plain sight.

Allen, we have tow possibilities: 1) Lizzie did it; 2) some one else (so an intruder) did it. It is not me to suppose these two possibilities, it is none of us to suppose them. These two opinions existed more than 120 years ago. Ok.

I believe that Lizzie probably was innocent, but in my mind the other possibility is always there, so I speculated two different cases:

1) If the killer was an intruder, IMO, for him it should be better to take his weapon away, so he left nothing in the hands of the police. Everything he left could direct to his identity. The weapon taken by him dispeared with him all together. So in my opinion, it should be a better solution for an intruder. If I were this intruder and my weapon were easy to take away, I would take it away with me.

2) But for Lizzie the story was different, very different. she was one who lived in the house. she could not escape. Her escape would be a confession: I killed them and I escaped, come here to catch me. In this case, if she did hide the weapon somewhere in the house, the possible finding of the weapon in a very secret place of the house would direct to her guilt. So, if I were Lizzie, I would leave the weapon there, instead of hiding it. Allen, am I clear?

Now let's see the fact: the weapon was never found. This fact is in favor of Lizzie's innocence.

[Aamartin]

Bridget's Inquest testimony:

Q. Did you wash the dining-room windows first?
A. No sir; I washed the sitting-room windows first.
Q. And the sitting-room windows, were, I believe, on the south side of the house -- the
Kelly side?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on the side away from the screen door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. While you were washing those windows did you see the girl who worked in the
Kelly house?
A. Before I started to wash the windows, as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's
girl appeared, and I was talking to her at the fence.

So-- she would have seen someone lurking around the corner of the south side of the house-- where the front door was-- and possibly even someone standing at the fence.

[PossumPie]

In another thread I ask "If Mrs. Borden hears a knock, opens the door, and a man is down 20ft away on the sidewalk shouting up to her over the noise of the street that he has a note...Mrs. Borden would reply "Well then young man, bring it to me! How rude to stand there and shout at me! I'm elderly, bring me the note! NO WAY she will walk away leaving her house wide open. Franz says he was "Respecting her property" That is a laugh! respect her property, shout at her and make her walk away to get a note....Not happening.

[Franz]

Bridget's Inquest testimony:

Q. Did you wash the dining-room windows first?
A. No sir; I washed the sitting-room windows first.
Q. And the sitting-room windows, were, I believe, on the south side of the house -- the
Kelly side?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on the side away from the screen door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. While you were washing those windows did you see the girl who worked in the
Kelly house?
A. Before I started to wash the windows, as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's
girl appeared, and I was talking to her at the fence.

So-- she would have seen someone lurking around the corner of the south side of the house-- where the front door was-- and possibly even someone standing at the fence.

Yes, Aamartin, Bridget testified "as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's girl appeared." She said "appeared", not "was there". In my theory, I speculated that the real killer had sneeked in the house and the messenger had gone away before Mary "appeared". Those very few minutes were one of the most crucial moments of the case, in my theory.

[Franz]

In another thread I ask "If Mrs. Borden hears a knock, opens the door, and a man is down 20ft away on the sidewalk shouting up to her over the noise of the street that he has a note...Mrs. Borden would reply "Well then young man, bring it to me! How rude to stand there and shout at me! I'm elderly, bring me the note! NO WAY she will walk away leaving her house wide open. Franz says he was "Respecting her property" That is a laugh! respect her property, shout at her and make her walk away to get a note....Not happening.

Possumpie, the fence was not far away from the front door. The messenger didn't need to shout at all. He could speak to Abby with a normal voice and tone.

[Aamartin]

Bridget's Inquest testimony:

Q. Did you wash the dining-room windows first?
A. No sir; I washed the sitting-room windows first.
Q. And the sitting-room windows, were, I believe, on the south side of the house -- the
Kelly side?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on the side away from the screen door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. While you were washing those windows did you see the girl who worked in the
Kelly house?
A. Before I started to wash the windows, as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's
girl appeared, and I was talking to her at the fence.

So-- she would have seen someone lurking around the corner of the south side of the house-- where the front door was-- and possibly even someone standing at the fence.

