Two murdered people...and nothing stolen?

[Aamartin]

Franz is polite and doesn't troll those who (including me) do not agree with him.

I admire his enthusiasm but without him, we would all be free of the disturbing mental image of Lizzie pleasuring herself in the barn. So he loses a point or two for that. But, IMO we have to admire his tenacity and, even if we get frustrated with him at times-- I do think he is a good addition to the forum. He isn't rude, doesn't get into fights with others and as far as I am concerned he should post his theories. Do I wish he had more than wild speculation to back them up? Yes-- but more for his sake than my own. His theories are real to him and possible-- and we have all had occasion to go back to the source documents to review them and post from them-- and even search for new items of interest regarding some of his theories. Googling this or that to refute things he may propose about the time the crimes were committed in, etc. That is good for all of us.

Edit to add:

I have seen other posters who, upon reading replies to his theories have learned new things from the source documents, etc. That is also a good thing!

[twinsrwe]

I vote that he keep it to himself UNLESS he comes up with some supporting evidence. Show me Morse's long-lost bankbook with a mysterious $15,000 deposit, show me a forgotten eyewitness testimony of a shady overheard conversation in a pub with Mr. Morse and a stranger about killing Mr. Borden. Show me Lizzie's cigar butt or her sticky fingers... A theory is piecing together known facts and drawing a conclusion. A conspiracy is drawing together unrelated facts, twisting them into a story. FICTION is just making something up out of the air with no evidence even twisted, to support it. Someone got pissed at this elderly cabinet maker, paid Morse, who seemed to love him, $15,000 to kill him, and Morse then hired two guys to do it, for some unspoken reason. Half the town was involved, and no one ever spoke up? It's hard enough for one person to keep a secret, almost impossible for two, but Franz has 1 a business partner, 2 Morse, 3 the actual killer, and 4 an accomplice... with not one shred of evidence and not one ever confessing their part...

Maybe I need a bread from the forum for a while. I'd consider any suspect at all but Jeez, give me a little evidence!


I think I need to step back and take a break from the forum for awhile.

I've felt the same frustration. Which is why I left for a little while. There is no logic where there is no truth. Arguing the possibility of the theory is an exercised in futility because there is not one shred of proof. Rather he wants you to prove it's not possible. That's not how things are done. You build a theory on facts. Otherwise it's just a work of fiction. I could say anyone in the world did and then ask you all to prove it's not possible. Especially if I ignore anything that really proves it's not possible. But I do enjoy your insights, even the ones I do not agree with. It's always nice to have someone who keeps you thinking. I hope you don't decide to leave us.

I also hope you don't decide to leave us, PossumPie. I have found your posts to be insightful, informative and valuable.

[Allen]

Franz is polite and doesn't troll those who (including me) do not agree with him.

I admire his enthusiasm but without him, we would all be free of the disturbing mental image of Lizzie pleasuring herself in the barn. So he loses a point or two for that. But, IMO we have to admire his tenacity and, even if we get frustrated with him at times-- I do think he is a good addition to the forum. He isn't rude, doesn't get into fights with others and as far as I am concerned he should post his theories. Do I wish he had more than wild speculation to back them up? Yes-- but more for his sake than my own. His theories are real to him and possible-- and we have all had occasion to go back to the source documents to review them and post from them-- and even search for new items of interest regarding some of his theories. Googling this or that to refute things he may propose about the time the crimes were committed in, etc. That is good for all of us.

Edit to add:

I have seen other posters who, upon reading replies to his theories have learned new things from the source documents, etc. That is also a good thing!

