what should Lizzie have done?

[leitskev]

Let's assume Lizzie murdered the Bordens. And let's assume that the murders were not totally planned. Let's say she had words with Abby, grabbed a hatchet, and took the action that would one day lead to this forum.

What could she have done better? Let's help her out.

After killing Abbie, Andrew has to go. It's the only way. He'll know you did it. You have an hour and a half to plan things.

You have to explain to Andrew and perhaps others where Abby was. You came up with the note explanation. Not bad...but not well thought out either. You could have known that sooner or later people were going to investigate that, and when no one claimed to have sent for Abby, it would look bad for you. Would it not have been better to maybe just say Abby said she was going to visit someone? Her sister maybe?

The next issue is to get Bridgett out of the way. You tried to encourage Bridgett to go downtown to a sale, but that didn't work. Then you encouraged Bridgett to take a nap...success! Nice work!

What else? You need a plausible intruder theory. So maybe you should run to the cellar and open the back door. Better yet, smash the lock from the outside if possible.

Then after killing Andrew, make sure the front door is open. Take your time, Lizzie, no need to hurry, Bridgett just went upstairs. Take your time!

An even better plan: tell Bridgett you're going downtown and ask if she wants anything. You can even leave while Bridgett is still downstairs...hide in the barn...then return a moment later to cut your father down. Then leave again! Go downtown, come back later to find the gruesome scene. On your way downtown, dispose of the weapon somewhere, make sure your body and dress are completely cleaned, and get your story straight for crying out loud, please.

In fact, since you're evil enough to kill your parents, and according to testimony, you're not close to Bridgett or to Uncle Morse, why not try to frame one of them? Bridget is Irish, no one trusts the Irish! There are "Irish need not apply" signs all over. Pretty easy to suggest Bridget was an unhappy employee, and she looks strong enough to whoop a man.

Then there's Morse. You didn't know how tightly established his alibi is, of course, lucky devil. Why not at least hint at some dirty business between Andrew and him? The public will be quick to turn on him, I promise!

Think, Lizzie, think! If you don't plan this better, you're going to create all kinds of fights in a discussion forum many decades from now.

[Allen]

If the aim is to give Lizzie a better alibi this scenario isn't much better. If she is smashing one lock in the cellar from the outside, she is also smashing the front door that needed to be opened with a key. All of these doors needed keys the intruder didn't have even to get back out. She would have had to unlock the door before Andrew came home. Bridget knew it was locked she had to let him in. Lizzie was still suspected of committing the daylight robbery even though the intruder supposedly went in through the cellar door. And the prosecution could have argued that Bridget didn't see or hear this supposed intruder smashing a lock while she was outside washing windows. Lizzie did not suggest that Bridget take a nap. It was her custom to lay down. Giving herself an alibi for Andrew still leaves her in the house for Abby. So building this alibi doesn't seem much better. Bridget was briefly suspected but had no motive. She'd just be putting herself out of a job.

[Franz]

Excellent post, Leitskev!

I would like to add (repeat) only one observation: It was Abby and Andrew, and especially Abby I think, to do the shopping. I would not be surprised if it was proved that it had occured a number of times in the past that when Andrew returned from his work, he found Abby absent for ... shopping. And in Lizzie's story she even mentioned that Abby told her to do the shopping for lunch (on the way home after the visit), so the idea of shopping passed through Lizzie's mind when she was thinking out a lie to prevent his father of searching Abby (assuming that Lizzie was guilty). In this case I wonder why Lizzie didn't just say that Abby went to the store, instead of inventing that very complicated, very sophisticated but meanwhile very stupid note story? Who, among the members of the forum, at the place of Lizzie, could invent such a story not only to tell to Andrew (that would be OK because he would be killed), but also to all other people?

[leitskev]

This post was an invitation to have a little fun and try to conjecture how Lizzie could have done a better job. Allen has chosen not to take it up the challenge, but rather to argue with me. I'm not surprised.

My understanding is that the front door inner lock, the one controlled with a key kept in the house, was normally opened by Lizzie every morning. For some reason that day it was not. But had Lizzie planned better, she would have opened the lock with the key...which would NOT have been suspicious, since that was the normal routine. Then, after killing Andrew, all Lizzie had to do was open the front door and leave it open. Simple. I think it was open at the time of Andrew's murder anyway, as Bridgett did not lock the inside lock after letting Andrew inside.

As I've said before...and getting tired of repeating it frankly...there was no way for Lizzie to establish an airtight alibi. That's not what this is about. It's about improving her alibi, making it more plausible that the intruder theory could be sold. The locked doors is one of the things that made it hard for people to buy into the intruder as a possibility. That's why so much time was spent on it in the trial.

Yes, there would be no way for Lizzie to commit the murders and establish an alibi as being somewhere else. Not unless she had a time machine. The idea is to make it more plausible. That's all. But it's important. Create some "reasonable doubt".

Same thing with Bridgett. Motive is not necessary to prove a crime. And one can paint a motive for Bridgett just as easily as for Lizzie. What motive did Lizzie have? Emma inherited the estate, not Lizzie. She split the estate with Lizzie, but did Lizzie know that would happen? And there is evidence that Lizzie was close to Andrew. And though there seems to have been friction with Abby, that evidence is rather weak. Certainly nothing there suggests a killing motive.

But people that live together in a house are subject to little frictions which add up. Maybe little digs by Abby added up to a point where Lizzie couldn't take it. Maybe Lizzie worked small issues up in her mind. Who can say. Often when people live together they can end up at each other's throats.

And those very circumstances could apply to Bridgett. Hell, they didn't even call her by her real name! How do we know what little slights were adding up? They had her washing windows on a hot summer day. Anger is a far more reliable motive in murder than some rational notion of what is to gain. These murders were crimes of passion. Crimes of hatred.

But none of this is to the point. The idea is not to frame Bridgett to the point where she is convicted. The idea is to make Bridgett's guilt PLAUSIBLE. As long as it's plausible that someone else did it, this helps Lizzie's alibi. All Lizzie needed to do was make it more plausible that Bridgett could have done it. Isn't that what evil murderers usually do? Jeez, this ain't rocket science.

As for arguing that Bridgett would have seen someone smashing the lock...would the prosecution have argued that Bridgett would have seen someone smash it...except for Lizzie? If Bridgett didn't see Lizzie smash it, she might not have seen an intruder. Come on, let's be serious. The question is not whether Bridgett would have seen someone smash the lock...the question is whether she would have noticed the condition of the lock between roughly 9 to 10:30, because if the defense was to argue that the intruder broke the lock, it would have to be before Abby's murder. THAT's where Lizzie could have screwed herself by smashing the lock around 11:00 while constructing a crime scene.

Franz, good point. I had forgotten about that. Lizzie demonstrates a remarkable inability to create a narrative and stick to it. This might suggest innocence, as sometimes it's hard to remember all the facts and easier to remember a constructed story. But more likely it reflects this simple fact: Lizzie was not at all clever. She made zero attempt to stage a crime scene, she couldn't keep her story straight, and she killed them with a freaking hatchet! No, she was not clever. Nothing in her life suggests she was. In the thefts of Abby's room in the years before, she left a trail of evidence. Her shoplifting exploit in Providence, whatever really happened, was a foolish episode. This person was a dipstick. All the more reason someone had to have helped her, at least remove the murder weapon.

[Allen]

Bridget was outside washing windows, walking to and from the barn. Very often sight of the cellar door. This is why the prosecution could have argued Bridget would have seen anyone, not just Lizzie. To make it an alibi more plausible is to actually make it more plausible using the known evidence right? Or are we making up the timeline also?

[Aamartin]

Perhaps she could have opened the front door and then bonked herself with the side of the hatchet.... (using gloves) She could have been covered with gore-- claiming to be present at Andrew's death and provided a generic description....

But in the end, the best thing she could have done was simply gone up to her room and let someone else find Andrew......

