Two murdered people...and nothing stolen?

[NancyDrew]

Was anything taken from the house the day of the murders?

I'm going to assume: NO. Abby and Andrew were murdered in broad daylight, and yet not one thing was taken from the home Does anyone besides me find this significant? Because I do. I know Andrew probably locked most valuables in a safe (did he have one? I'm assuming yes.) But I'm sure Abby had jewelry in her room, and that someone with the right tools could have smashed open her dresser and found something of value to take with them. Didn't the girls have furs?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because, as you all know, I think Lizzie was the murderer (-ess). But consider for a moment...an intruder filled with enough rage to hack to death Abby Borden...now has an hour or more to wait until Andrew's return home. And he doesn't see anything worth sticking in his jacket pocket?

[Darrowfan]

Was anything taken from the house the day of the murders?

I'm going to assume: NO. Abby and Andrew were murdered in broad daylight, and yet not one thing was taken from the home Does anyone besides me find this significant? Because I do. I know Andrew probably locked most valuables in a safe (did he have one? I'm assuming yes.) But I'm sure Abby had jewelry in her room, and that someone with the right tools could have smashed open her dresser and found something of value to take with them. Didn't the girls have furs?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because, as you all know, I think Lizzie was the murderer (-ess). But consider for a moment...an intruder filled with enough rage to hack to death Abby Borden...now has an hour or more to wait until Andrew's return home. And he doesn't see anything worth sticking in his jacket pocket?

I have always found that significant as well, Nancy. I think Andrew had about 80 dollars in cash in his wallet, and perhaps an expensive pocket watch as well. Not a fortune perhaps, but enough to make a nice little score for a murdering thief in those days.

[Franz]

Was anything taken from the house the day of the murders?

I'm going to assume: NO. Abby and Andrew were murdered in broad daylight, and yet not one thing was taken from the home Does anyone besides me find this significant? Because I do. I know Andrew probably locked most valuables in a safe (did he have one? I'm assuming yes.) But I'm sure Abby had jewelry in her room, and that someone with the right tools could have smashed open her dresser and found something of value to take with them. Didn't the girls have furs?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because, as you all know, I think Lizzie was the murderer (-ess). But consider for a moment...an intruder filled with enough rage to hack to death Abby Borden...now has an hour or more to wait until Andrew's return home. And he doesn't see anything worth sticking in his jacket pocket?

I have always found that significant as well, Nancy. I think Andrew had about 80 dollars in cash in his wallet, and perhaps an expensive pocket watch as well. Not a fortune perhaps, but enough to make a nice little score for a murdering thief in those days.

NancyDrew and Darrwfan,

1. If there was an intruder, his motive should have been the killing. If not, he could have killed Lizzie and Bridget as well, and then, used all the time he had to search and take away all the valuable things. But this didn't happen. He waited there more than one hour: Andrew must die. I always think Andrew was the major target. After killing Andrew, the killer must escape as quickly as possible. And he could not know that there was money in his pocket. Searching money or any other valuable thing would make him loose time, and at that moment, every second could be crucial for his successful escape. In comparison with the two deathes - his major motive - I don't think he could have run the risk to search money. During his waiting time, he could not run such a risk neither, unless he decided, if necessary, to kill the girls in the house either. If he entered into the house only as a thief, this would be another thing (if he had been caught, he would not be hung for his crime.) But the intruder, if there was one, he entered to kill, in my opinion.

2. If Lizzie did it, and successfully hid a subject as big as a hatchet or a cleaver, she could have been able to hide much more easily some bank notes, in order to draw suspicion to an (inexsistant) thief-killer. But this didn't happen. Being author of a premeditated murder - a so horrible one - Lizzie not only didn't prepare a good alibi version, but also, she didn't do nothing to draw suspicion to others. I just wonder...

[Aamartin]

Whoever did the deeds-- would have been foolish to take anything- considering the time between the deaths. But-- foolish was the word of that day!

[PossumPie]

I think we all agree that the murders were not committed during a robbery. They HAD to be crimes of passion. Like Nancy Drew said, nothing was missing.
What do we know about the killer? They purposely set out to kill BOTH Mr. and Mrs. Borden.
Why not just kill Mrs. Borden? Mr. Borden would have had to live with the knowledge that someone killed her for the rest of his life.
Why not just kill Mr. Borden? If you were angry at him and really wanted to kill Mr. Borden, why not follow him when he left the house and kill him on the way somewhere. WHY would you sneak into a house full of people and hope to kill both without anyone else seeing? NO, they both had to die for some logical reason. Someone stayed around the house with Mrs. Borden dead for an hour and a half. If you believe like Franz that it was an outsider, they had to stay hidden in the guest room and pray no one came in. WHY? The person wanted Mr. Borden dead, wanted Mrs. Borden dead, but didn't kill Lizzie, didn't kill Bridget. They could have sneaked downstairs and killed Lizzie, then Bridget, and been safe to wait for Mr. Borden to come home.

[Franz]

I think we all agree that the murders were not committed during a robbery. They HAD to be crimes of passion. Like Nancy Drew said, nothing was missing.
What do we know about the killer? They purposely set out to kill BOTH Mr. and Mrs. Borden.
Why not just kill Mrs. Borden? Mr. Borden would have had to live with the knowledge that someone killed her for the rest of his life.
Why not just kill Mr. Borden? If you were angry at him and really wanted to kill Mr. Borden, why not follow him when he left the house and kill him on the way somewhere. WHY would you sneak into a house full of people and hope to kill both without anyone else seeing? NO, they both had to die for some logical reason. Someone stayed around the house with Mrs. Borden dead for an hour and a half. If you believe like Franz that it was an outsider, they had to stay hidden in the guest room and pray no one came in. WHY? The person wanted Mr. Borden dead, wanted Mrs. Borden dead, but didn't kill Lizzie, didn't kill Bridget. They could have sneaked downstairs and killed Lizzie, then Bridget, and been safe to wait for Mr. Borden to come home.