With all due respect, and I don't disagree with you to show any disrespect because I have the utmost respect for you, I don't agree. I know I run the risk of upsetting people with my opinion. I left before for the same reasons that PossumPie and Yooper got frustrated and took a break/left. I came back because I truly enjoy talking about the case and sharing knowledge. But I quickly became frustrated all over again. Driving members away from the forum is not productive. And anyone who is serious about learning the facts of the case should have read the source documents anyway. Googling information only leads to disinformation. All of the known facts of the case are available in the source documents to anyone who is serious about the case without being prompted by Franz to read them. A theory based on no facts offers nothing to anyone. To anyone who doesn't read the source documents to get the facts they will be mislead by the twisting of the facts presented. To anyone who has taken the time to study the case in depth and already knows the information it also offers nothing. Not one shred of real evidence, proof, facts, or anything else. Anyone can come up with a theory that has no proof. Franz has been polite. But he's also ignored the people who have taken the time and effort to provide information about the case and his theory over and over. He has not offered one shred of proof to support his theory while demanding concrete proof that it's not possible. Franz learns nothing because he does not listen. He just keeps beating the same drum over and over even when presented with proof that clearly refutes what he's saying. It may be real and possible to Franz. But it is not based in any kind of fact. This is not productive for anyone.

[Aamartin]

Franz is polite and doesn't troll those who (including me) do not agree with him.

I admire his enthusiasm but without him, we would all be free of the disturbing mental image of Lizzie pleasuring herself in the barn. So he loses a point or two for that. But, IMO we have to admire his tenacity and, even if we get frustrated with him at times-- I do think he is a good addition to the forum. He isn't rude, doesn't get into fights with others and as far as I am concerned he should post his theories. Do I wish he had more than wild speculation to back them up? Yes-- but more for his sake than my own. His theories are real to him and possible-- and we have all had occasion to go back to the source documents to review them and post from them-- and even search for new items of interest regarding some of his theories. Googling this or that to refute things he may propose about the time the crimes were committed in, etc. That is good for all of us.

Edit to add:

I have seen other posters who, upon reading replies to his theories have learned new things from the source documents, etc. That is also a good thing!

With all due respect, and I don't disagree with you to show any disrespect because I have the utmost respect for you, I don't agree. I know I run the risk of upsetting people with my opinion. I left before for the same reasons that PossumPie and Yooper got frustrated and took a break/left. I came back because I truly enjoy talking about the case and sharing knowledge. But I quickly became frustrated all over again. Driving members away from the forum is not productive. And anyone who is serious about learning the facts of the case should have read the source documents anyway. Googling information only leads to disinformation. All of the known facts of the case are available in the source documents to anyone who is serious about the case without being prompted by Franz to read them. A theory based on no facts offers nothing to anyone. To anyone who doesn't read the source documents to get the facts they will be mislead by the twisting of the facts presented. To anyone who has taken the time to study the case in depth and already knows the information it also offers nothing. Not one shred of real evidence, proof, facts, or anything else. Anyone can come up with a theory that has no proof. Franz has been polite. But he's also ignored the people who have taken the time and effort to provide information about the case and his theory over and over. He has not offered one shred of proof to support his theory while demanding concrete proof that it's not possible. Franz learns nothing because he does not listen. He just keeps beating the same drum over and over even when presented with proof that clearly refutes what he's saying. It may be real and possible to Franz. But it is not based in any kind of fact. This is not productive for anyone.

And I respect you and agree with you as well. I just hope with a little guidance he can become more versed in the case.

For many, the case is all but solved. It is for me. But not for Franz, and I do enjoy a somewhat feisty exchange now and then!

[PossumPie]

Thanks for the support, everyone. Don't get me wrong, I love having a lively debate. I don't want Franz to leave the forum-only brush up on logical thinking. It is NOT our duty to prove some new theory wrong...it is the duty of the theory's creator to prove it correct. His core belief is Morse's guilt. OK, come up with something to back that up. A document with a motive, an eyewitness who overheard Morse speaking ill of the Bordens. But he can't/hasn't. He came up with an idea as to why Lizzie lied about the barn (without anything to back it up) an idea about how the murder was done (I'll give him credit for creativity here...but there again is no evidence-and all- and the small circumstantial coincidences built up to the point of making it implausible.)
I get frustrated b/c he admits all nine of the coincidences in his theory are indeed coincidences, but he says life is full of coincidences. YES BUT the only way Fritz's plan can work is for the killer to pray that every one of those wild coincidences occur...no killer would take that risk. What if Lizzie or Bridget had seen the killer sneak past Mrs. Borden? What if Lizzie or Bridget had gone to the guest room? What if Lizzie or Bridget were in the parlor when the killer came down to kill Mr. Borden? What if the iceman was on the sidewalk when the killer burst out of the door with a bloody hatchet? Too many what if's.