Yes, Aamartin, Bridget testified "as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's girl appeared." She said "appeared", not "was there". In my theory, I speculated that the real killer had sneeked in the house and the messenger had gone away before Mary "appeared". Those very few minutes were one of the most crucial moments of the case, in my theory.

The killer(s) should have bought lottery tickets....

Franz-- there are too many variables for this theory to make sense.

[Franz]

The killer(s) should have bought lottery tickets....

Franz-- there are too many variables for this theory to make sense.

Aamartin, no matter who was the killer, I believe that a number of incredible coincidences occured that morning, and these coincidences all together created the most mysterious murder case of the American history.

[PossumPie]

In another thread I ask "If Mrs. Borden hears a knock, opens the door, and a man is down 20ft away on the sidewalk shouting up to her over the noise of the street that he has a note...Mrs. Borden would reply "Well then young man, bring it to me! How rude to stand there and shout at me! I'm elderly, bring me the note! NO WAY she will walk away leaving her house wide open. Franz says he was "Respecting her property" That is a laugh! respect her property, shout at her and make her walk away to get a note....Not happening.

Possumpie, the fence was not far away from the front door. The messenger didn't need to shout at all. He could speak to Abby with a normal voice and tone.

Franz, you pick and choose what part of my posts to answer, and what part to ignore.
You said to respect the Borden property the person stood on the sidewalk. I said that was rude. Mrs. Borden would have said "bring the note to me" NOT walked down the steps leaving the safety of her doorway. Have you been to the Borden home? Have you seen the photos? There is no place someone could have hidden so as not to be seen as they came out, ran up the steps with Mrs. Borden standing right there. We have all told you that and you ignore it.

[twinsrwe]

… Franz, you pick and choose what part of my posts to answer, and what part to ignore.
You said to respect the Borden property the person stood on the sidewalk. I said that was rude. Mrs. Borden would have said "bring the note to me" NOT walked down the steps leaving the safety of her doorway. Have you been to the Borden home? Have you seen the photos? There is no place someone could have hidden so as not to be seen as they came out, ran up the steps with Mrs. Borden standing right there. We have all told you that and you ignore it.

I agree, PossumPie!

Following is a great example of a post being ignored. This is the second time I have posted this particular post on this thread; it was also ignore when I originally posted it in the topic indicated below.

Franz, take a good look at the pictures and comments I posted on Nov. 12, 2013 in the topic titled, ‘Maggie, I am almost certain I heard her come in’. To my knowledge, you have not posted a comment regarding these pictures, and I’d like for you to do so. Here is a link to the page you need in order to view the two pictures I posted of people gathered at the steps and sidewalk of the B&B. (Scroll down to my second post on this page).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5240&start=50

[Allen]

Bridget's Inquest testimony:

Q. Did you wash the dining-room windows first?
A. No sir; I washed the sitting-room windows first.
Q. And the sitting-room windows, were, I believe, on the south side of the house -- the
Kelly side?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on the side away from the screen door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. While you were washing those windows did you see the girl who worked in the
Kelly house?
A. Before I started to wash the windows, as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's
girl appeared, and I was talking to her at the fence.

So-- she would have seen someone lurking around the corner of the south side of the house-- where the front door was-- and possibly even someone standing at the fence.

Yes, Aamartin, Bridget testified "as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's girl appeared." She said "appeared", not "was there". In my theory, I speculated that the real killer had sneeked in the house and the messenger had gone away before Mary "appeared". Those very few minutes were one of the most crucial moments of the case, in my theory.

She didn't "appear" out of thin air. And why would no one have heard the man talking to Abby? Or seen him standing down by the fence? He's standing by the fence out by the street with carriages and buggies going by, people walking up and down the street, or standing outside of business's talking (many people were at Hall's stable for example), neighbors who could see out their window (Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Bowen come to mind), the Kelly maid was in the yard right next door, Bridget was outside washing windows, and nobody sees or hears him talking to her. And nobody, not even Abby, saw or heard the second conspirator sneak behind her at the door. The variables are astronomical.