[Allen]

I get tired of anytime I disagree with anyone they automatically get defensive and say I'm arguing with them. I'm just disagreeing with you. The same as you disagree with me. This is a forum. Grow up. I'm tired of you making it out like I'm attacking you. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. I actually admire Franz because as much crap as he's gotten for his theory he still keeps plugging away at it, and he stays polite as always. There are people who are well versed in the facts that don't need you to explain everything to them. There are people who have read the testimony several times before you pointed out the testimony to them. There are people who have actually done more research than you have. And I'm not talking about myself in general, but anybody else who has. And not everyone's opinion is the same as yours. When you stated that we can take the lack of searching out of our analysis I thought that was a little arrogant to be honest. It didn't convince me. I'm sure others are still not convinced. And you were just restating testimony I had read dozens of times already. But I'm supposed to not have an opinion about it because you said we shouldn't consider it anymore? If you don't like people expressing opinions that differ from yours I don't know why you keep posting in a forum that is open to discussion. My aim is to stick to the facts. And when you state you are trying to come up with ways that Lizzie could have made her alibi more plausible, and they are just as implausible as the alibi you say was so awful I don't see how that is making the alibi better. I made several valid arguments against it. And I'm not a member any prosecution in any murder trial. The alibi can be picked apart. Which is what I did. For it to be more plausible there would actually be fewer ways to pick it apart wouldn't you say?

A good alibi would have been to say she was going out before Abby was killed. Tell Bridget that Abby was going out to see a friend and that she was going out also. Tell her to leave the screen door unlocked so Bridget could let herself in and out because nobody was going to be in the house. Get dressed to go out. Leave the front door unlocked so Andrew can let himself in. Wait until Bridget went out to wash the windows and kill Abby. Lock herself in her room and wait. Come back through the house as if she had just come back from down town. Say she forgot something or other and came back for it. Wait for Bridget to go upstairs to take her nap, since she testified that it was her custom to do so, and get rid of Andrew. Then leave again. Don't claim to have gone out to any stores where there might have been witnesses to say you weren't there. And she wouldn't have had to point the finger at anyone else. Because she could say she wasn't home at the time of both murders. All this smashing of locks and whatever else would not have made the story more plausible.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to argue with anybody on the forum. I'm not trying to say my opinion is more important than anyone else's. Or that my opinion is better than anyone else's. And I do read everyone's posts carefully to consider what they've said. When I disagree with you I'm not trying to argue or start a confrontation. I'm just disagreeing for crying out loud.

[Allen]

And I would also like to add, please feel free to pick apart my proposed alibi if you see problems with it. I will not accuse you of trying to argue with me.

[leitskev]

As I said, the intent was for this thread to be a little more fun and give people a chance to help Lizzie concoct a better alibi. That you didn't do any of that at all in your reply reveals the obsessiveness that his gripped you. You've made strong statements regarding the case that I have refuted from the transcripts, and you resent that. Now that I understand that you've been doing this Lizzie stuff for 20 years, I can understand how that might sting. But there's nothing I can do about that. The transcripts are public record. You should have read them more closely.

You're tired of me making it like I'm attacking you? As with the transcripts, the record won't support your case. Today was the first and only time I mentioned anything remotely like that, so I don't know how you could be "tired".

To repeat, if Lizzie had actually broken the cellar lock...and Bridgett did not see her do it...then by definition it would have been possible for someone to break the lock without Bridgett seeing it.

As for your alibi...yeah, that's good, that's the kind of thing I thought would be fun to try here. I wish your fist reaction would have been to do that.

Finally, you claim to be tolerant of others opinions, but I did not find that to be the case. I expressed my opinion that I believed the house was searched thoroughly and that it would have been very difficult to hide a hatchet. You emphatically, and even with anger, kept insisting that I was not only wrong, but that I should stop even saying it. Either that was arrogant on your part...or the evidence so decisively supported your claim that it justified the strength of your demand that I stop saying it.

So I read the transcript. And learned that a detailed and thorough search was made Sat and Mon. I'm not going to list those discoveries again. Now you can cherry pick the testimony to try to support the case for a weak search, but most of the testimony suggests otherwise. There's room for debate, but certainly no room for your attempting to silence me from saying they searched the house rigorously. Which was arrogant on your part...because it was not strongly supported by the testimony.

[Franz]

......
Franz, good point. I had forgotten about that. Lizzie demonstrates a remarkable inability to create a narrative and stick to it. This might suggest innocence, as sometimes it's hard to remember all the facts and easier to remember a constructed story. But more likely it reflects this simple fact: Lizzie was not at all clever. ......

I don't know if Lizzie was clever or not. But assuming here that she wasn't. One should need more imagination to invent the note story, on the contrary, it should be an easier thing for a person not very intelligent to invent a more simple lie: to go to the store is much simple than to receive a note and pay visit and to do shopiing on the way home, etc.

Does this demonstrate Lizzie's "remarkable inability to create a narrative"? or she just repeated what Abby told her? And the contradictions in Lizzie's alibli testimony, do they demonstrate that the killer Lizzie was not clever? or, on the contrary, Lizzie hadn't --- certainly she hadn't, being innocent --- a prepared alibi in her pocket?

In my opinion, all this --- even strongly --- suggests Lizzie's innocence.

Any thoughts?

[PossumPie]

Leitskev, As I've pointed out before, the disagreements about this case reminds me most of religious people squabbling about Biblical interpretation. Growing up I would listen to Christians bicker and argue about their "interpretation" of the Bible. Everyone had the same Bible but they interpreted them very differently.

[NancyDrew]

Allen has an encyclopedic knowledge of this case; she has spent hours and hours exhaustively researching the trial transcripts. I think we need to be grateful for that, not mean.

Everyone has a different style of speaking and we need to keep our tempers in check; that is my opinion. It's bad form to gang up on someone. I'm VERY glad she is here, and for the record, I pray we haven't driven her off this board. It would be a tremendous loss.

An rigorous search of the house was NOT done. There were many places left untouched, such as the heavy silk dresses in the back of the closet...no one took them out and searched underneath them. The paint stained dress Lizzie burned wasn't found; that's proof enough that the police botched the efforts to find evidence.

A final word: I"ve been on many internet forums and things invariably end up going sour. You can't read someone's inflection, tone, or meaning from a written post. For that reason, I am recommending we give each other a wide berth when interpreting what, or how someone's message is meant to come across. Read the content, don't infer subtleties; it's impossible.

It's Christmas; peace on earth, good will toward men. That's not so much to ask is it?

[PossumPie]

I JUST saw another story about another prisoner, this time in Durham NC that shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser in November. This is the second time this year officers have searched an individual and MISSED A GUN. COME ON...I don't care what the trial testimonies say in the Borden case...if 4 cops in 2 separate incidents this year can all miss a gun on a person's body, I just bet the Fall River boys could miss a hatchet in a whole house. All they really wanted was to get back to Rock Point Amusement park to their police picnic. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Lizzie could have dropped the hatchet right on her dead father and walked away and it wouldn't change anything. They had no CSI back then, they didn't even check for fingerprints, so a hatchet wouldn't have tied anyone to the crime even if she had engraved her name on it, she could have said the murderer found it and used it. Why the murderer bothered to hide it has always bugged the heck out of me.
I don't know WHAT happened that day, but I know:
1. Lizzie lied about a lot of things.
2. Lizzie may have been the killer, nothing disproves it.
3. Cops can overlook a elephant standing in a butter dish, so I'm not putting all my faith in their search.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I JUST saw another story about another prisoner, this time in Durham NC that shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser in November. This is the second time this year officers have searched an individual and MISSED A GUN. COME ON...I don't care what the trial testimonies say in the Borden case...if 4 cops in 2 separate incidents this year can all miss a gun on a person's body, I just bet the Fall River boys could miss a hatchet in a whole house. All they really wanted was to get back to Rock Point Amusement park to their police picnic. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Lizzie could have dropped the hatchet right on her dead father and walked away and it wouldn't change anything. They had no CSI back then, they didn't even check for fingerprints, so a hatchet wouldn't have tied anyone to the crime even if she had engraved her name on it, she could have said the murderer found it and used it. Why the murderer bothered to hide it has always bugged the heck out of me.
I don't know WHAT happened that day, but I know:
1. Lizzie lied about a lot of things.
2. Lizzie may have been the killer, nothing disproves it.
3. Cops can overlook a elephant standing in a butter dish, so I'm not putting all my faith in their search.