Franz gives alot of thought to his responses, but he often ignores the points that are too difficult to explain. I don't think this case will ever be solved, but the best explanations MUST come from the evidence, not fiction.

The scientific method dictates that we follow a logical pattern.
1. Ask a question...Who killed the Bordens?
2. Formulate a hypothesis...this is based on EVIDENCE ALREADY SEEN in which we try to make sense of it. The "Lizzie did it" hypothesis is based on evidence we see of her changing her story, inheriting a lot of money, being at home when the murders occurred. I could formulate the hypothesis that the Pope had them killed, but what evidence is this based on? I could make a fictional account as Franz did, and defend each small point with "you can't prove it didn't happen!" but without the evidence backing it up, it is fiction.
Perhaps he will uncover some up-til-now unknown letter from Morse where the hatred and rage towards Mr. and Mrs. Borden is spelled out, but until then it is fiction.

[Aamartin]

I just feel, very strongly, that this forum is just that, a forum. People should be able to post whatever theories they want. I am NOT saying anyone's responses to his posts have been inappropriate, I just think he should feel free to post whatever he wants, and if people choose to engage him in his posts, they can. They don't have to. We choose how we respond to other posters.

I hate to think he, or anyone else, might stop posting because they feel their contributions are to be ridiculed or that they will upset people. I too have been frustrated by what seems to be his lack of looking past his own ideas-- and I have snapped at him. But he came back, remained polite and kept plugging away. I can respect that.

If all we we are here to do is continually agree on Lizzie's guilt, the forum will soon dry up.

[Allen]

I am not asking anyone to always agree on Lizzie's guilt. But this is a forum to talk about the facts of the case. When I present my thoughts on why I think Lizzie did it I have actual known facts I can piece together to show why I think she did it, and how. I have taken the time to study the case and learn those facts. If you want to talk about the facts of the case, you should at least know the facts of the case and be able to use them to back up your statements. Otherwise this becomes a forum about how anybody in the world did it just because you can't prove it's not possible. If you come to a forum for a serious discussion about the facts of the case then be prepared to present facts of the case. That's how I feel about it. And be prepared to be challenged by people who know those facts and and can cite them. It is a discussion. Franz has been polite I have never denied that. And he has kept going with his theory for a very long time. I don't think everyone believes Lizzie did it. I don't expect everyone to because we all have different opinions and a different point of view given the same facts. But when do we draw the line? Do we start seeing threads on how the aliens did it? And I have chosen to not post anymore replies to Franz and his theory because I have expressed my thoughts on it and don't have anything else to contribute to that conversation.

[PossumPie]

Franz: I came up with an elaborate plan as to how I think Morse was the real killer.
Me: Great! give me some evidence.
Franz: Well, here are some reasons why Lizzie may be innocent...
Me: Great, give me some proof Morse wanted them dead.
Franz: You can't disprove my theory.
Me: right, but it is one of a million possibilities, give me some proof that Morse wanted them dead.
Franz: He might have been angry at them.
Me: Proof...
Franz: It could happen.
Me: (Getting upset) So could any of a million theories, give me some evidence that your theory is true.
Franz: You can't prove it didn't happen that way.

[Franz]

Hello everyone.

I have just read with a great attention all your last posts. I apologize for having frustrated some (or all) of you with my so-judged wildly speculated theory about Morse's guilt. Please believe me that I have absolutely no intention to frustrate anyone here.

It would be much more clever, I must admit, if I had limited myself to discuss only about Morse's - in my opinion - suspicious behaviours, without advancing (precociously) any theory not supported by evidence. Many members, a long time ago, argued, brilliantly, upon Morse's suspicious behaviours, without pointing the finger at him for the responsability of the double murder. This might be a good example to take for me.

As I said in another post: in a court I would not say many things that I feel free to express here, in a forum. I always think that even a pure speculation could be expressed in a forum, because it could in any way make us thinking, and even its definitive refutation could be, from one poitn of view or another, positive for the discussion of the case. This conception of mine could be not correct 100%, but please don't take it as a lack of seriousness from my part.