1. I agree that the murders were not committed during a robbery (I think we all agree on this point). However, I don't think "They HAD to be crimes of passion" (because of the overkilling). This is certainly a possible conjecture, but in my opinion not the unique one.

2. IF the killer was not Lizzie, who wanted to kill Abby and Andrew both, but not Lizzie (neither Bridget)? And who could have planned to kill Abby first and Andrew second with an obvious interval of time so that Lizzie and Emma could have the wealth of the whole family (this could be only a consequent result (but considered during the murder planning), instead of the motive, of the killing)?

3. Being in the same room with a body should be not a problem at all for a killer. We all know other numerous much more horrible stories.

4. If Lizzie did hate her stepmother and wanted to kill her, I prefer to believe that she had planned to kill Abby only, and then, make up a scenario of an unhappy robbery that finished badly with a Killing. I don't think it's more difficult than killing two people. And, Lizzie's speculated motive to kill her father, in my opinion, is weak.

[PossumPie]

I think we all agree that the murders were not committed during a robbery. They HAD to be crimes of passion. Like Nancy Drew said, nothing was missing.
What do we know about the killer? They purposely set out to kill BOTH Mr. and Mrs. Borden.
Why not just kill Mrs. Borden? Mr. Borden would have had to live with the knowledge that someone killed her for the rest of his life.
Why not just kill Mr. Borden? If you were angry at him and really wanted to kill Mr. Borden, why not follow him when he left the house and kill him on the way somewhere. WHY would you sneak into a house full of people and hope to kill both without anyone else seeing? NO, they both had to die for some logical reason. Someone stayed around the house with Mrs. Borden dead for an hour and a half. If you believe like Franz that it was an outsider, they had to stay hidden in the guest room and pray no one came in. WHY? The person wanted Mr. Borden dead, wanted Mrs. Borden dead, but didn't kill Lizzie, didn't kill Bridget. They could have sneaked downstairs and killed Lizzie, then Bridget, and been safe to wait for Mr. Borden to come home.

1. I agree that the murders were not committed during a robbery (I think we all agree on this point). However, I don't think "They HAD to be crimes of passion" (because of the overkilling). This is certainly a possible conjecture, but in my opinion not the unique one.

2. IF the killer was not Lizzie, who wanted to kill Abby and Andrew both, but not Lizzie (neither Bridget)? And who could have planned to kill Abby first and Andrew second with an obvious interval of time so that Lizzie and Emma could have the wealth of the whole family (this could be only a consequent result (but considered during the murder planning), instead of the motive, of the killing)?

3. Being in the same room with a body should be not a problem at all for a killer. We all know other numerous much more horrible stories.

4. If Lizzie did hate her stepmother and wanted to kill her, I prefer to believe that she had planned to kill Abby only, and then, make up a scenario of an unhappy robbery that finished badly with a Killing. I don't think it's more difficult than killing two people. And, Lizzie's speculated motive to kill her father, in my opinion, is weak.

A crime of passion only means the anger was so intense that someone killed. If burglary was not the motive, what else could have been? Revenge, hatred, money.

Being in the same room with a body isn't the issue. The issue is would a stranger from outside sit for over an hour and a half risking getting caught waiting for Mr. Borden? They would have known that if caught, they would have been Hanged. Executed. What could cause a stranger to risk death of himself to sit for an hour and a half with a bloody hatchet in hand beside the women he just killed?

If Lizzie had only killed her Step-mother, she would have to have waited for her father to die to get his money. Why not both of them?

Franz, what changed for Morse after the killings? What did he gain? Assuming he hired strangers to do it like you believe, and assuming they were willing to risk their own lives for Morse, in the end...what did Morse gain by that? For that matter what did the two strangers gain?

[Franz]

PossumPie, what do you mean with the word "gain"? only to gain money? (my question could seem rude, I apologize if it dose. I have no offensive intention, not at all.)

[PossumPie]

PossumPie, what do you mean with the word "gain"? only to gain money? (my question could seem rude, I apologize if it dose. I have no offensive intention, not at all.)

Everything we do we do to gain something positive or avoid something negative. We eat to avoid hunger. We work to gain money, gain satisfaction. We study to gain knowledge.
Money is only one thing to gain. If someone kills someone else, they have to gain something. Gain revenge for some wrong the committed, gain money if they inherit money from the person's death. You don't kill two people unless you gain SOMETHING. It's called....motive.

[twinsrwe]

… Franz, what changed for Morse after the killings? What did he gain? Assuming he hired strangers to do it like you believe, and assuming they were willing to risk their own lives for Morse, in the end...what did Morse gain by that? For that matter what did the two strangers gain?

This is a question that has been asked many times on this forum, and we still have not been given an answer for Morse’s motive; nor has there been a motive given for the two intruders. These three people had to have had some kind of a motive to brutality kill two elderly people in the manner in which they were killed.

[Franz]

PossumPie, what do you mean with the word "gain"? only to gain money? (my question could seem rude, I apologize if it dose. I have no offensive intention, not at all.)

Everything we do we do to gain something positive or avoid something negative. We eat to avoid hunger. We work to gain money, gain satisfaction. We study to gain knowledge.
Money is only one thing to gain. If someone kills someone else, they have to gain something. Gain revenge for some wrong the committed, gain money if they inherit money from the person's death. You don't kill two people unless you gain SOMETHING. It's called....motive.

I have answered more than one time. If Morse hated Andrew (I certainly have no evidence, but I could make such a speculation, right?), and wanted his sudden and horrible death, this death would be a great "satisfaction". As you said: "Gain revenge for some wrong the committed". Certainly, I repeat, I made a speculation without evidence. But if we must have evidence to state some speculation, I wonder how many posts should dispear from this forum.