BBM

I have this same theory in mind. If the murder(s) were committed by Lizzie, WHY hide the hatchet? There would be no need for such.
If there were flecks of paint and metal in the wounds on Abby's head does this reflect a hatchet that was brand new or recently sharpened and painted? If it were new, then the fresh flecks of metal and paint is explained. If it was recently sharpened and painted (painted for many reasons: organization of the tools, family name, or accidentally spilled paint. This hatchet head that was found without the handle, did it look new with paint or recently sharpened?
Lizzie locked the house while Bridget washed the windows. However, when Bridget went for her nap, Lizzie said she was in the barn which would then leave the screen door UNLATCHED as there was no one to let her back in (if we are to believe Lizzie's story that Abby was away and her Father was still sleeping). If the door is unlocked, then anyone could have entered the house, or even exited. Then, Lizzie states at one time, that she heard a noise which made her return to the house. (This statement was changed by Lizzie a couple of times for what reason we do not know.) Could it have been someone entering or exiting a door?

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I JUST saw another story about another prisoner, this time in Durham NC that shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser in November. This is the second time this year officers have searched an individual and MISSED A GUN. COME ON...I don't care what the trial testimonies say in the Borden case...if 4 cops in 2 separate incidents this year can all miss a gun on a person's body, I just bet the Fall River boys could miss a hatchet in a whole house. All they really wanted was to get back to Rock Point Amusement park to their police picnic. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Lizzie could have dropped the hatchet right on her dead father and walked away and it wouldn't change anything. They had no CSI back then, they didn't even check for fingerprints, so a hatchet wouldn't have tied anyone to the crime even if she had engraved her name on it, she could have said the murderer found it and used it. Why the murderer bothered to hide it has always bugged the heck out of me.
I don't know WHAT happened that day, but I know:
1. Lizzie lied about a lot of things.
2. Lizzie may have been the killer, nothing disproves it.
3. Cops can overlook a elephant standing in a butter dish, so I'm not putting all my faith in their search.

BBM

I have this same theory in mind. If the murder(s) were committed by Lizzie, WHY hide the hatchet? There would be no need for such.
If there were flecks of paint and metal in the wounds on Abby's head does this reflect a hatchet that was brand new or recently sharpened and painted? If it were new, then the fresh flecks of metal and paint is explained. If it was recently sharpened and painted (painted for many reasons: organization of the tools, family name, or accidentally spilled paint. This hatchet head that was found without the handle, did it look new with paint or recently sharpened?
Lizzie locked the house while Bridget washed the windows. However, when Bridget went for her nap, Lizzie said she was in the barn which would then leave the screen door UNLATCHED as there was no one to let her back in (if we are to believe Lizzie's story that Abby was away and her Father was still sleeping). If the door is unlocked, then anyone could have entered the house, or even exited. Then, Lizzie states at one time, that she heard a noise which made her return to the house. (This statement was changed by Lizzie a couple of times for what reason we do not know.)

A little more regarding the hatchet. If she were trying to hide her crime, the presence of the hatchet at the crime scene would hold more evidence to whom should be suspect. But how is a 30 such yr old woman living a quiet life in what seems a very impersonal family household to know whether to hide or leave the hatchet? How long would she have sat and thought out this plan to make it that all physical evidence (besides the bodies) was not available. All other evidence against or for Lizzie would be considered circumstantial.

[PossumPie]

I JUST saw another story about another prisoner, this time in Durham NC that shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser in November. This is the second time this year officers have searched an individual and MISSED A GUN. COME ON...I don't care what the trial testimonies say in the Borden case...if 4 cops in 2 separate incidents this year can all miss a gun on a person's body, I just bet the Fall River boys could miss a hatchet in a whole house. All they really wanted was to get back to Rock Point Amusement park to their police picnic. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Lizzie could have dropped the hatchet right on her dead father and walked away and it wouldn't change anything. They had no CSI back then, they didn't even check for fingerprints, so a hatchet wouldn't have tied anyone to the crime even if she had engraved her name on it, she could have said the murderer found it and used it. Why the murderer bothered to hide it has always bugged the heck out of me.
I don't know WHAT happened that day, but I know:
1. Lizzie lied about a lot of things.
2. Lizzie may have been the killer, nothing disproves it.
3. Cops can overlook a elephant standing in a butter dish, so I'm not putting all my faith in their search.

BBM

I have this same theory in mind. If the murder(s) were committed by Lizzie, WHY hide the hatchet? There would be no need for such.
If there were flecks of paint and metal in the wounds on Abby's head does this reflect a hatchet that was brand new or recently sharpened and painted? If it were new, then the fresh flecks of metal and paint is explained. If it was recently sharpened and painted (painted for many reasons: organization of the tools, family name, or accidentally spilled paint. This hatchet head that was found without the handle, did it look new with paint or recently sharpened?
Lizzie locked the house while Bridget washed the windows. However, when Bridget went for her nap, Lizzie said she was in the barn which would then leave the screen door UNLATCHED as there was no one to let her back in (if we are to believe Lizzie's story that Abby was away and her Father was still sleeping). If the door is unlocked, then anyone could have entered the house, or even exited. Then, Lizzie states at one time, that she heard a noise which made her return to the house. (This statement was changed by Lizzie a couple of times for what reason we do not know.)

A little more regarding the hatchet. If she were trying to hide her crime, the presence of the hatchet at the crime scene would hold more evidence to whom should be suspect. But how is a 30 such yr old woman living a quiet life in what seems a very impersonal family household to know whether to hide or leave the hatchet? How long would she have sat and thought out this plan to make it that all physical evidence (besides the bodies) was not available. All other evidence against or for Lizzie would be considered circumstantial.

The HUGE problem is that the killer killed Mrs. Borden about an hour and a half BEFORE Mr. Borden. So.... they killed her, sneaked out and down to the corner bar, had a few beers, sneaked back in, killed Mr. Borden and sneaked out again? Yea, right.

[Franz]

.... Lizzie could have dropped the hatchet right on her dead father and walked away and it wouldn't change anything. They had no CSI back then, they didn't even check for fingerprints, so a hatchet wouldn't have tied anyone to the crime even if she had engraved her name on it, she could have said the murderer found it and used it....

PossumPie, I partly agree with you: "Lizzie could have dropped that hatchet right on her dead father" for the reasons that you excellently explained. But I don't agree with you when you say that "(if Lizzie had dropped the hatchet there) it wouldn't change anything". Wouldn't it change anything? I don't think so. I think that it would have changed a lot; it should be better, very much better, to drop the weapon (was it a hatchet?) there for the same reasons you stated. On the contrary, if she did hide it and if the weapon was by any chance found by the police in a very secret place in the estate, its discovery could have almost proved that the murder was an inside job. My question --- this is one of the many reasonable doubts (in my opinion) --- how could Lizzie have been so certain, absolutely certain that the police would not find it?

My conjecture: the weapon was not found and this not because Lizzie successfully hid it in a secret place in the house, but because the real killer, an intruder, took it away while escaped after having accomplished his double murder.

[Franz]

...
The HUGE problem is that the killer killed Mrs. Borden about an hour and a half BEFORE Mr. Borden. So what they killed her, sneaked out and down to the corner bar, had a few beers, sneaked back in, killed Mr. Borden and sneaked out again? Yea, right.

Why, please, if the killer were an intruder, did he have to sneak out after having killed Abby?

[Missus Pea-Eye]

...
The HUGE problem is that the killer killed Mrs. Borden about an hour and a half BEFORE Mr. Borden. So what they killed her, sneaked out and down to the corner bar, had a few beers, sneaked back in, killed Mr. Borden and sneaked out again? Yea, right.

Why, please, if the killer were an intruder, did he have to sneak out after having killed Abby?