Allen said: "we all have different opinions and a different point of view given the same facts." I agree 100%. While many of you consider suspicious - or even as circumstancial evidence - some Lizzie's reactions after the discovery of her father's body, I have tried to find a different (and innocent) interpretation. On the contrary, some Morse's actions, judged by you "insignificant" (this is exactly your word), I think they were - or at least they could be - suspicious. In those nine threads I posted about Morse probable guilt, I have tried to collect those details which could demonstrate Morse' involvment. I think I started with the facts (certainly, we could have different interpretations about the same facts.) PossumPie asked me to be logical. Certainly we all should be logical in our discussion. I repeat something here as an example, and I would like to know what would be your most logical interpretation:

In the Witness statements registered by John Fleet (p. 3) on August 4th, Morse said that “… and got to Mr. Borden’s house about or near twelve o’clock. Saw a number of persons around of house, and was told that Mr. and Mrs, Borden was killed.”

Yes, this is only a second hand information, but since Mr. Fleet registered it in a direct discourse form, let's assume that it was reliable. Since Morse was told the murder news outside of the house, and he made his statement in chronological order ( went out the house ... post office ... visit ... came back ...“Saw a number of persons…and was told…”), the most reasonable, the most logical interpretation, in my opinion, should be that he saw a number of persons outside of the house.

What is your most logical interpretation about this statement of Morse (assuming that Fleet's testimony was reliable)? Thank you.

[PossumPie]

Hello everyone.

I have just read with a great attention all your last posts. I apologize for having frustrated some (or all) of you with my so-judged wildly speculated theory about Morse's guilt. Please believe me that I have absolutely no intention to frustrate anyone here.

It would be much more clever, I must admit, if I had limited myself to discuss only about Morse's - in my opinion - suspicious behaviours, without advancing (precociously) any theory not supported by evidence. Many members, a long time ago, argued, brilliantly, upon Morse's suspicious behaviours, without pointing the finger at him for the responsability of the double murder. This might be a good example to take for me.

As I said in another post: in a court I would not say many things that I feel free to express here, in a forum. I always think that even a pure speculation could be expressed in a forum, because it could in any way make us thinking, and even its definitive refutation could be, from one poitn of view or another, positive for the discussion of the case. This conception of mine could be not correct 100%, but please don't take it as a lack of seriousness from my part.

Allen said: "we all have different opinions and a different point of view given the same facts." I agree 100%. While many of you consider suspicious - or even as circumstancial evidence - some Lizzie's reactions after the discovery of her father's body, I have tried to find a different (and innocent) interpretation. On the contrary, some Morse's actions, judged by you "insignificant" (this is exactly your word), I think they were - or at least they could be - suspicious. In those nine threads I posted about Morse probable guilt, I have tried to collect those details which could demonstrate Morse' involvment. I think I started with the facts (certainly, we could have different interpretations about the same facts.) PossumPie asked me to be logical. Certainly we all should be logical in our discussion. I repeat something here as an example, and I would like to know what would be your most logical interpretation:

In the Witness statements registered by John Fleet (p. 3) on August 4th, Morse said that “… and got to Mr. Borden’s house about or near twelve o’clock. Saw a number of persons around of house, and was told that Mr. and Mrs, Borden was killed.”

Yes, this is only a second hand information, but since Mr. Fleet registered it in a direct discourse form, let's assume that it was reliable. Since Morse was told the murder news outside of the house, and he made his statement in chronological order ( went out the house ... post office ... visit ... came back ...“Saw a number of persons…and was told…”), the most reasonable, the most logical interpretation, in my opinion, should be that he saw a number of persons outside of the house.

What is your most logical interpretation about this statement of Morse (assuming that Fleet's testimony was reliable)? Thank you.