[PossumPie]

PossumPie, what do you mean with the word "gain"? only to gain money? (my question could seem rude, I apologize if it dose. I have no offensive intention, not at all.)

Everything we do we do to gain something positive or avoid something negative. We eat to avoid hunger. We work to gain money, gain satisfaction. We study to gain knowledge.
Money is only one thing to gain. If someone kills someone else, they have to gain something. Gain revenge for some wrong the committed, gain money if they inherit money from the person's death. You don't kill two people unless you gain SOMETHING. It's called....motive.

I have answered more than one time. If Morse hated Andrew (I certainly have no evidence, but I could make such a speculation, right?), and wanted his sudden and horrible death, this death would be a great "satisfaction". As you said: "Gain revenge for some wrong the committed". Certainly, I repeat, I made a speculation without evidence. But if we must have evidence to state some speculation, I wonder how many posts should dispear from this forum.

Franz, you were quick to tell me that I had no reason to point to the local pastor, or the little old lady down the street as the killer. BUT you insist every day that Morse HATED the Borden's so much he ordered their brutal killings. You have no more evidence than I do. If you could build a theory by showing us ONE SMALL TINY reason that Morse Hated them. JUST ONE. Ok, My new theory is the Pope in Rome hired two men to kill the Bordens. I don't know why, but obviously we don't need a reason.

[Franz]

Franz, you were quick to tell me that I had no reason to point to the local pastor, or the little old lady down the street as the killer. BUT you insist every day that Morse HATED the Borden's so much he ordered their brutal killings. You have no more evidence than I do. If you could build a theory by showing us ONE SMALL TINY reason that Morse Hated them. JUST ONE. Ok, My new theory is the Pope in Rome hired two men to kill the Bordens. I don't know why, but obviously we don't need a reason.

PossumPie, if your new theory is the Pope in Rome, etc. it's your theory, not mine. I don't think my theory could be compared in this manner with that of the local pastor. Because the local pastor had nothing to do with the case. But Morse, yes. He had a relationship with Andrew, a relationship apparently good, but who knows? he splet in the room where Abby was killed the next day; when he returned, there should have been an unsual number of people but he acted as if there were not; his, according to me and to a number of members of the forum, suspicious actions and reactions that I explaned in my 9 threads about Morse, and maybe others...

Harry said he could see some of my points about Morse; snokkums said she thought Morse could be concerned somehow. And among the "senior" members who haven't posted nothing after a long time, a number of them think as well that Morse could be concerned somehow. If you don't see nothing of all this about Morse, if you think his "what" was not strange, if you think his remaining outside for a few minutes was not strange, if you think that his holling Lizzie's name but didn't care to see her and to talk with her was not strange, if you think his taking the alleged Andrew's letter with him probably the 3rd august was not strange, if you think his finding Andrew's body probably without being informed was not strange... it's all Ok for me. I am not here to convince anyone. I come here to know the opinions of others and to express my own. I know the yours, I expressed the mines. It's all OK.

[PossumPie]

Franz, you were quick to tell me that I had no reason to point to the local pastor, or the little old lady down the street as the killer. BUT you insist every day that Morse HATED the Borden's so much he ordered their brutal killings. You have no more evidence than I do. If you could build a theory by showing us ONE SMALL TINY reason that Morse Hated them. JUST ONE. Ok, My new theory is the Pope in Rome hired two men to kill the Bordens. I don't know why, but obviously we don't need a reason.

PossumPie, if your new theory is the Pope in Rome, etc. it's your theory, not mine. I don't think my theory could be compared in this manner with that of the local pastor. Because the local pastor had nothing to do with the case. But Morse, yes. He had a relationship with Andrew, a relationship apparently good, but who knows? he splet in the room where Abby was killed the next day; when he returned, there should have been an unsual number of people but he acted as if there were not; his, according to me and to a number of members of the forum, suspicious actions and reactions that I explaned in my 9 threads about Morse, and maybe others...

Harry said he could see some of my points about Morse; snokkums said she thought Morse could be concerned somehow. And among the "senior" members who haven't posted nothing after a long time, a number of them think as well that Morse could be concerned somehow. If you don't see nothing of all this about Morse, if you think his "what" was not strange, if you think his remaining outside for a few minutes was not strange, if you think that his holling Lizzie's name but didn't care to see her and to talk with her was not strange, if you think his taking the alleged Andrew's letter with him probably the 3rd august was not strange, if you think his finding Andrew's body probably without being informed was not strange... it's all Ok for me. I am not here to convince anyone. I come here to know the opinions of others and to express my own. I know the yours, I expressed the mines. It's all OK.

Those who say Andrew's illegitimate son did it have a motive...resentment. Those who say an angry business associate did it have a reason...to get even for mistreatment. Those who say Lizzie did it have a reason...Lizzie got A LOT of money. YOU HAVE NO REASON!!!!!!! NONE. All accounts out there say Morse was friendly, warm, visited semi-regularly. No account says they heard any negative word about Mr. Borden. No one heard an argument. Morse got no money, no property from the deaths. They genuinely liked each other based on all we know. Yet you say...He had them brutally killed in cold blood.

[PossumPie]

I'm not opposed to the idea that Morse did it...at the time of the murders, he was a suspect for a short time. He came from out of town on the night before the murders. He's a man, his alibi seemed too memorized. He didn't rush in to the house when he got back.