[Aamartin]

db_BordenHouse2_tint1.jpg

The door is also quite recessed from the front of the house.

Also-- notice how close the Kelly house actually was in 1892. If their maid was outside at all--- well-- Allen hit it. the chance of being seen? ASTRONOMICAL..

Kellysidecrop.jpg

[Franz]

Franz, Lizzie's inquest was deemed inadmissable. But not her alibi for where she was when her father was killed. They were still very much concerned with where she was during the murders. She had to have an alibi. That has nothing to do with her inquest testimony. I'm not sure why you believe it does. They state cannot have just decided they could not worry about where Lizzie was when her family was killed because her inquest testimony is inadmissible. One has nothing to do with the other. And there were plenty of other witnesses who testified to what Lizzie said she was doing during the murders. They didn't need her testimony for that anyway. So again, why didn't she say what it was she was really doing in the barn? Lizzie was never in the barn. And Lizzie claims to have laid down her hat when she walked in and found her father. Lubinski said the woman he saw did not wear a hat.

Yes Allen, I certainly agree that Lizzie must have to have an alibi if she was innocent. But please refresch my memory: after the reading of her inquest testominy in the preliminary hearing and it was judged inadmissible, was Lizzie asked, in another occasion, this question? - Miss Lizzie, what were you doing in the barn?

[PossumPie]

Franz, Lizzie's inquest was deemed inadmissable. But not her alibi for where she was when her father was killed. They were still very much concerned with where she was during the murders. She had to have an alibi. That has nothing to do with her inquest testimony. I'm not sure why you believe it does. They state cannot have just decided they could not worry about where Lizzie was when her family was killed because her inquest testimony is inadmissible. One has nothing to do with the other. And there were plenty of other witnesses who testified to what Lizzie said she was doing during the murders. They didn't need her testimony for that anyway. So again, why didn't she say what it was she was really doing in the barn? Lizzie was never in the barn. And Lizzie claims to have laid down her hat when she walked in and found her father. Lubinski said the woman he saw did not wear a hat.

Yes Allen, I certainly agree that Lizzie must have to have an alibi if she was innocent. But please refresch my memory: after the reading of her inquest testominy in the preliminary hearing and it was judged inadmissible, was Lizzie asked, in another occasion, this question? - Miss Lizzie, what were you doing in the barn?

Franz, you have been avoiding the overwhelming evidence here that no one could hide in front of that house...

[Franz]

Franz, you have been avoiding the overwhelming evidence here that no one could hide in front of that house...

PossumPie, I beg your pardon, but I invite you to read carefully what I wrote. I never said the killer hid himself in front of that house, but "at the south side of the house". (I want to post a photo but I don't know how to do, the "Img" button doesn't work)

[snokkums]

Do any of you think poison was involved somehow? Allen has a great point that back then they probably knew very well what food poisoning was, but some poisons mimic food poisoning symptoms. What are your thoughts? Was poison used? Why did Mrs. Borden think it was a poison? It seems to be Lizzie who kept talking about poison before the murders.

I think it was thought about. Lizzie did try to buy prussic acid. She gave some excuse of trying to get rid of rats, or something like that. The phramaist wouldn't sell to her for some reason. But it does get you wondering if Lizzie was trying to get rid of her parents at any cost.

[Aamartin]

Franz, you have been avoiding the overwhelming evidence here that no one could hide in front of that house...

PossumPie, I beg your pardon, but I invite you to read carefully what I wrote. I never said the killer hid himself in front of that house, but "at the south side of the house". (I want to post a photo but I don't know how to do, the "Img" button doesn't work)

Where?

Kellysidecrop.jpg

[Franz]

Thank you aamartin, you have understood all. It's exactly this photo. In my theory the killer hid behind the corner of the south side of the Borden house, just near the parapet of the front stairs (invisible in the photo).

[Aamartin]

Where Bridget was talking to the Kelly's maid?

[Aamartin]

Where Bridget was talking to the Kelly's maid?

[Franz]

Where Bridget was talking to the Kelly's maid?