Indeed Franz, you are correct that that is suspicious. I also wonder why the witnesses remember things so differently about Morse's return. Morse later says in great detail that he returned by the back street, cut through the yard, grabbed some pears, ate them, saw only two people at the side door, approached them and asked what was wrong. This is certainly different than the above statement. Some Newspaper articles made it seem that there were mobs of people around the house, but other accounts say no one was outside. All I can say is that if you afford Lizzie some slack in being confused and contradicting herself, without guilt, you should afford the same slack to Morse and understand that there may have been confusion there also. I agree that there is MUCH suspicious in connection to Morse...but no one ever has produced any evidence that he hated the enough to hack them to death (or to pay someone to do it) In another thread we were discussing how Dr. Bowen's behavior could be seen as suspicious also. I think if we pick apart any of the major players in this drama, we can find suspicious behaviors.

[Franz]

Here is the list of those facts that make me consider Morse’s involvement in the Borden case. I consider them as facts, assuming that the testimonies in question are all reliable (some facts are clearly facts and don’t depend of any testimony):

1. The double murder occurred the next morning after Morse’s arrival at the Borden house.

2. One of the victims, Abby, was found dead in the guest room, where Morse slept.

3. Abby’s body was lying between the bureau and the bed.

4. Morse went out of the house before the murder, and returned after the murder. (This fact certainly proves that he could not commit the crime with his own hands, but should our reflection finish here?)

5. The night previous to the murder, Morse, as the guest of the house, returned there very late, at about half past nine. Knowing very well that Andrew and Abby were not in good physical condition, Morse, instead of apologizing and retiring immediately in his guest room, remained in the sitting room and had a conversation with the Borden couple. He didn’t retire until Abby went to bed, and after Andrew proposed to him to do so.

6. The most logical interpretation of Morse’s witness statement, as I said in the previous post, should be that he did see a number of people outside of the house when he returned (but he acted as if there were nothing). If by any chance my interpretation is right, Morse changed his version and contradicted himself in other testimonies he gave afterwards. (I agree that this point is not exactly a fact, it is based on an interpretation. But in my opinion, this interpretation about his witness statement is the most logical one.)

7. Outside of the house Morse was told the murder news twice by Bridget and Mr. Sawyer, and before he “entered” in the house, he remained there “a few minutes”.

8. Neither Bridget nor Mr. Sawyer testified that Morse asked them, during those “few minutes” – a very long time for that context – , any questions such as “How were them murdered?” “Was the killer caught?” “And Lizzie? Is she fine?”

9. After entering into the house, Mrs. Churchill told Morse for the third time the murder news. And Morse, who had remained outside “a few minutes”, said to her “what (?)”. And only at that moment, he began to rush. Before, he entered into the house, instead of rushing into it.

10. Morse hollered as loud as he could Lizzie’s name when he rushed into the dining room, where Lizzie and Alice were the unique two persons present. But Morse didn’t meet Lizzie, he even didn’t notice who these women were. Instead, he went into the sitting room where Andrew’s body was lying.

11. 7 or 8 persons in question, including Morse himself, in four occasions (witness statements, inquest testimony, Preliminary hearing, the trial), never testified that any of them informed Morse the location of Andrew’s body.

12. About the location of Abby’s body, we have only the testimony of Morse himself, he said, twice, that “they” told him. But he never explained who told him (he was never asked to give such an explanation – I repeat here, Knowlton, in my opinion, did a very bad job).

13. Morse produced the alleged Andrew’s letter when he was questioned by the authority. Here I must use an “if”, because Knowlton didn’t clarify when Morse brought or had the letter (I repeat for another time, Knowlton, in my opinion, did a very bad job). Two possibilities: 1) Morse brought the letter with him the 3rd August; 2) Someone brought it to him after the murder occurred, in order to justify Morse arrival at the Borden house. If by any chance the first possibility was the truth, I wonder: why did Morse bring the letter with him when he went to Fall River? He couldn’t foresee the murder (in order to justify his visit with that letter), and he didn’t need to justify his visit to Andrew, by showing to him the letter: “Look, it was you who invited me to come, here is your letter”. The unique innocent explanation that I can find for Morse, is that he usually wore the same suit for a couple of years. It might be possible that he received the letter, put it in one of his pockets, and then forgot it, and brought it – without knowing this, accidently – with him the 3rd August. After the murder, he found occasionally the letter in his pocket and produced it to Knowlton to justify his visit. But, if by any chance Morse intentionally brought the letter to Fall River the 3rd August, I would ask myself: why?

