Lizzie Borden Society Forum

We've recently learned from Jennings diaries that the position of Abby's body may not have been what we always thought. She seems to have been partly under the bed, leaving Jennings with the impression that she had been cornered and trying to get away.

Might the assumptions on Andrew also be questioned? One has to admit that his body was not left in a napping position with his feet like that on the floor. People have assumed he just didn't want to put his shoes on the couch, but is that a sensible assumption? If I were going to nap without putting my feet on the couch, I would not sit in the middle. And I wouldn't leave my feet on the floor.

If I walked into a room and saw Andrew's body like that, my first impression would be that he was meeting with his attacker, and the murderer suddenly pulled a weapon and struck quickly. Andrew would have slumped to the side, and the killer would have continued raining blows.

When did the investigators conclude he was napping? Was it right away?

Once Lizzie became a suspect, it would have been unimaginable to them that a smallish woman could attack a man head on like that and there be no defensive wounds. So they would have assumed he was napping and never saw it coming.

I realize the forensic evidence would have included blood splatter patterns on the wall and angle of impact patterns on the skull. So I'm just asking if that was enough to rule out a frontal assault.

Let's say Andrew was meeting with someone, as supposedly it was regular for him to do at exactly this time of day. And the man quickly pulled the hatchet and struck a lethal blow. Andrew slumped, and the killer proceed to attack from behind, making sure the job was finished. This might explain the vicious cheek and eye shattering blow on Andrew, which would have been the frontal blow.

I'm just asking these things,thinking out loud. Thanks!

leitskev wrote:We've recently learned from Jennings diaries that the position of Abby's body may not have been what we always thought. She seems to have been partly under the bed, leaving Jennings with the impression that she had been cornered and trying to get away.

Might the assumptions on Andrew also be questioned? One has to admit that his body was not left in a napping position with his feet like that on the floor. People have assumed he just didn't want to put his shoes on the couch, but is that a sensible assumption? If I were going to nap without putting my feet on the couch, I would not sit in the middle. And I wouldn't leave my feet on the floor.

If I walked into a room and saw Andrew's body like that, my first impression would be that he was meeting with his attacker, and the murderer suddenly pulled a weapon and struck quickly. Andrew would have slumped to the side, and the killer would have continued raining blows.

When did the investigators conclude he was napping? Was it right away?

Once Lizzie became a suspect, it would have been unimaginable to them that a smallish woman could attack a man head on like that and there be no defensive wounds. So they would have assumed he was napping and never saw it coming.

I realize the forensic evidence would have included blood splatter patterns on the wall and angle of impact patterns on the skull. So I'm just asking if that was enough to rule out a frontal assault.

Let's say Andrew was meeting with someone, as supposedly it was regular for him to do at exactly this time of day. And the man quickly pulled the hatchet and struck a lethal blow. Andrew slumped, and the killer proceed to attack from behind, making sure the job was finished. This might explain the vicious cheek and eye shattering blow on Andrew, which would have been the frontal blow.

I'm just asking these things,thinking out loud. Thanks!

The only problem with that theory is that if Andrew had been meeting with some man, Bridget would probably have been aware of it, because he would have had to arrive at the house about the time she was heading up stairs. It seems that she would have heard a knock on the door, greetings between Andrew and the stranger, etc.

I too think the position of Andrew's body seems a little strange in the crime scene photo. Someone once pointed out to me that his hands look as if they are balled up into fists, as if he was preparing to defend himself, but never got the chance. But of course, his hands may have balled up that way do to death spasms.

AND, did this someone kill Mrs. Borden, leave go to the Starbucks down the street for 90min. then come back and get Mr. Borden???

PossumPie wrote:AND, did this someone kill Mrs. Borden, leave go to the Starbucks down the street for 90min. then come back and get Mr. Borden???

True, PossumPie. Assuming that Lizzie committed the crimes, she did herself no favor by killing her victims within such a long time interval, rather than killing them both within minutes of each other. The mere fact that the killings took place at least an hour to an hour and a half apart makes the "intruder" theory hard to accept.