If I understand well, I think the yard we can see in this photo was of Borden's property. and I think Bridget after seeing Mary appear, had a conversation with her at the fence much more near the barn. Before Mary appeared, the killer had sneeked in to the house and the messenger gone away.

[Aamartin]

Franz... It's next to impossible to have gone down like that. WAY too many variables.

The yard was not large

backbarn.jpg

[Aamartin]

Too many people on the street or sidewalk would have seen.

1067.jpg

[Allen]

This is a photograph of the Borden house with the Kelley house in full view on the right. This would have been a bad hiding place. Everyone on the street could still see him. I'm sure the man walking in the picture would have had no trouble seeing him standing there.

[Allen]

This is a photograph taken from the other direction, but it shows the fence where Abby supposedly stood talking to this stranger, and how close it is to people who would be walking by and any carriages and wagons going by on the street.

[Franz]

Too many people on the street or sidewalk would have seen.

1067.jpg

Too many people? who were they? Did anyone testify: That morning at about 9:30 I passed by the Borden house and I didn't see anyone there?

On the contrary, we have Mrs. Kelly's testimony: when she went to her dentist, she didn't see anyone in the street, except Mr. Borden; we have Bridget's testimony, when she returned from Dr. Bowen's house, she didn't see anyone in the street. If the street could be so desert in these two moments, why couldn't it be so in another moment? At least it should be legittime to speculate.

About how the intruder entered into the house in my theory, all criticism is wellcome. But I would like to say here: it should be possibile that an intruder, at a certain moment, entered into the Borden house without being seen. If we could exclude this possibility, the Borden case would have been solved long time ago.

[Allen]

Franz, the Borden case was not solved because there was not enough evidence to convince an all male nineteenth century jury to convict the real killer. That's my opinion. Being found not guilty doesn't always mean you didn't do it. There were many businesses on that street and many doctors in that area. The usual mode of travel in that day and age was to walk to your destination. That usually means lots of foot traffic on that street. There are many many witnesses who testified to being in view of the Borden house that morning. Because you cannot pin down the actual time of about 9:30 from any one witness doesn't mean none were there.

[Allen]

We do have testimony from several witnesses of being on that street in view of the house on that day. It seems the street was pretty busy. People were there to see Andrew leaving, saw Bridget washing the windows, saw Andrew coming home, saw Bridget running for the doctor, saw Lizzie standing at her back door after the murders. Someone was there to witness pretty much everything all of their comings and goings. These are just the witnesses who came forward. The Kelley maid was outside. Bridget was outside. Many people testified to standing outside of their businesses in view of the house. If there are so many witnesses who testified to being on that street that day, and so many of the actions of the family were witnessed, why do we assume no one would see someone hiding in pretty much plain view of everybody? Being around the corner didn't camouflage him. The only person that would not have been able to see him was someone standing at the door of the house who couldn't see around the corner.

[PossumPie]

Franz, while you argue that a lurking stranger who sneaks into the house right behind Mrs. Borden is Possible, you still haven't answered my assertion that NO ELDERLY woman in that neighborhood would answer a knock on her door, leave her door wide open, walk down the steps, across the walk to talk with a total stranger on the street while his accomplice sneaks behind her back. They had 3 locks on that front door. They were scared and paranoid. She thought people were out to kill her by poison. Lizzie thought people would burn the house down. They were SCARED! They kept the doors locked even when they were in the yard. She was frail and old. She never would leave that doorway for a stranger...and unless Mrs. Borden let the killer in herself, they couldn't have gotten in.

[PossumPie]

Did I mention that she was scared?