BUT he was quickly dropped as a serious suspect. He arrived when he did because Mr. Borden invited him. He had an alibi, so couldn't have done it himself. The police loooked into his past and activities, and found nothing that would suggest he had a motive. The standing outside eating a pear incident has been blown WAY out of proportion. I spent considerable time awhile back studying that, and it is an invention of the newspapers at the time. It seems when he arrived back home, only two people were outside the house, on the side steps talking. He came in from the back street, through the back yard, picked up a pear and walked to the side. He ate it, then asked what was going on. There was no large mass of people screaming Murder! He had no way to know anything was wrong until he spoke to the police officer.
Saying "What?" is inconsequential. That is so silly I won't address it. Having a letter in his pocket, one Mr. Borden wanted to discuss, is irrelevant as well.

If you pull up a long lost document showing he Hated Mr. or Mrs. Borden, and I will re-examine Morse as a suspect. What frustrates me most is that two of your core beliefs are almost impossible. A hired killer would NEVER sit for 1 1/2 hrs in a room with a body where he could get captured at any time. Mr. Borden could have just as easily done several other errands and not returned for another 2 hrs. Are you telling me that hired killer would have sat there for 3 or 4 hours just waiting on Mr. Borden????

Secondly, the more I think about a stranger knocking on a door, then running down off the porch, onto the sidewalk, and shouting up at Mrs. Borden to come down and get a note, the more I find it impossible. He stands on the sidewalk. He has to shout over the street noise, and up the steps to the door. MRS. BORDEN! I HAVE A NOTE! She is immediately suspicious. Why is this stranger standing 20 feet away? Should she walk away from the safety of her home? No, she says Well, young man, bring it here! Don't stand there shouting in the street! Bring me the note. Nope, that part of your theory needs some work.

[Franz]

I'm not opposed to the idea that Morse did it...at the time of the murders, he was a suspect for a short time. He came from out of town on the night before the murders. He's a man, his alibi seemed too memorized. He didn't rush in to the house when he got back.

BUT he was quickly dropped as a serious suspect. He arrived when he did because Mr. Borden invited him. He had an alibi, so couldn't have done it himself. The police loooked into his past and activities, and found nothing that would suggest he had a motive. The standing outside eating a pear incident has been blown WAY out of proportion. I spent considerable time awhile back studying that, and it is an invention of the newspapers at the time. It seems when he arrived back home, only two people were outside the house, on the side steps talking. He came in from the back street, through the back yard, picked up a pear and walked to the side. He ate it, then asked what was going on. There was no large mass of people screaming Murder! He had no way to know anything was wrong until he spoke to the police officer.
Saying "What?" is inconsequential. That is so silly I won't address it. Having a letter in his pocket, one Mr. Borden wanted to discuss, is irrelevant as well.

If you pull up a long lost document showing he Hated Mr. or Mrs. Borden, and I will re-examine Morse as a suspect. What frustrates me most is that two of your core beliefs are almost impossible. A hired killer would NEVER sit for 1 1/2 hrs in a room with a body where he could get captured at any time. Mr. Borden could have just as easily done several other errands and not returned for another 2 hrs. Are you telling me that hired killer would have sat there for 3 or 4 hours just waiting on Mr. Borden????

Secondly, the more I think about a stranger knocking on a door, then running down off the porch, onto the sidewalk, and shouting up at Mrs. Borden to come down and get a note, the more I find it impossible. He stands on the sidewalk. He has to shout over the street noise, and up the steps to the door. MRS. BORDEN! I HAVE A NOTE! She is immediately suspicious. Why is this stranger standing 20 feet away? Should she walk away from the safety of her home? No, she says Well, young man, bring it here! Don't stand there shouting in the street! Bring me the note. Nope, that part of your theory needs some work.

Please tell me if your have any evidence proving that some one did inform Morse that Andrew was lying dead in the sitting room.

[Allen]

Let's break it down. Everyone that was there knew that Andrew was lying dead in the sitting room. He talked to Sawyer, Bridget, Mrs. Churchill, Alice Russell, and Lizzie. We know that people were talking to Morse about what happened. We know that not every word can have been recorded. I'm going to guess that someone told him. But if not...

Also, he had been in the kitchen, there were no bodies in there. He had been in the entryway, there were no bodies in there. He had been in the dining room. No bodies there. None in the sink room. Can you prove he wasn't going through the sitting room to start searching the other parts of he house? He would have to go through the sitting room to get to the parlor, front hall, and the upstairs guestroom. Or to see if the key to Andrew's bedroom key was still on the mantle? Because if it was there, there was no way they lay dead in their bedroom. Unless the killer dragged them out to the barn they would not be laying dead out there. So, why not go first into the sitting room?

[PossumPie]

I'm not opposed to the idea that Morse did it...at the time of the murders, he was a suspect for a short time. He came from out of town on the night before the murders. He's a man, his alibi seemed too memorized. He didn't rush in to the house when he got back.

BUT he was quickly dropped as a serious suspect. He arrived when he did because Mr. Borden invited him. He had an alibi, so couldn't have done it himself. The police loooked into his past and activities, and found nothing that would suggest he had a motive. The standing outside eating a pear incident has been blown WAY out of proportion. I spent considerable time awhile back studying that, and it is an invention of the newspapers at the time. It seems when he arrived back home, only two people were outside the house, on the side steps talking. He came in from the back street, through the back yard, picked up a pear and walked to the side. He ate it, then asked what was going on. There was no large mass of people screaming Murder! He had no way to know anything was wrong until he spoke to the police officer.
Saying "What?" is inconsequential. That is so silly I won't address it. Having a letter in his pocket, one Mr. Borden wanted to discuss, is irrelevant as well.

If you pull up a long lost document showing he Hated Mr. or Mrs. Borden, and I will re-examine Morse as a suspect. What frustrates me most is that two of your core beliefs are almost impossible. A hired killer would NEVER sit for 1 1/2 hrs in a room with a body where he could get captured at any time. Mr. Borden could have just as easily done several other errands and not returned for another 2 hrs. Are you telling me that hired killer would have sat there for 3 or 4 hours just waiting on Mr. Borden????