There tons of news stories, even to this day about people living in attics, crawl spaces, etc. in occupied homes. If they could stay quiet for days or weeks. Is it impossible to hide in an occupied home for less than 2 hours?
Look at the case of the "Balloon Boy" he was hidden by his family for HOURS in their home. Police were all over that place, no one thought to check the attic because they thought the boy had been on the balloon. Emma wasn't home, would anyone have gone in her room while she was away?

[PossumPie]

...
The HUGE problem is that the killer killed Mrs. Borden about an hour and a half BEFORE Mr. Borden. So what they killed her, sneaked out and down to the corner bar, had a few beers, sneaked back in, killed Mr. Borden and sneaked out again? Yea, right.

Why, please, if the killer were an intruder, did he have to sneak out after having killed Abby?

There tons of news stories, even to this day about people living in attics, crawl spaces, etc. in occupied homes. If they could stay quiet for days or weeks. Is it impossible to hide in an occupied home for less than 2 hours?
Look at the case of the "Balloon Boy" he was hidden by his family for HOURS in their home. Police were all over that place, no one thought to check the attic because they thought the boy had been on the balloon. Emma wasn't home, would anyone have gone in her room while she was away?

Missus, My problem with the killer 'hiding out' for an hour and a half is that I cannot imagine anyone killing someone, then calmly hiding for 90 minutes knowing that if they are discovered, they WILL go to jail, be convicted, and DIE by hanging. Caught in the act is open-and-shut. If ANYONE discovered Mrs. Borden's body in that hour-and-a-half, the police would have come, sealed off the house, searched and discovered the killer. WHO would take that chance? My (sarcastic) reply about hoping down to the local bar for that 90 min. was because you said the intruder came IN when Lizzie went out to the barn, which was RIGHT BEFORE Mr. Borden was killed, and 90 min. AFTER Mrs. Borden was killed.

[Franz]

......
Missus, My problem with the killer 'hiding out' for an hour and a half is that I cannot imagine anyone killing someone, then calmly hiding for 90 minutes knowing that if they are discovered, they WILL go to jail, be convicted, and DIE by hanging. Caught in the act is open-and-shut. If ANYONE discovered Mrs. Borden's body in that hour-and-a-half, the police would have come, sealed off the house, searched and discovered the killer. WHO would take that chance? My (sarcastic) reply about hoping down to the local bar for that 90 min. was because you said the intruder came IN when Lizzie went out to the barn, which was RIGHT BEFORE Mr. Borden was killed, and 90 min. AFTER Mrs. Borden was killed.

1. I don't understand why you are so sure that "if they are discovered, they WILL go to jail, be convicted, and DIE by hanging". The intruder killer, if there was one, would not wait there "calmly" sitting on the bed and smoking a cigar. He must have been very vigilant during his waiting time, pricking up his ears behind the closed door, and ready to kill whoever enter in the guest room. (I am talking about the intruder conjecture in general, not necessarily linked with my Morse theory).

2. You said, "If ANYONE discovered Mrs. Borden's body...". Yes. But if Lizzie did it, this "anyone" could be Morse. Uncle John usually remained there only a couple of days, Emma's return was not immediate. Why did't Lizzie wait a day, only a day, to kill after the departure of Morse? For me this is another reasonable doubt against "Lizzie's guilt theory". Someone conjectured that the visit of Morse made the situation very urgent for Lizzie. In this case we should make another conjecture that Andrew and Morse talked about the will (or subjects of thiis kind) the 3rd evening and Lizzie heard their conversation. But in my opinion all this possibility is weak, very, very, weak...

[Franz]

Sorry, double post.

[PossumPie]

Franz. You know what time Mr. Borden came home, you know he came alone you know that no one else came in the mean time, you know he laid down to nap so it is easy to say that the killer just hung out. YOU KNOW ALL THAT. Put yourself in the killers position: YOU KNOW NONE OF THAT. You kill Mrs. Borden. You know if caught you will be put to death. You sit in the room with her body, and a hatchet, willing to kill anyone else who finds you. Minutes go by, an hour. Mr. Borden does not return. You hear voices down stairs. You begin to worry that Mr. Borden may not return soon. What if he returns bringing 3 or 4 business associates? You would sneak down and be confronted with a room full of people! How can you have any control over this? you can't. Not knowing any of this, you would be taking a HUGE risk. What If Mr. Borden came home and went to the kitchen? How did you know he laid down on the couch and closed his eyes? You could sneak downstairs and find him staring up at you from the hall. He would have yelled out. Lizzie or Bridget could have been there and screamed. There are too many "what ifs" to just sit and wait by a body. Your killer would risk having to run through the house, hacking at people who were raising the alarm. If Lizzie had come upstairs, and seen you, you would have to chase her down and kill her, then find Bridget and kill her, then wait some more and kill Mr. Borden when he came in. Doing all this not with a semiautomatic rifle, not with a pistol, but with a small hatchet....

[Constantine]

Same thing with Bridgett. Motive is not necessary to prove a crime. And one can paint a motive for Bridgett just as easily as for Lizzie. . . .

Hell, they didn't even call her by her real name!

Small point: it was Lizzie and Emma who didn't call her by her real name, not Andrew and Abby. Bridget (one t) insisted she didn't mind. Lucky for Lizzie and Emma!

[Constantine]

Sorry. I shouldn't have come in at this point. PossumPie makes some interesting points which I should not have distracted attention from.

[PossumPie]

Sorry. I shouldn't have come in at this point. PossumPie makes some interesting points which I should not have distracted attention from.

Quite alright Constantine. Many of my more complicated explanations go un-responded to. I'm just not sure people put themselves in the minds of the players here. For example: "Lizzie and Emma call me Maggie, not by my right name, so I will kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden." If any thought were given to that it would be seen as absurd.

I have given deep consideration to a killer squatting in the guest room not knowing what will happen next, for an hour and a half, and I cannot see how anyone would do that...for what? revenge for a bad business deal? Because the old man ripped me off once? After 5 minutes the fury of the kill would wear off, and fear of being caught would set in. Every minute that ticked by would cause my fear of capture to rise. 20min, 30min, an hour passes. No one comes home, yet I sit...75min, 90min pass...Does anyone realize how incredibly LONG that is to sit and do nothing but worry about getting caught? I guess not.

I've made this challenge before, and no one took me up on it. I challenge anyone in this group to go into a bedroom in their home, close the door, and sit for an hour and a half. Pretend you are the killer. What are you thinking? What plans are you making? Do you hear noises downstairs? who is it. You can't do anything to pass the time except peer out the window to watch for Mr. Borden to come home. I DARE any of you who believe that is what the killer did, to do that experiment and let us know how it turns out>!!!

[Franz]

Franz. You know what time Mr. Borden came home, you know he came alone you know that no one else came in the mean time, you know he laid down to nap so it is easy to say that the killer just hung out. YOU KNOW ALL THAT. Put yourself in the killers position: YOU KNOW NONE OF THAT. You kill Mrs. Borden. You know if caught you will be put to death. You sit in the room with her body, and a hatchet, willing to kill anyone else who finds you. Minutes go by, an hour. Mr. Borden does not return. You hear voices down stairs. You begin to worry that Mr. Borden may not return soon. What if he returns bringing 3 or 4 business associates? You would sneak down and be confronted with a room full of people! How can you have any control over this? you can't. Not knowing any of this, you would be taking a HUGE risk. What If Mr. Borden came home and went to the kitchen? How did you know he laid down on the couch and closed his eyes? You could sneak downstairs and find him staring up at you from the hall. He would have yelled out. Lizzie or Bridget could have been there and screamed. There are too many "what ifs" to just sit and wait by a body. Your killer would risk having to run through the house, hacking at people who were raising the alarm. If Lizzie had come upstairs, and seen you, you would have to chase her down and kill her, then find Bridget and kill her, then wait some more and kill Mr. Borden when he came in. Doing all this not with a semiautomatic rifle, not with a pistol, but with a small hatchet....

That's why the killer, if an intruder, should have needed a collaborator who knows the routine of Andrew and who could have obtained precise information about what Andrew would do the next morning (the 4th August), and this collaborator, who could it have been?

If you could not hide yourself for 90 minutes in the same room where you have just killed a person --- I think neither me could --- this doesn't prove nothing. Many crimes are by far beyond of a normal people's imagination.