But see what happens? See how easy it is to let the broader theory color your forensic analysis of Andrew's death? And isn't it possible the authorities did precisely that back then?

All I am saying is what is the forensic evidence of how Andrew's body was found. We already know that mistakes were likely made on the forensic analysis of Abby. The assumption has been that she did not see the blow coming, at least until the last second, and therefore must have known the killer. However, Jennings investigation suggested that Abby's body was found partly under the bed, and he believed she had perhaps been cornered there trying to escape.

All I am saying is what is the forensic evidence for Andrew? Is it possible he was struck straight on? That would suggest, if so, that he knew the attacker and was taken by surprise while he was meeting him. This would make more sense of how he was found.

Maybe the forensic examination of the skull was good enough to eliminate that possibility. I don't know...I'd like to know.

Darrowfan wrote: …. Assuming that Lizzie committed the crimes, she did herself no favor by killing her victims within such a long time interval, rather than killing them both within minutes of each other. …

Actually, Lizzie did herself a HUGE favor by killing her victims within such a long time interval. If the victims had been killed within minutes of each other, then it would have been impossible to determine which one had died first. How would Andrew’s wealth have been distributed then? However, since the victims were killed an hour and a half apart, it was easy to determine that Abby died first, which means that ALL of Andrew’s wealth went to his daughters.

Darrowfan wrote: …. The mere fact that the killings took place at least an hour to an hour and a half apart makes the "intruder" theory hard to accept.

It sure does!!!

twinsrwe wrote:

Darrowfan wrote: …. Assuming that Lizzie committed the crimes, she did herself no favor by killing her victims within such a long time interval, rather than killing them both within minutes of each other. …

Actually, Lizzie did herself a HUGE favor by killing her victims within such a long time interval. If the victims had been killed within minutes of each other, then it would have been impossible to determine which one had died first. How would Andrew’s wealth have been distributed then? However, since the victims were killed an hour and a half apart, it was easy to determine that Abby died first, which means that ALL of Andrew’s wealth went to his daughters.

Darrowfan wrote: …. The mere fact that the killings took place at least an hour to an hour and a half apart makes the "intruder" theory hard to accept.

It sure does!!!

You are both right. Lizzie needed it to be clear to the coroner that Mrs. Borden was dead first, othewise all of Mr. Borden's wealth reverts to Mrs. Borden, who upon her death, it would go to her family. I never thought it was an accident that they were killed so long apart, Lizzie KNEW Mr. Borden was away and would be returning soon, killed Mrs. Borden enough ahead that it would be obvious that she died first. And except for a few far fetched ideas, who would believe someone just hid out for an hour and a half in a room with a dead body?

It is possible that Andrew wasn't napping- if you take into consideration that he'd been sick and vomiting (at least the day before) and still not feeling so great when he went out that morning, he could have sat down for a brief rest and slumped over. He could have been attacked sitting up for all we know, and ended up slumped over. In addition, someone mentioned Lizzie asking if he wanted her to open the windows (something like that) it could have been due to his not feeling well and possibly running a fever.

Hey PossumPie- the theory that someone hid out isn't so far-fetched. Here's why- if one believes that Lizzie had a suitor that wasn't approved by daddy, she could have let him into the house (when the coast was clear) and stashed him in Emma's room (or hers). She could have been the one to kill Abby since she didn't like her and felt that she (Abby) was going to get the money or most of it (that would explain the overkill). Lizzie knew when daddy was coming home for lunch and prepared things and once Bridget went upstairs, had him come down another way. Just my 2 cents...

Andrew's possible position on the couch (and I agree, he could have been slumping, snoozing, just resting his eyes etc,) is discussed on 'All about Andrew' and various other threads, MysteryReader. Possum and debbiediablo have always maintained that Andrew was lying in a very strange position when he was found, (if that was the same as the photograph.)
Also take a look at the David Anthony thread, started by debbie. I think you will find it interesting!