Secondly, the more I think about a stranger knocking on a door, then running down off the porch, onto the sidewalk, and shouting up at Mrs. Borden to come down and get a note, the more I find it impossible. He stands on the sidewalk. He has to shout over the street noise, and up the steps to the door. MRS. BORDEN! I HAVE A NOTE! She is immediately suspicious. Why is this stranger standing 20 feet away? Should she walk away from the safety of her home? No, she says Well, young man, bring it here! Don't stand there shouting in the street! Bring me the note. Nope, that part of your theory needs some work.

Please tell me if your have any evidence proving that some one did inform Morse that Andrew was lying dead in the sitting room.

Franz, that is just absurd. Just because they didn't write down that they took him by the arm and pulled him to the body? As he walked in the kitchen, he saw no body. The door IN FRONT OF HIM led into the room where the body was. HE WALKED THROUGH IT. THIS WAS A HOUSE, NOT A MAZE. It wouldn't be hard to find a dead body in a room!!!!!

[Franz]

Franz, that is just absurd. Just because they didn't write down that they took him by the arm and pulled him to the body? As he walked in the kitchen, he saw no body. The door IN FRONT OF HIM led into the room where the body was. HE WALKED THROUGH IT. THIS WAS A HOUSE, NOT A MAZE. It wouldn't be hard to find a dead body in a room!!!!!

1. They didn't write down that they took him by arm and pulled him to the body, so you think you could speculate so. If you allow yourself to do a pure speculation without any testimony or evidence, why don't you allow others to do the same thing?

2. Did Morse walk through the door in front of him, as you said? Let’s read again Mrs. Churchill’s Inquest testimony (p. 130):

Q: About what time in the order of events did he (Morse) come?
A: Both Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been found when he came. I think I was the first one that let him in. I says, “Mr. Morse, something terrible has happened, someone has killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden.” He says, “what”, and hollered “Lizzie”, as loud as he could holler, and rushed into the dining room. Alice heard him, and I think let him in, and he went into the sitting room and the door was closed between the sitting room and the kitchen.

Dr. Bowen's testimony indirectly supported that of Mrs. Churchill about that door's being closed.

[Franz]

Let's break it down. Everyone that was there knew that Andrew was lying dead in the sitting room. He talked to Sawyer, Bridget, Mrs. Churchill, Alice Russell, and Lizzie. We know that people were talking to Morse about what happened. We know that not every word can have been recorded. I'm going to guess that someone told him. But if not...

Also, he had been in the kitchen, there were no bodies in there. He had been in the entryway, there were no bodies in there. He had been in the dining room. No bodies there. None in the sink room. Can you prove he wasn't going through the sitting room to start searching the other parts of he house? He would have to go through the sitting room to get to the parlor, front hall, and the upstairs guestroom. Or to see if the key to Andrew's bedroom key was still on the mantle? Because if it was there, there was no way they lay dead in their bedroom. Unless the killer dragged them out to the barn they would not be laying dead out there. So, why not go first into the sitting room?

Yes Allen, if there were no anyone alive there, Morse could have searched in the house the bodies of the two victims and would have been a very natural thing that he found the body of Andrew by himself. But according to the testimony of Mrs. Churchill (see my quotation in my previous post to PossumPie), Morse was hollering as loud as he could Lizzie's name, it meant clearly he wanted to meet Lizzie and be certain with his own eyes that Lizzie was ok, but the first time he past through the dinning room, he even didn't see who were these two women, While hollering Lizzie's name (Lizzie was in the dinning room, Morse could see her in less one second and to approch to her to speak), he was busy to look for the bodies...

Allen, this is the major reason for which I suspect Morse.

[snokkums]

I don't recall anything being stolen. That's the reason I think it was an inside job. Nothing to my knowledge was taken.

[Franz]

I don't recall anything being stolen. That's the reason I think it was an inside job. Nothing to my knowledge was taken.

Why must an intruder take something, if he came into the house just to kill?

[PossumPie]

I don't recall anything being stolen. That's the reason I think it was an inside job. Nothing to my knowledge was taken.

Why must an intruder take something, if he came into the house just to kill?

Why did he come just to kill?

[Franz]

Why must an intruder take something, if he came into the house just to kill?

Why did he come just to kill?

Oh, my God, if I recall correctly, it was you who said: we all agree that the murder was not committed during a robbery.

And I agreed with you!

[PossumPie]

Why must an intruder take something, if he came into the house just to kill?

Why did he come just to kill?

Oh, my God, if I recall correctly, it was you who said: we all agree that the murder was not committed during a robbery.

And I agreed with you!

LOL. We all do agree...I asked you "WHY" they killed. I still haven't gotten a "famous Franz theory" on that one...

[Franz]

[quote="PossumPie]

Those who say Andrew's illegitimate son did it have a motive...resentment. Those who say an angry business associate did it have a reason...to get even for mistreatment...[/quote]

PossumPie, do you know I have an idea for months in my mind but I never discussed it in the forum? because I have no evidence. I speculated Morse’s motive without evidence and I have already been criticized by many of you. Now you said it for me. Just this: maybe behind the murder there was the hand of a business enemy of Andrew.

I have been thinking about it for months: maybe Andrew made somehow Morse angry, but not to the point to decide to kill him. But a business enemy of Andrew (we call him Mr. X), an acquaintance of Morse as well, knew that Morse, being apparently friendly with Andrew, indeed hated him a lot. Mr. X talked with him, little by little, in order to know the thoughts of Morse, in order to gain Morse’s confidence, to be certain that Morse could help him to do a great thing… Until one day, when Mr. X was pretty sure of his judgement about Morse’s psychology, he said to Morse: “O you know, many people hate him, I would offer 10,000 dollars if someone could kill him.” Morse: “Maybe I could be useful for you…but 10,000 dollars are not enough. I might need one or two persons to help me…15,000. That’s ok?” “15,000? …Ok, I agree.”…

15,000 (just as an example) were a lot of money, but by paying this price, Mr. X would have 1) Andrew’s horrible and sudden death; 2) the disappearance of a business rival, this would mean much more money than 15,000 dollars.