[Allen]

Sometimes people get so wrapped up in trying to prove a theory, such as John Morse orchestrating the murders, that they pick apart every little detail to find things that support their theory. Like I believe Franz picked a few small insignificant details and blew them out of proportion. But they miss the big picture which usually blows that theory out of the water. Example: I knew someone who was convinced that John Morse killed Andrew and Abby. One of his key observations in favor of John Morse's guilt was the extreme unlikelihood of two famous unsolved ax murders taking place in such close proximity to John Morse. One of those famous murders being Andrew and Abby and the other being the famous ax murders of the Moore family in Villisca, Iowa. The town of Villisca, Iowa is about 35 minutes from Hastings, Iowa where John Morse lived at the time. Six members of the Moore family, the two parents and four children, were all murdered in their beds during the night of June 10, 1912 with an ax. The murder weapon was found at the scene. The murderer was never found and there was very little evidence to go on. This person went on to list certain similarities between the two murders. His conclusion is that Morse must have had something to do with it. He had no motive he could supply for either murder. But two famous ax murders, where the killer had snuck into the home and killed with an ax, occurring so close to John Morse could not be a coincidence. In the bigger picture the murders in Villisca, Iowa occurred in June of 1912. John Morse had died in March of 1912.

[PossumPie]

Sometimes people get so wrapped up in trying to prove a theory, such as John Morse orchestrating the murders, that they pick apart every little detail to find things that support their theory. Like I believe Franz picked a few small insignificant details and blew them out of proportion. But they miss the big picture which usually blows that theory out of the water. Example: I knew someone who was convinced that John Morse killed Andrew and Abby. One of his key observations in favor of John Morse's guilt was the extreme unlikelihood of two famous unsolved ax murders taking place in such close proximity to John Morse. One of those famous murders being Andrew and Abby and the other being the famous ax murders of the Moore family in Villisca, Iowa. The town of Villisca, Iowa is about 35 minutes from Hastings, Iowa where John Morse lived at the time. Six members of the Moore family, the two parents and four children, were all murdered in their beds during the night of June 10, 1912 with an ax. The murder weapon was found at the scene. The murderer was never found and there was very little evidence to go on. This person went on to list certain similarities between the two murders. His conclusion is that Morse must have had something to do with it. He had no motive he could supply for either murder. But two famous ax murders, where the killer had snuck into the home and killed with an ax, occurring so close to John Morse could not be a coincidence. In the bigger picture the murders in Villisca, Iowa occurred in June of 1912. John Morse had died in March of 1912.

Speaking psychologically, We all tend to hang on to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against. We ALL hate to give up our beliefs, True, there is no one bit of evidence against Morse being involved, but taken as a whole, the theory has so many astronomical coincidences, that is is statistically improbable.

The coincidence that Mrs. Borden allowed herself to be tricked into walking outside with a stranger, allowing someone to sneak into her home,
The coincidence that though every other coming and going from the home was witnessed that day, the killer sneaked IN the house without anyone seeing.
The coincidence that though every other coming and going was witnessed, the killer sneaked OUT of the house unseen.
The coincidence that once in the house neither Lizzie nor Bridget saw the killer.
The coincidence that once they killed Mrs. Borden, they sat for an hour and a half without getting caught.
The coincidence that when Mr. Borden came in and lay down, NO ONE else but the killer was downstairs to see him,
The coincidence that while killing Mr. Borden, Lizzie didn't come back in, and catch him.
The coincidence that Bridget didn't come downstairs, and catch the killer.
The coincidence that after killing Mr. Borden, the killer found the door which needed a key to get in OR out of the house, unlocked.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd put the odds of that scenario happening at about 8 million-to-1 against.

[Allen]

And Franz I was not always convinced that Lizzie did it. I started studying the evidence many years ago without any idea of who I believed had actually done it. Over the years I've tried on several different theories for size to see how they fit the known evidence and what is possible given those known facts. I've weighed the different theories, such as an accomplice that was let into the house by Lizzie, against the known facts. Even if Lizzie let him into the house he still had to get around all the family members inside and all those locks, and get in and back out without being seen by any of those witnesses who saw the comings and goings at the house that morning. Lizzie letting him in doesn't alleviate many of the main problems with that theory. So I've boiled down the evidence over the years to satisfy myself that Lizzie did do it, and she did it alone. So you may change your own mind many times while studying the evidence.