This list is not exhaustive, and I didn’t include Morse’s alibi testimony, generally considered too perfect. I didn’t include neither the call that Morse reportedly received, because this, if it was a fact, was not in the sources documents.

All these points could be “insignificant” for you, but they make me think, make me think a lot…

[Miranda]

I think he hollered "Lizzie!" because he knew or suspected Lizzie had done it. (such as "Lizzie what have you done?")

Andrew and Abby staying up late for company doesn't seem strange to me. Company for a frugal family would probably be the only entertainment for the week/month/year.

[Aamartin]

5. The night previous to the murder, Morse, as the guest of the house, returned there very late, at about half past nine. Knowing very well that Andrew and Abby were not in good physical condition, Morse, instead of apologizing and retiring immediately in his guest room, remained in the sitting room and had a conversation with the Borden couple. He didn’t retire until Abby went to bed, and after Andrew proposed to him to do so.

I do not agree with this. They knew he was coming. They were healthy enough for their age. Andrew walked downtown and did his rounds and Abby did her usual housework.

It is not uncommon for people to stay up late visiting when someone arrives. It wasn't like today, with emails, cell phones, etc-- and they probably had a lot of catching up to do. It also isn't uncommon, even today for someone to finally say 'we need to get to bed.'

I do not think he was up to something or intentionally keeping them up later than usual.

[Aamartin]

13. Morse produced the alleged Andrew’s letter when he was questioned by the authority. Here I must use an “if”, because Knowlton didn’t clarify when Morse brought or had the letter (I repeat for another time, Knowlton, in my opinion, did a very bad job). Two possibilities: 1) Morse brought the letter with him the 3rd August; 2) Someone brought it to him after the murder occurred, in order to justify Morse arrival at the Borden house. If by any chance the first possibility was the truth, I wonder: why did Morse bring the letter with him when he went to Fall River? He couldn’t foresee the murder (in order to justify his visit with that letter), and he didn’t need to justify his visit to Andrew, by showing to him the letter: “Look, it was you who invited me to come, here is your letter”. The unique innocent explanation that I can find for Morse, is that he usually wore the same suit for a couple of years. It might be possible that he received the letter, put it in one of his pockets, and then forgot it, and brought it – without knowing this, accidently – with him the 3rd August. After the murder, he found occasionally the letter in his pocket and produced it to Knowlton to justify his visit. But, if by any chance Morse intentionally brought the letter to Fall River the 3rd August, I would ask myself: why?

It's rather like keeping a text on your phone... Suppose you are meeting a friend for lunch. I keep the text on my phone with location and time to make sure I remember, etc.

People in those days had only mail. And the family seems to me to be particularly interested in whether or not they received mail, etc. If I was traveling in that age, I would have taken the letter.

[PossumPie]

Fritz, You are saying that a healthy young killer could not ax two elderly people to death unless they were sleepy? That, dear Fritz is Absurd.

You believe that b/c Morse knew where the bodies were, he was guilty, yet you said he couldn't have done it...HOW then did he know where the bodies were? If you say that his hired killer told him, then when? and If that is true, why would he be so stupid as to show everyone else he knew? Why not 'play dumb' and ask?

You again ignored my request to please supply us with evidence that Morse hated these two elderly folks who invited him into their home, fed him, and allowed him to sleep just across the house from them. Please post your evidence or I will be forced to re-post my "Pope had the Borden's killed" theory again...

[Franz]

Fritz, You are saying that a healthy young killer could not ax two elderly people to death unless they were sleepy? That, dear Fritz is Absurd.

You believe that b/c Morse knew where the bodies were, he was guilty, yet you said he couldn't have done it...HOW then did he know where the bodies were? If you say that his hired killer told him, then when? and If that is true, why would he be so stupid as to show everyone else he knew? Why not 'play dumb' and ask?

You again ignored my request to please supply us with evidence that Morse hated these two elderly folks who invited him into their home, fed him, and allowed him to sleep just across the house from them. Please post your evidence or I will be forced to re-post my "Pope had the Borden's killed" theory again...