[leitskev]

While an intruder hiding out in the guest room with Abby's corpse waiting for Andrew may not be the most likely actions of a killer, one thing is sure: however this murder really did in fact occur, some very unlikely events took place.

If there was an intruder, he had to get inside the house unnoticed, kill Abby without anyone hearing anything, hide out for an hour and a half, kill Andrew without anyone seeing or hearing it, and then escape through a neighborhood busy with eyes.

Or, if Lizzie did it, she killed Abby without Bridget hearing anything, then played it cool for an hour and a half around Bridgett, then killed Andrew and disposed of all the evidence and cleaned up in 5 to 10 minutes. This included hiding a murder weapon that subsequent searches did not find, despite the fact that the searchers believed the weapon was in the house and were looking for it.

Whatever theory one accepts, plenty of unlikely stuff took place.

[PossumPie]

While an intruder hiding out in the guest room with Abby's corpse waiting for Andrew may not be the most likely actions of a killer, one thing is sure: however this murder really did in fact occur, some very unlikely events took place.

If there was an intruder, he had to get inside the house unnoticed, kill Abby without anyone hearing anything, hide out for an hour and a half, kill Andrew without anyone seeing or hearing it, and then escape through a neighborhood busy with eyes.

Or, if Lizzie did it, she killed Abby without Bridget hearing anything, then played it cool for an hour and a half around Bridgett, then killed Andrew and disposed of all the evidence and cleaned up in 5 to 10 minutes. This included hiding a murder weapon that subsequent searches did not find, despite the fact that the searchers believed the weapon was in the house and were looking for it.

Whatever theory one accepts, plenty of unlikely stuff took place.

I've asked you before Leitskev- Who is your most likely suspect and why?

[leitskev]

Hey Possum

I've said several times, IMO the evidence points strongly to Lizzie. The odds are overwhelmingly against someone getting in and out of that fortress house unseen and unheard while committing two murders, and then escaping through a neighborhood full of watching eyes without being noticed.

I do think there are odd things with the case. There are in any situation, and usually they don't amount to anything. But whenever you have any big problems that can't be solved, you have to go back to those odd things and see if they might have been more significant.

The fact that Lizzie showed little strategic planning(couldn't get her story straight, failed to stage a crime scene, failed to cast suspicion on others) contrasts with the strange lack of physical evidence, despite the small window she had to dispose of it. Most important of this missing evidence is the hatchet. Police were bumbling at times and even dishonest...but they were determined to find the weapon they were sure was in the house. Time and determination are all that's needed. They had plenty of both. If they felt it was possible they missed something in their search, what was to stop them from searching again? Nothing.

All this suggests an accomplice to me. My guess is that someone helped her after the killings, basically by removing the hatchet. But once you open the door to any kind of accomplice, other questions arise, and we have to be open to other possibilities as a result.

The need for an accomplice means we should take a look at some of the odd things. We could start with coincidences. Anything that is chalked up to coincidence should be examined. For example, John's arrival the day before. That's not even to say John is guilty of anything, but that's a coincidence that should be looked into. John shows up, and the next day Lizzie decides to kill the Bordens. What are the odds of that being a coincidence? It very well could be. But coincidences should be explored all the time, all the more so here because of the fact that there are big things that don't add up.

The Borden home was a troubled place, it seems. Friction was apparently about to boil over for Lizzie. And Andrew just happens to send a note requesting John's presence. The note was supposedly about hiring a farm hand or something. And this note disappeared from history, seemingly "lost" by the prosecution. When John arrived that Wed, he visited with Andrew, then headed back out on a mission of some kind, not returning to the Borden house until the late hour of 8 o'clock. No one else finds anything in this story peculiar? The missing note, what looks like could be an urgent mission undertaken by John for Andrew, then the murder of Abby...in the room where John stayed, followed by Andrew's murder? Finally, John's meticulous alibi? Are these things really all unconnected? Maybe.

Then there is Bowen, who after being sent to send a telegram to Abby, does not return immediately to the house. He claims to have visited the pharmacy. Strange time to do that. Your neighbor and patient is dead, murdered, for God sakes! A murderer is running loose in the neighborhood where your wife lives, man! Is now the time to run an errand?! A newspaper article at the time reported that he visited the same house Uncle John did...John's relatives, I believe. Other than this article,there is no other evidence of this, so it's probably nothing...but worth mentioning. Finally, Bowen returns to the house, and is eventually heard by 2 or 3 cops saying Abby had passed out upstairs. According to one of them, he said Abby must have passed out and hit her head. Huh? This guy IS a doctor, right? Shortly later, it is Bowen who leads the search for the missing note that Lizzie claimed Abby received. He searches Abby and the house for it. At some point shortly after this failed search, he is seen burning notes in the stove! He claims they have nothing to do with the Bordens, but a suspicious cop notes the word Emma on one before it burns. Finally, a couple of days later, Bowen, who was not a suspect, was reported to be highly concerned over a rumor of new developments in the case.

All of these odd things with Bowen and Morse might amount to nothing. It would be reasonable, under normal circumstances, to conclude they were just dead ends, the kind that often pop up in cases. However, taking into account the serious problem of the lack of physical evidence, particularly the hatchet, these odd things have to be looked at more closely.

That's where my thinking currently stands, Possum. I'm fairly new to it, so I might be missing important things. But obviously there are elements about this case that don't add up, or people wouldn't be debating them a century later.

[PossumPie]

Hey Possum

I've said several times, IMO the evidence points strongly to Lizzie. The odds are overwhelmingly against someone getting in and out of that fortress house unseen and unheard while committing two murders, and then escaping through a neighborhood full of watching eyes without being noticed.

I do think there are odd things with the case. There are in any situation, and usually they don't amount to anything. But whenever you have any big problems that can't be solved, you have to go back to those odd things and see if they might have been more significant.

The fact that Lizzie showed little strategic planning(couldn't get her story straight, failed to stage a crime scene, failed to cast suspicion on others) contrasts with the strange lack of physical evidence, despite the small window she had to dispose of it. Most important of this missing evidence is the hatchet. Police were bumbling at times and even dishonest...but they were determined to find the weapon they were sure was in the house. Time and determination are all that's needed. They had plenty of both. If they felt it was possible they missed something in their search, what was to stop them from searching again? Nothing.

All this suggests an accomplice to me. My guess is that someone helped her after the killings, basically by removing the hatchet. But once you open the door to any kind of accomplice, other questions arise, and we have to be open to other possibilities as a result.

The need for an accomplice means we should take a look at some of the odd things. We could start with coincidences. Anything that is chalked up to coincidence should be examined. For example, John's arrival the day before. That's not even to say John is guilty of anything, but that's a coincidence that should be looked into. John shows up, and the next day Lizzie decides to kill the Bordens. What are the odds of that being a coincidence? It very well could be. But coincidences should be explored all the time, all the more so here because of the fact that there are big things that don't add up.

The Borden home was a troubled place, it seems. Friction was apparently about to boil over for Lizzie. And Andrew just happens to send a note requesting John's presence. The note was supposedly about hiring a farm hand or something. And this note disappeared from history, seemingly "lost" by the prosecution. When John arrived that Wed, he visited with Andrew, then headed back out on a mission of some kind, not returning to the Borden house until the late hour of 8 o'clock. No one else finds anything in this story peculiar? The missing note, what looks like could be an urgent mission undertaken by John for Andrew, then the murder of Abby...in the room where John stayed, followed by Andrew's murder? Finally, John's meticulous alibi? Are these things really all unconnected? Maybe.