[Aamartin]

Also, I think it bears mentioning that even IF someone lurked to the south of the house and Abby was uncharacteristically tricked to approaching the fence, the stranger would have to silently spring from his hiding place, mount the stairs, or leap from the side-- and enter the house through a recessed door. Then make it to wherever he was going to hide-- AND not be seen or heard by anyone, on the street or in the house.

Remember-- Bridget was outside and Lizzie herself told us she was a flurry of activity that morning! Upstairs, down, eating a cookie, not eating a cookie, reading Harpers, basting a sleeve, and on and on

[Franz]

We do have testimony from several witnesses of being on that street in view of the house on that day. It seems the street was pretty busy. People were there to see Andrew leaving, saw Bridget washing the windows, saw Andrew coming home, saw Bridget running for the doctor, saw Lizzie standing at her back door after the murders. Someone was there to witness pretty much everything all of their comings and goings. These are just the witnesses who came forward. The Kelley maid was outside. Bridget was outside. Many people testified to standing outside of their businesses in view of the house. If there are so many witnesses who testified to being on that street that day, and so many of the actions of the family were witnessed, why do we assume no one would see someone hiding in pretty much plain view of everybody? Being around the corner didn't camouflage him. The only person that would not have been able to see him was someone standing at the door of the house who couldn't see around the corner.

People were there to see Andrew leaving... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Bridget washing the windows... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Andrew coming home... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Kelly?

saw Bridget running for the doctor ... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Lizzie standing at her back door after the murders... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

Please refresch my memory, but I don't recall for the moment there was someone other than Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Kelly to see all these actions.

If you don't watch continuously a place, but only a glance from time to time, you could say what you saw by those glances, but you couldn't say what happened or didn't happen in other moments. Only a continously working camera could tell us all.

Mrs. Bowen was sitting by her window to wait her daughter and she did watch outside continuously during a certain time, but it's for me highly inlikely that she could have sit there as early as from 9:25 or so to wait her daughter who would come with the forenoon train.

[Allen]

We do have testimony from several witnesses of being on that street in view of the house on that day. It seems the street was pretty busy. People were there to see Andrew leaving, saw Bridget washing the windows, saw Andrew coming home, saw Bridget running for the doctor, saw Lizzie standing at her back door after the murders. Someone was there to witness pretty much everything all of their comings and goings. These are just the witnesses who came forward. The Kelley maid was outside. Bridget was outside. Many people testified to standing outside of their businesses in view of the house. If there are so many witnesses who testified to being on that street that day, and so many of the actions of the family were witnessed, why do we assume no one would see someone hiding in pretty much plain view of everybody? Being around the corner didn't camouflage him. The only person that would not have been able to see him was someone standing at the door of the house who couldn't see around the corner.

People were there to see Andrew leaving... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Bridget washing the windows... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Andrew coming home... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Kelly?

saw Bridget running for the doctor ... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

saw Lizzie standing at her back door after the murders... Yes, but who, except Mrs. Churchill?

Please refresch my memory, but I don't recall for the moment there was someone other than Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Kelly to see all these actions.

If you don't watch continuously a place, but only a glance from time to time, you could say what you saw by those glances, but you couldn't say what happened or didn't happen in other moments. Only a continously working camera could tell us all.

Mrs. Bowen was sitting by her window to wait her daughter and she did watch outside continuously during a certain time, but it's for me highly inlikely that she could have sit there as early as from 9:25 or so to wait her daughter who would come with the forenoon train.

Ok Franz, I have to say that post was bordering on absurd. We don't know everybody that passed by the house that morning because not everybody who lived in Fall River gave a statement to police. And who CARES if it was only Mrs. Churchill and only Mrs. Kelly who saw them? Does that make the actions any less seen because it was only one person who witnessed it? SOMEBODY saw it. Why does it matter if it was only one person??

[Allen]

Not to mention you keep completely dismissing Bridget being outside in the Borden yard, and the Kelley maid being outside in the yard right next door who could see directly into the Borden yard, by saying they were conveniently not looking at the time. I'm getting the feeling even if we had a witness who said they were standing there continuously staring at the Borden house from 9:30 to 10:00 you would say they had to blink sometime.