PossumPie, I think I have answered more than one time that I have no evidence for Morse murder motive, I have only a speculated one (especially in the reply to NancyDrew, but a post to a certain member is written to all others). I invite you not to ask any more this same question.

Why would Morse be so stupid as to show everyone else he knew? I have said in a previous post, that Morse was an excellent director, but not a good actor. He was the author of this "masterpiece" but he didn't see yet the bodies, he was so anxious, so impatient to see the bodies that his psychology betrayed him. (certainly, all is my speculation, but we did have no testimony that anyone imformed him about the location of Andrew's body. This is a fact.)

Your first paragraph, I didn't understand.

[Franz]

13. Morse produced the alleged Andrew’s letter when he was questioned by the authority. Here I must use an “if”, because Knowlton didn’t clarify when Morse brought or had the letter (I repeat for another time, Knowlton, in my opinion, did a very bad job). Two possibilities: 1) Morse brought the letter with him the 3rd August; 2) Someone brought it to him after the murder occurred, in order to justify Morse arrival at the Borden house. If by any chance the first possibility was the truth, I wonder: why did Morse bring the letter with him when he went to Fall River? He couldn’t foresee the murder (in order to justify his visit with that letter), and he didn’t need to justify his visit to Andrew, by showing to him the letter: “Look, it was you who invited me to come, here is your letter”. The unique innocent explanation that I can find for Morse, is that he usually wore the same suit for a couple of years. It might be possible that he received the letter, put it in one of his pockets, and then forgot it, and brought it – without knowing this, accidently – with him the 3rd August. After the murder, he found occasionally the letter in his pocket and produced it to Knowlton to justify his visit. But, if by any chance Morse intentionally brought the letter to Fall River the 3rd August, I would ask myself: why?

It's rather like keeping a text on your phone... Suppose you are meeting a friend for lunch. I keep the text on my phone with location and time to make sure I remember, etc.

People in those days had only mail. And the family seems to me to be particularly interested in whether or not they received mail, etc. If I was traveling in that age, I would have taken the letter.

I agree aamartin, but Morse didn't need to take the letter with him to make sure that he remember the address of the Borden house, the person he would meet was Andrew, etc. Even the date of the travel was not fixed before, it was he hismself to decide when to go Fall River.

[Franz]

5. The night previous to the murder, Morse, as the guest of the house, returned there very late, at about half past nine. Knowing very well that Andrew and Abby were not in good physical condition, Morse, instead of apologizing and retiring immediately in his guest room, remained in the sitting room and had a conversation with the Borden couple. He didn’t retire until Abby went to bed, and after Andrew proposed to him to do so.

I do not agree with this. They knew he was coming. They were healthy enough for their age. Andrew walked downtown and did his rounds and Abby did her usual housework.

It is not uncommon for people to stay up late visiting when someone arrives. It wasn't like today, with emails, cell phones, etc-- and they probably had a lot of catching up to do. It also isn't uncommon, even today for someone to finally say 'we need to get to bed.'

I do not think he was up to something or intentionally keeping them up later than usual.

If in the nexting morning it didn't occure nothing, I certainly would not pay any attention upon this detail. But...

In my post, as I said, I gave a list of the facts that made me think. This fact, as others, did make me think.

[PossumPie]

Franz, the first paragraph meant that no healthy, young killer would need two frail elderly people to be sleepy the next day to make his job easier. It would be fairly simple to kill two elderly people with an ax whether they were sleepy or not. You are reading far too much into trivial things. MAYBE they all sat up late talking Because they....LIKED EACH OTHERS COMPANY!

[Franz]

Franz, the first paragraph meant that no healthy, young killer would need two frail elderly people to be sleepy the next day to make his job easier. It would be fairly simple to kill two elderly people with an ax whether they were sleepy or not. You are reading far too much into trivial things. MAYBE they all sat up late talking Because they....LIKED EACH OTHERS COMPANY!

A more tired "pre-selected" victim would be always more easily caught.

"MAYBE they all sat up late talking Because they....LIKED EACH OTHERS COMPANY!". What you said is certainly more probable than my speculation.