Then there is Bowen, who after being sent to send a telegram to Abby, does not return immediately to the house. He claims to have visited the pharmacy. Strange time to do that. Your neighbor and patient is dead, murdered, for God sakes! A murderer is running loose in the neighborhood where your wife lives, man! Is now the time to run an errand?! A newspaper article at the time reported that he visited the same house Uncle John did...John's relatives, I believe. Other than this article,there is no other evidence of this, so it's probably nothing...but worth mentioning. Finally, Bowen returns to the house, and is eventually heard by 2 or 3 cops saying Abby had passed out upstairs. According to one of them, he said Abby must have passed out and hit her head. Huh? This guy IS a doctor, right? Shortly later, it is Bowen who leads the search for the missing note that Lizzie claimed Abby received. He searches Abby and the house for it. At some point shortly after this failed search, he is seen burning notes in the stove! He claims they have nothing to do with the Bordens, but a suspicious cop notes the word Emma on one before it burns. Finally, a couple of days later, Bowen, who was not a suspect, was reported to be highly concerned over a rumor of new developments in the case.

All of these odd things with Bowen and Morse might amount to nothing. It would be reasonable, under normal circumstances, to conclude they were just dead ends, the kind that often pop up in cases. However, taking into account the serious problem of the lack of physical evidence, particularly the hatchet, these odd things have to be looked at more closely.

That's where my thinking currently stands, Possum. I'm fairly new to it, so I might be missing important things. But obviously there are elements about this case that don't add up, or people wouldn't be debating them a century later.

GREAT post Leitskev! I agree with your assessment. An accomplice would solve a lot of nagging problems with Lizzie's guilt. One thing- Lizzie SEEMED to be planning the murders the night before with her lengthy discussion with the neighbor about how someone was out to kill Mr. Borden...this was before she knew Morse was coming. I don't know if that means anything or not. Upon returning home, she heard Morse talking to Andrew and Mrs. Borden and just went on upstairs.

[Franz]

Who could have been Lizzie's accomplice --- assuming that she had one --- to carry out the weapon? When did this happen? How to carry it away? where to hide it while carrying it away? where to throw it away or hide it definitively? PossumiPie excelletnly argued that Lizzie could have simply dropped her weapon near her father's body and this would not make her more suspicious (I more than totally agree). PossumPie, don't you still think so? Leitskev, do you agree with PossumPie? If your answer is affermative to my question, I wonder. why must Lizzie have an accomplice to carry away her weapon? Was it really worth to do so?

In my opinion, there wasn't an accomplice to help Lizzie to carry away her weapon. I can't recognize any candidate for this "mission". The weapon was not found because the intruder took it away when he escaped.

[leitskev]

Hey, Franz.

The reason I argue for an accomplice, most likely someone who helped get rid of the weapon, is simple: it seems unlikely that anyone but Lizzie committed the murders. And yet, though she didn't leave the property, the weapon did not turn up. That means either she hid the weapon in the house so well it was not found, or someone helped her remove it. I find the latter to be much more probable.

The list of people in a position to help is short: Bridgett, Morse, Dr. Bowen.

In theory, there could be others, such as Emma. But she did not get home until late, and by then Lizzie was well under suspicion, and they were all being watched. It would have been difficult and risky for anyone to remove a hatchet once the place was crawling with cops and spectators. The time to help Lizzie was in the immediate hours following the murders.

Bridgett left the house right after Andrew's killing. She traveled to Bowen's, and then to Alice Russel's. This gave her some opportunity to remove the weapon.

Morse was present in the early stages. This might give him some opportunity. I'm not sure if he ever had any alone time with Lizzie, and I think Morse was somewhat closely watched, so it would have been a challenge to him.

Dr. Bowen would have had the easiest opportunity. While the testimony is not totally clear, it seems likely he had alone time with Lizzie up in her room. He was not under suspicion, as the family doctor, and he could have slipped the weapon into his medical bag.

These scenarios are rightly seen as less than likely. However, that weapon being in the house through all those searches, and maybe even all those months Lizzie was in prison, seems far less likely to me.

Why didn't Lizzie leave the weapon with Andrew? Who can say. Maybe she cleaned it off, and then later managed to slip it to Dr. Bowen. Maybe she just didn't think to drop it there. If it was a hatchet from the house, maybe she felt safer making it disappear, because the intruder theory would now require us to suppose a stranger went into the cellar and retrieved a hatchet first. I doubt Lizzie thought it through. She doesn't seem to have thought much through.

Your intruder theory cannot be discounted. It's very possible, and does explain the missing weapon. Do you suppose Lizzie at least knew the intruder? Because it's very hard to imagine all of this stuff happening without anyone seeing or hearing anything. Are you saying an intruder got upstairs unseen and killed Abby, and Lizzie didn't hear it; then waited in with the corpse; then, when Lizzie conveniently went into the barn for 15 minutes, he came out of his hiding place and killed Andrew; then escaped(with the hatchet) and left the house and the yard unseen,despite the great number of potential witnesses in the area?

Even if Lizzie had her story straight, and there was no stuff about notes to Abby, and no inconsistent claims about what she was doing, even if all that held together, Lizzie would be the main suspect. The odds are overwhelmingly against all this intruder stuff happening and she didn't see or hear a thing.

[Aamartin]

Dimensions of an antique doctor's bag. (This is obviously not exact, because we don't know which kind of bag Bowen had)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-black-l ... 1356773285

Common hatchet dimensions. (obviously not exact as well)

http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/what-is-t ... a-hatchet/

Could he have fit the thing in there among the regular things he carried in it?

[leitskev]

Wow, great sleuthing Aamartin. From that, it seems to me a standard hatchet would fit. A hatchet is slightly longer than the bag, but if the hatchet is placed at an angle, it will fit perfectly.

Possum, yes, that discussion with Alice the night before suggests either that there was someone after the Bordens and Lizzie sensed it, or that she was potentially laying the groundwork for casting suspicion elsewhere. If it's the latter, all the more odd that she could not get her story straight the next day, stage a crime scene, or cast suspicion on Morse or Bridgett.

Since Lizzie likely did the crime, for me this is an indication that she was pretty darn inept. This was no mastermind of crime. And yet she WAS able to dispose of evidence and hide the murder weapon. Which lends strength to the accomplice idea.

Could Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen the morning before been about more than just illness? Could Andrew's refusal to see him been fueled by more than just cheapness?

[twinsrwe]

Dimensions of an antique doctor's bag. (This is obviously not exact, because we don't know which kind of bag Bowen had)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-black-l ... 1356773285

Common hatchet dimensions. (obviously not exact as well)

http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/what-is-t ... a-hatchet/

Could he have fit the thing in there among the regular things he carried in it?

Very interesting post, Aamartin!!!

Within the link you posted regarding the antique doctor's bag, it states that the bag measurements are 15" x 7". Unfortunately, the link regarding the hatchet doesn’t actually specify the size of the hatchet. However, I did a little research and found the following link, which gives us a better idea of whether a hatchet would fit in an antique physician’s bag.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-HAMMER- ... 1951wt_786

Here is a picture of the hatchet shown in the above link:

rsz.jpg

According to this picture, I am estimating the actual size of the hatchet to be 13¼ ” – to no more than 14” long, which would easily fit in the physician’s bag you posted.

Up until recently, I have always held the opinion that Lizzie committed the murders, hid the weapon and burned the dress she was wearing. However, since reading all of the recent topics we’ve been discussing on the forum, it is now my opinion that Lizzie (alone) committed the murders, gave Dr. Bowen the murder weapon to dispose of and burned the dress she was wearing.

[leitskev]

Thanks for the research, Twins. I believe your conclusion is a very strong possibility.

If that is the case, though, we certainly have to wonder what would lead Bowen to do that. Even though it was unlikely anyone would check Bowen's bag, it is still taking a huge risk. His motivation would have to be very strong.

If something scandalous had happened between Bowen and Lizzie, and had the Bordens found out about it, that could have been the trigger. That might have been the real purpose to Abby's visit. And once Lizzie had killed the Bordens, she might have threatened to reveal her situation with Bowen,which might have forced his hand. All wild speculation, to be sure.

If I'm going to throw wild ideas around...could Lizzie have had an abortion? Could that have been the center of all this coincidental activity...Morse running a mission of some sort for Andrew, Bowen visiting the house,etc.? Maybe the menstrual rags were really the result of injury? I guess that's crazy. Certainly Lizzie would have told Alice. I've had too much coffee today!