And Morse wished that his two nieces could benefit maximum the death of Andrew, so he decided to kill Abby as well, and she must die first…

And if I understand well, Morse himself was indeed a business associate of Andrew, at least from a certain point of view.

If I had posted something like this, someone would have said (criticized): oh Franz, you have no evidence at all; another one: you have a wild imagination, too wild. And a third: if Mr. X wanted to kill Andrew, why didn’t he ask some professional killer to help him, and to kill Andrew in another place, with a much less complicated murder plan, running less risk, and maybe paying less money…

Just an idea...

[Allen]

Here's one you didn't add. Franz. The only business that Andrew had at the time was sitting in as a board member of a few banks and his rental properties. For most of his life he had been a cabinet maker or carpenter. Why would anyone want to kill him over his rental properties and some furniture? To my knowledge the girls retained all of his properties after his death and they were the ones who had control of it.

[NancyDrew]

Franz:

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No disrespect here is intended...but I literally cannot follow what you are saying.

You claim to like logic and enjoy trying to solve this mystery. Why are you unwilling to look at the evidence of Lizzie's guilt?

1. No one benefited more from the death's of Abby and Andrew than Lizzie. NO ONE. Can you refute this?
2. No one else was alone in the house with Abby except Lizzie. Bridgette was outside. No one saw anyone near the house, and there were plenty of people around; it was a busy street. Can you refute this?
3. No one else was on the first floor of the house with Andrew except Lizzie. There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere to indicate otherwise.
4. The nature of the killings indicate rage, and lots of it. Eighteen blows is a lot; way more than necessary to kill another human being. This is fact.
5. The relationship between Lizzie, her step-mother, and Andrew was strained. Plenty of evidence to back this up. Practically the whole town knew this was an unhappy home.
6. The police didn't do a very good job of searching the house: they passed over Lizzie's menstrual pail, the heavy winter dresses at the back of the closet upstairs, and ignored the bundle on the floor of Emma's closet.
7. In fact, the police didn't secure the scene at all. Plenty of folks: neighbors, Dr. Bowen, police officers, etc, were allowed to tramp through the property, not to mention reporters and photographers.
8. Lizzie lied. A LOT. Her inquest testimony is a mess.
9. She never testified in her own defense. Ever wonder why that is? If she were truly an innocent woman, unjustly accused of committing a crime for which she was NOT responsible, why did her own attorneys keep her off the stand? There can only be one reason: It was a bad idea. I'm going to start a separate thread about this...
10. The police never arrested anyone else for the crime. If it wasn't Lizzie, then whomever DID kill the Bordens got away with the perfect crime. Only WHAT did this supposed person really gain? As discussed in another thread, nothing was stolen from the home during the killings. There were no business dealings that anyone profited from because of Andrew's death.

The one and ONLY person who had MOTIVE (money; probably the most common motive for all crimes combined ever, from the beginning of time, until present day...), MEANS (not too hard to find a hatchet, and not to difficult to kill 2 elderly people with repeated blows to the brain) and OPPORTUNITY (see #2 and #3 above.)

No one saw the Bordens being murdered. All the evidence is circumstantial, but then again, most cases involve only circumstantial evidence.

When you look at everything and consider what we DO know, it points to only one person: Lizzie...although I will concede that it is possible she had help (in my opinion, probably Bridgette, who would have been easy to pay off, intimidate into keeping her mouth shut, or both. )

And so I'll end this post with a direct question to YOU Franz: Why do you ignore everything above? Why are YOU so convinced of Lizzie's innocence? Thank you.

[Franz]

NancyDrew, the points you stated in the post, I never ignored them. Some of them, I faced them directly (maybe I dare say, with courage). For example: Lizzie lied. Yes, i never denied. But I made my own interpretation - it could be that of many others as well - Lizzie lied about what she was doing in the barn because she wanted to cover what she was doing there (a very scandalous thing for that time). She lied about her whereabouts in the house because she wanted to place herself as far as possible from the guest room. Other "lies" could be only confusions, not real lies. N°4: the nature of the killing, you think it indicates the rage. this is a possible interpretation, but it is only an interpretation; we could find other different interpretations, the mine is that Morse asked the killer to kill as ferocely as possible, so that the police would not suspect the two girls. In other word, the overkilling could be a mise en scène (a little detail of the tragedy directed by Morse). Some other points, for example, n° 7, I never talked about, since I don't think that Lizzie's innocence or guilt was concerned with it.

Maybe you have noticed, when I say "I think Lizzie was innocent", I say always ( or almost always): "I think Lizzie was (most) probably innocent." No blood was found on her body, the weapon was never found, for me it's highly inlikely that she could have cleaned her up and perfectly hidden the weapon in a few minutes, (clean up yes, but in a so pure manner, an immaculate manner? too irrealistic for me), the guest room door's being open, why? and, Emma never used a hatecht in her life, Bridget only one time to repaire something of her shoes, we could be almost certain that Lizzie never used a hatchet before, but was she capable to do such a perfect job, killing the two persons with almost the very first blow? ...

NancyDrew, these are only some (not all) reasons for which I must consider seriously Lizzie's innocence. I permit myself to say that, even in the depth of the heart of those who are very convinced of Lizzie's guilt, maybe there are always these two little words: but if...