[PossumPie]

Who could have been Lizzie's accomplice --- assuming that she had one --- to carry out the weapon? When did this happen? How to carry it away? where to hide it while carrying it away? where to throw it away or hide it definitively? PossumiPie excelletnly argued that Lizzie could have simply dropped her weapon near her father's body and this would not make her more suspicious (I more than totally agree). PossumPie, don't you still think so? Leitskev, do you agree with PossumPie? If your answer is affermative to my question, I wonder. why must Lizzie have an accomplice to carry away her weapon? Was it really worth to do so?

In my opinion, there wasn't an accomplice to help Lizzie to carry away her weapon. I can't recognize any candidate for this "mission". The weapon was not found because the intruder took it away when he escaped.

Franz, I do NOT believe the 'accomplice' was someone at the scene. The ONLY way in my opinion that someone would stay silent about their part in it would be if they were directly involved in the killing. Only then would they keep silent all those years. I would quicker believe that Lizzie had someone help her kill them, and that person left before the alarm was raised by her. The person carried the weapon away b/c it was new, just purchased (there was gilding flakes in the wounds) and the killer didn't want the police to trace the purchase back to him. Why is this more difficult for yo to believe than your theory about men sneaking behind Mrs. Borden's back, sneaking upstairs, waiting around for 90 minutes, sneaking downstairs, killing Mr. Borden, sneaking outside, and running away ALL without anyone seeing them? It seems no less believable than your idea!

[Mara]

Forgive me if this should be in a different thread. My thoughts were triggered by this above: "Bridget was briefly suspected but had no motive. She'd just be putting herself out of a job."

Someone in the house did it. We think we know for sure of only two people who were in the house at the time of the murders: Lizzie and Bridget. I can imagine Bridget developing a profound hatred for Andrew Borden and his wife, especially Abby, who would have routinely handed out orders -- one that she may have perceived she shared with at least one of the younger Bordens. To have been ordered to perform the heavy work of outdoor window-washing on such a horribly hot day, when she was ill (morning sickness?), might have been the last straw.

I can imagine Bridget grabbing a new hatchet -- possibly purchased int he country by Morse and left lying in the kitchen as a practical gift to the family, to replace one he knew had broken, knowing the miserly Andrew would probably not bother to take care of this task -- and resolutely following the hated Abby upstairs to strike her blows. I feel it is possible that she killed Abby, that Lizzie learned of it and then colluded with her to do in Andrew Borden as well. Lizzie may have promised Bridget the security of continued employment or, better yet, a one-lump-sum gift of cash with instructions to go away, stay there and keep her mouth shut. There was certainly enough time between the murders for a fairly lengthy conversation to have taken place between the two women, laying out a nervous plan of action. In support of the idea that Bridget was involved, I recall some report of a premature "deathbed" confession. (Was it plausible to any of you?) The only serious flaw I can see in this is the issue of how outrageous an Irish servant in Fall River at the time would think being assigned to such odious window-washing detail that day. I believe someone else in a nearby house was doing the same chore, is that right? It may well have been business as usual (but that wouldn't make it any the less unwelcome). Remember, there was plenty of labor unrest in Fall River and other manufacturing towns, especially those involving immigrant labor in the mills such as those for which Fall River was once known. Maybe Bridget inherited a lot of that class anger. Not necessarily à propos this, what were Bridget and the Irish girl next door discussing over the fence? That's only one of many moments I wish I could travel back in time to witness.

I rather like the possibility that Dr. Bowen sympathized deeply with the Borden women and helped Lizzie, perhaps without understanding until it was too late exactly what kind of help he had committed himself to provide forever. The source of the sympathy? I have never heard that the Borden household offered anything in the way of decent facilities for personal hygiene other than slop buckets in the bedrooms and a washtub down cellar. That must have been perfectly horrible in winter and not much better at any other time of year. Am I right about those details, or off base? I've not visited the house, only the floor plans available online, so I'm sketchy about this.

[Mara]

Up until recently, I have always held the opinion that Lizzie committed the murders, hid the weapon and burned the dress she was wearing. However, since reading all of the recent topics we’ve been discussing on the forum, it is now my opinion that Lizzie (alone) committed the murders, gave Dr. Bowen the murder weapon to dispose of and burned the dress she was wearing.

Your ideas are really intriguing, as are leitskev's. What do you think Dr. Bowen's motive was for helping Lizzie in this way? It does seem he was exceptionally sympathetic.

[goddessoftheclassroom]

Just for fun....

1. Bridget, in a rage, murders Mrs. Borden, leaving the hatchet that she'd found in the barn when she went for water to wash the windows. She lies down to rest, plans her story, and waits for someone to discover the truth.
2. Lizzie goes up to her room and sees Mrs. Borden's body on the floor from the stairs. Investigating, she sees the hatchet. She realizes that only Bridget could have done this. She also realizes that she has her chance to be free from her father.
3. She takes the hatchet and murders her father.
4. She calls for Bridget, who is then thoroughly confused when Lizzie says, "Someone's murdered Father." Bridget realizes that Lizzie knows the truth and what Lizzie has done, but she can't speak out because she's implicate her own guilt.
5. Bridget discards the hatchet when she runs to summon help.

[Franz]

Who could have been Lizzie's accomplice --- assuming that she had one --- to carry out the weapon? When did this happen? How to carry it away? where to hide it while carrying it away? where to throw it away or hide it definitively? PossumiPie excelletnly argued that Lizzie could have simply dropped her weapon near her father's body and this would not make her more suspicious (I more than totally agree). PossumPie, don't you still think so? Leitskev, do you agree with PossumPie? If your answer is affermative to my question, I wonder. why must Lizzie have an accomplice to carry away her weapon? Was it really worth to do so?

In my opinion, there wasn't an accomplice to help Lizzie to carry away her weapon. I can't recognize any candidate for this "mission". The weapon was not found because the intruder took it away when he escaped.

Franz, I do NOT believe the 'accomplice' was someone at the scene. The ONLY way in my opinion that someone would stay silent about their part in it would be if they were directly involved in the killing. Only then would they keep silent all those years. I would quicker believe that Lizzie had someone help her kill them, and that person left before the alarm was raised by her. The person carried the weapon away b/c it was new, just purchased (there was gilding flakes in the wounds) and the killer didn't want the police to trace the purchase back to him. Why is this more difficult for yo to believe than your theory about men sneaking behind Mrs. Borden's back, sneaking upstairs, waiting around for 90 minutes, sneaking downstairs, killing Mr. Borden, sneaking outside, and running away ALL without anyone seeing them? It seems no less believable than your idea!

So, if I understand well, you mean:

1. It's less possible that someone at the scene, for example Dr. Bowen, helped Lizzie only by taking her weapon away, because, in your opinion, Dr. Dowen in this case was not involved directly in the murder, so it would be very difficult for him to stay silent. Do I understand well?

2. If so, you will challenge my theory especially for the lack of Morse's motive evidence. You would not challenge it because Morse had an accomplice who accomplished the double murder, right? Since his accomplice was involved directly in the killing, he must have stayed silent all his life together with Morse. From this point of view, my theory is a possible one, don't you think so?

The discussion is certainly open. I never think that my idea is the most believable. However, I would like to say two words about your conjecture: someone hired by Lizzie killed Addy and Andrew. Well, it's certainly possible. But if I were Lizzie and I hired someone to kill Andrew and Abby, I would ask my accomplice to kill Andrew 5 minutes or so after I would have left the house. I would make a tour in the stores and simulate to search for Abby, and would return to home half an hour later. By doing so, I would have a solid alibi for Andrew's murder. Since it would be easy to establish that the two victims were killed by the same killer, I would not be suspected for Abby's murder neither.

[PossumPie]

Forgive me if this should be in a different thread. My thoughts were triggered by this above: "Bridget was briefly suspected but had no motive. She'd just be putting herself out of a job."

Someone in the house did it. We think we know for sure of only two people who were in the house at the time of the murders: Lizzie and Bridget. I can imagine Bridget developing a profound hatred for Andrew Borden and his wife, especially Abby, who would have routinely handed out orders -- one that she may have perceived she shared with at least one of the younger Bordens. To have been ordered to perform the heavy work of outdoor window-washing on such a horribly hot day, when she was ill (morning sickness?), might have been the last straw.