[PossumPie]

[PossumPie]

Here's one you didn't add. Franz. The only business that Andrew had at the time was sitting in as a board member of a few banks and his rental properties. For most of his life he had been a cabinet maker or carpenter. Why would anyone want to kill him over his rental properties and some furniture? To my knowledge the girls retained all of his properties after his death and they were the ones who had control of it.

Maybe someone offered Morse money to kill Lizzie who was masturbating in the barn with the real killer, who unknown to Morse was Abby's lesbian lover and they accidentally killed the Old Man b/c hiding all night in Morse's room, they became disoriented, after drinking poison milk supplied by Andrew's love-child, who secretly masturbated along with Bridget in the barn, or was it the Library with professor Plum? Wait, did I mention Professor Peacock?

[NancyDrew]

Franz:

You jumped ahead to Lizzie's lies. What about motive? What about #1? No one benefited more from the deaths of Abby and Andrew but Lizzie. You ignored that one.

The brutal deaths of two human beings better have a damn good motive. Greed and money have unfortunately proved to be a powerful one. Many have been killed for the almighty buck.

What about in this case? What was Uncle John's motive?

[Franz]

Franz:

You jumped ahead to Lizzie's lies. What about motive? What about #1? No one benefited more from the deaths of Abby and Andrew but Lizzie. You ignored that one.

The brutal deaths of two human beings better have a damn good motive. Greed and money have unfortunately proved to be a powerful one. Many have been killed for the almighty buck.

What about in this case? What was Uncle John's motive?

NancyDrew, I "jumped ahead to Lizzie's lies" not for avoiding something. I can agree with you that "no one benefited more from the deaths of Abby and Andrew but Lizzie" (and Emma), but I think that we make such a statement according to the (few) facts we know, and one doesn't "possess" automatically a murder motive only because of being a daughter of rich parents. I have read carefully all your posts, and I have impression that you think Lizzie did it, but you are not certain 100%, you have some doubt, even only a little, but it is there. So if by any chance the killer was someone other than Lizzie, that would mean that there was something concerning the motive of the murder but this something today we don't know it. And Lizze (and Emma) could benefit, but without intention, the deaths of Abby and Andrew killed by a third part, the real killer, right?

[NancyDrew]

Franz:


I can agree with you that "no one benefited more from the deaths of Abby and Andrew but Lizzie" (and Emma), but I think that we make such a statement according to the (few) facts we know, and one doesn't "possess" automatically a murder motive only because of being a daughter of rich parents.

Franz: I do not understand what you are saying here. Yes, of course we "make such a statement according to the facts we know." That's what we're supposed to do: USE THE FACTS. You say one doesn't "posses" automatically a murder motive only because of being a daughter of rich parents."


That is twisting what I said. I did NOT say that Lizzie's motive was that she was a daughter of rich parents. Her motive was that, if her step-mother died FIRST, and her father died quickly AFTER, but definitely long enough after to definitively state that he died SECOND, then Lizzie INHERITED all the money.

It's the inheritance that is the motive, NOT the fact of being the daughter of rich parents.

What am I missing here? What seems incredibly obvious to everyone else seems to give you trouble, Franz.

For the last time: WHAT WAS UNCLE JOHN'S MOTIVE FOR ARRANGING THE BRUTAL SLAYING OF TWO PEOPLE?

No more double talk, no more dancing around what is speculated, blah, blah, blah. MOTIVE. I want to know his MOTIVE.

State it plainly and clearly, right now. Thank you.

[Franz]

NancyDrew, in that post with which you defended me when I was under attacks, you wrote: "This is supposed to be a free, open public forum. A place to exchange ideas, daydream possibilities, speculate alternate theories of the crime, and have a good time."

I totally agree with you.

We know a number of facts, a few facts of the case. And if I were in a court, I would never say many things that I feel free to express here.

About the Morse's motive, Ok. Did I suspect Morse without any reason? I don't think so, many others have suspected him and they have much better argued than me. I posted nine threads to analyse Morse's actions and reactions, many of you think these are all insignificant. "Being insignificant", in my opnion, is an subjective judgement, I could judge differently. So I concluded that probably Morse organized the double murder.

Motive? In that post - among others I think - directed to twinsrwe, I have admitted that I have no evidence about Morses motive, I have only a speculated one. I am sorry that I can't do much more than this. Could I make a speculation? If I understand well what you wrote in that post, quoted here above, I think I could. As you said, I speculated an alternate theory of the crime.

when I approched the case, my fisrt (and immediate) opinion was that Lizzie was guilty. But little by little, I began to doubt, until one day I thought that most probably Lizzie was innocent. Even after entering the forum, I have been always changing my mind (I think it's a good thing): I abbandoned my first theory, thanks to - among others - Yooper and Allen, who convinced me that it was (almost) imposssible that an intruder entered and hid all the night in the guest room. I have enlarged my mind about what Lizzie was doing in the barn (assuming that she did go into the barn), and about Morse murder motive... I remember to have said in another post: if one day I am convinced of Lizzie's guilt, I would have all my courage to change my mind. Many members have changed (and more than one time) their mind, right?

NancyDrew, for the Morse's murder motive, I have only a speculated one, I am sorry. and I have explained it, even from the begining, in the second version of my theory. In another post you judged this speculated motive was "weak, very weak", by saying so you (indrectly) agree that I do have a (speculated) motive for Morse, even though you think it is "very weak", rihgt? I hope I answered your question as you wished.

[Franz]

Sorry, double post.

[Franz]

Sorry, triple post. Today is not my day.

[Franz]

That is twisting what I said. I did NOT say that Lizzie's motive was that she was a daughter of rich parents. Her motive was that, if her step-mother died FIRST, and her father died quickly AFTER, but definitely long enough after to definitively state that he died SECOND, then Lizzie INHERITED all the money.

If this is Lizzie's motive, could she think to use the poison? and how to use it?

[NancyDrew]

Franz:

So your answer is: None. You cannot find a motive for Morse. Am I correct? For the moment, let's forget about older posts. You do not have a strong reason why a man who was never in trouble in his life would, out of the blue, contract with 2 men to brutally slay his elderly brother-in-law and his wife. Am I wrong about this?

Again, let's stick JUST to this topic.

[Franz]

Franz:

So your answer is: None. You cannot find a motive for Morse. Am I correct? For the moment, let's forget about older posts. You do not have a strong reason why a man who was never in trouble in his life would, out of the blue, contract with 2 men to brutally slay his elderly brother-in-law and his wife. Am I wrong about this?

Again, let's stick JUST to this topic.

what I can say, NancyDrew, and I have been always saying so, is that I have a speculated motive for Morse. I have not a "strong reason", but I strongly suspect a number of Morse's actions and reactions. I never suspect local priest or even Alice, Mrs. Churchill, even nor Bridget. But Morse, yes. You (I am not saying you, NancyDrew in person, I say "you" in general, other members) judged that what I analysed in my threads about Morse is insignificant, but, I repeat here, this judgement is subjective. I don't think it is insignificant, on the contrary, I consider them suspicious, even very suspicious some of them.

The motive? We know too few facts. With the few facts we know, the most probable conlusion should be: Lizzie did it. Does this conclusion satisfy you? Maybe your answer is "Yes". But does it satisfy you completely? What would be your answer, NancyDrew?

The motive for Lizzie seems obvious, and the motive for Morse "very weak", as you said. If you want to put me in the corner by asking and re-asking this question, it's a very easy thing, because I have no evidence. Whoever wants to demonstrate that the killer could be another one than Lizzie is by nature in a inferiore, disadvantage position in the discussion about the Borden case, in the forum or everywhere. And I don't lament for this. I must be sincere with myself: I think Lizzie most probably was innocent. If it was not her, it should be an intruder, then, when, from where, and how? ... and the motive of the reall guilty. NancyDrew, I would like to be franc with you, this is not an easy task. If you try to make a theory about an intruder, you will know.

[NancyDrew]

Franz: You're writing a word salad. I cannot make heads or tails out of what you have just written.
"I have not a strong reason, but I strongly suspect..."

In the above sentence, you just completely contradicted yourself. This is testing the boundaries of my patience.

I'm going to remove myself from this conversation for awhile and go make some Thanksgiving pies. Good day.

[Allen]

What kind of pies are you making Nancy?

[PossumPie]

Franz, There is a difference between "speculating a motive for Morse" and "fabricating a motive" Speculating is gathering evidence, piecing it together, and tying it together in a motive. Fabricating a motive is making one up with no evidence to support it. To say a business associate paid Morse $15,000 to kill Mr. Borden has NO evidence to support it.

[Franz]

Franz: You're writing a word salad. I cannot make heads or tails out of what you have just written.
"I have not a strong reason, but I strongly suspect..."

In the above sentence, you just completely contradicted yourself. This is testing the boundaries of my patience.

I'm going to remove myself from this conversation for awhile and go make some Thanksgiving pies. Good day.

NancyDrew, I was saying that I have not a strong reason for his murder motive, but I strongly suspect a number of his actions. It seems that no evidence support his motive, but his some actions, however, are for me suspicious. And in my opinion this is one of the many fascinating aspects of the case.

Bon appétit!

[Franz]

Franz, There is a difference between "speculating a motive for Morse" and "fabricating a motive" Speculating is gathering evidence, piecing it together, and tying it together in a motive. Fabricating a motive is making one up with no evidence to support it. To say a business associate paid Morse $15,000 to kill Mr. Borden has NO evidence to support it.

I told you that I didn't want to post it.

[PattiG157]

Even though I DO NOT believe Morse was involved in the killings, in Franz's defense, Morse's behavior WAS a little suspicious. He came to Fall River the night before the murders yet did not bring a toothbrush or luggage; he remembered his exact whereabouts the entire day of the murder - he even remembered the badge number of the conductor on the street car he rode - down to the minute, as if he knew he was going to be asked for an alibi. So as I said, I do not believe Morse was involved, but I've always wondered why his behavior was so odd.

Just a thought.

[twinsrwe]

Even though I DO NOT believe Morse was involved in the killings, in Franz's defense, Morse's behavior WAS a little suspicious. He came to Fall River the night before the murders yet did not bring a toothbrush or luggage; he remembered his exact whereabouts the entire day of the murder - he even remembered the badge number of the conductor on the street car he rode - down to the minute, as if he knew he was going to be asked for an alibi. So as I said, I do not believe Morse was involved, but I've always wondered why his behavior was so odd.

Just a thought.

It's true Morse's behavior was a little suspicious, but Lizzie's actions and behaviors were a lot more suspicious!!! Apparently, the Fall River Police Department felt that her behaviors were a lot more suspicious, too.

[Aamartin]

Franz, There is a difference between "speculating a motive for Morse" and "fabricating a motive" Speculating is gathering evidence, piecing it together, and tying it together in a motive. Fabricating a motive is making one up with no evidence to support it. To say a business associate paid Morse $15,000 to kill Mr. Borden has NO evidence to support it.

I told you that I didn't want to post it.

I vote to post it. While we may get lively in our debates with you-- at least the forum is hopping!

[PossumPie]

Franz, There is a difference between "speculating a motive for Morse" and "fabricating a motive" Speculating is gathering evidence, piecing it together, and tying it together in a motive. Fabricating a motive is making one up with no evidence to support it. To say a business associate paid Morse $15,000 to kill Mr. Borden has NO evidence to support it.

I told you that I didn't want to post it.

I vote to post it. While we may get lively in our debates with you-- at least the forum is hopping!

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.

[Allen]

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.