I can imagine Bridget grabbing a new hatchet -- possibly purchased int he country by Morse and left lying in the kitchen as a practical gift to the family, to replace one he knew had broken, knowing the miserly Andrew would probably not bother to take care of this task -- and resolutely following the hated Abby upstairs to strike her blows. I feel it is possible that she killed Abby, that Lizzie learned of it and then colluded with her to do in Andrew Borden as well. Lizzie may have promised Bridget the security of continued employment or, better yet, a one-lump-sum gift of cash with instructions to go away, stay there and keep her mouth shut. There was certainly enough time between the murders for a fairly lengthy conversation to have taken place between the two women, laying out a nervous plan of action. In support of the idea that Bridget was involved, I recall some report of a premature "deathbed" confession. (Was it plausible to any of you?) The only serious flaw I can see in this is the issue of how outrageous an Irish servant in Fall River at the time would think being assigned to such odious window-washing detail that day. I believe someone else in a nearby house was doing the same chore, is that right? It may well have been business as usual (but that wouldn't make it any the less unwelcome). Remember, there was plenty of labor unrest in Fall River and other manufacturing towns, especially those involving immigrant labor in the mills such as those for which Fall River was once known. Maybe Bridget inherited a lot of that class anger. Not necessarily à propos this, what were Bridget and the Irish girl next door discussing over the fence? That's only one of many moments I wish I could travel back in time to witness.

I rather like the possibility that Dr. Bowen sympathized deeply with the Borden women and helped Lizzie, perhaps without understanding until it was too late exactly what kind of help he had committed himself to provide forever. The source of the sympathy? I have never heard that the Borden household offered anything in the way of decent facilities for personal hygiene other than slop buckets in the bedrooms and a washtub down cellar. That must have been perfectly horrible in winter and not much better at any other time of year. Am I right about those details, or off base? I've not visited the house, only the floor plans available online, so I'm sketchy about this.

A few thoughts: It was NOT overly hot that day. Somehow that Urban Legend started. Looking up the Meteorological data for Fall River shows low 80's. Not 'too hot' to wash windows. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bridget hated Mrs. or Mr. Borden. She was treated well, paid fairly, and chose to stay with them. The 'job market' wasn't overly tight back then, for example- After the murders Bridget immediately worked for the Jailer:

Lizzie's trial Bridget Sullivan testimony)

Q: A word or two about your present residence. You understand that you are detained as a witness by the Commonwealth in the place in which you are now?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Have you been permitted to go in and out evenings?
A: I go in and out all I please.

Q: And live in the family of the sheriff, the keeper of the jail?* And do the work in that household, do you?
A: I do the cooking up to this time.

Q: Did you remain at the house after the homicide any length of time?
A: I staid (sic) there. I went out Thursday night and slept out in Mrs. Miller's girl's house, and Friday night I slept in the house.

Bridget worked there for awhile, quit, and moved west. Doesn't seem like she was worried about finding another job, so why kill her employer when she could just quit?
Emma and Lizzie called her Maggie, which is a bit demeaning, but they were used to calling their old maid that, and the name stuck.
I think if Bridget had killed Mrs. Borden, and Lizzie discovered it, Lizzie would have killed her father, and put ALL the blame on Bridget. Remember this was the late 1800's, foreigners were suspects in any crime. It would have been VERY easy for Lizzie to shift all the blame on Bridget. Bridget, being a foreigner, would have made a great suspect, but even at the time she was never seriously considered- she had just as much opportunity to kill as Lizzie did.

[PossumPie]

So, if I understand well, you mean:

1. It's less possible that someone at the scene, for example Dr. Bowen, helped Lizzie only by taking her weapon away, because, in your opinion, Dr. Dowen in this case was not involved directly in the murder, so it would be very difficult for him to stay silent. Do I understand well?

2. If so, you will challenge my theory especially for the lack of Morse's motive evidence. You would not challenge it because Morse had an accomplice who accomplished the double murder, right? Since his accomplice was involved directly in the killing, he must have stayed silent all his life together with Morse. From this point of view, my theory is a possible one, don't you think so?

The discussion is certainly open. I never think that my idea is the most believable. However, I would like to say two words about your conjecture: someone hired by Lizzie killed Addy and Andrew. Well, it's certainly possible. But if I were Lizzie and I hired someone to kill Andrew and Abby, I would ask my accomplice to kill Andrew 5 minutes or so after I would have left the house. I would make a tour in the stores and simulate to search for Abby, and would return to home half an hour later. By doing so, I would have a solid alibi for Andrew's murder. Since it would be easy to establish that the two victims were killed by the same killer, I would not be suspected for Abby's murder neither.

Franz, I don't believe someone at the scene helped Lizzie by taking the hatchet away. Legally anyone involved in helping a murderer escape justice is just as guilty of the murder as the killer is. Remember President Lincoln's assassination? Dr. Mudd, who was a country doctor who inadvertently helped treat an injured John Wilkes Booth, was convicted and sentenced to Life in prison JUST for helping treat the assassin's leg. That is where we get the phrase "His name is Mudd" From the disgrace Dr. Mudd felt after helping the president's assassin. I don't think any of Lizzie's friends would have risked death by hanging just to take a bloody hatchet away.

As for any scenario that needs more than one person to know about the murders...the more people who know who did it, the less likely they will all keep their mouths shut.

[Franz]

So, if I understand well, you mean:

1. It's less possible that someone at the scene, for example Dr. Bowen, helped Lizzie only by taking her weapon away, because, in your opinion, Dr. Dowen in this case was not involved directly in the murder, so it would be very difficult for him to stay silent. Do I understand well?

2. If so, you will challenge my theory especially for the lack of Morse's motive evidence. You would not challenge it because Morse had an accomplice who accomplished the double murder, right? Since his accomplice was involved directly in the killing, he must have stayed silent all his life together with Morse. From this point of view, my theory is a possible one, don't you think so?

The discussion is certainly open. I never think that my idea is the most believable. However, I would like to say two words about your conjecture: someone hired by Lizzie killed Addy and Andrew. Well, it's certainly possible. But if I were Lizzie and I hired someone to kill Andrew and Abby, I would ask my accomplice to kill Andrew 5 minutes or so after I would have left the house. I would make a tour in the stores and simulate to search for Abby, and would return to home half an hour later. By doing so, I would have a solid alibi for Andrew's murder. Since it would be easy to establish that the two victims were killed by the same killer, I would not be suspected for Abby's murder neither.

Franz, I don't believe someone at the scene helped Lizzie by taking the hatchet away. Legally anyone involved in helping a murderer escape justice is just as guilty of the murder as the killer is. Remember President Lincoln's assassination? Dr. Mudd, who was a country doctor who inadvertently helped treat an injured John Wilkes Booth, was convicted and sentenced to Life in prison JUST for helping treat the assassin's leg. That is where we get the phrase "His name is Mudd" From the disgrace Dr. Mudd felt after helping the president's assassin. I don't think any of Lizzie's friends would have risked death by hanging just to take a bloody hatchet away.

As for any scenario that needs more than one person to know about the murders...the more people who know who did it, the less likely they will all keep their mouths shut.

I agree.

[leitskev]

It's taking a huge chance helping Lizzie to remove the weapon. It requires huge motivation, something the accomplice wanted covered. If there was indeed an accomplice, odds are they would forever remain quiet about it.

For me, the problem is that no matter what version of events someone accepts, you have to accept something that was rather unlikely. It IS unlikely that someone took the risk of taking out the hatchet for Lizzie. It is also unlikely that the hatchet remained hidden in the house through determined police searches by cops that were so desperate to find it that in the end they concocted the bogus broken hatchet theory. And it's also unlikely that an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed.

So it's a matter of choosing which unlikely scenario is most likely. In the end, that's what we argue about...which is the fun of it!

On Bridgett's possible motive: they lived together in the house. She was the maid, a foreigner in a town where foreigner's were looked down on. There is no way of our knowing what was in her head. We can't expect a hatchet murderer to be rational in their motive. I don't think these arguments about the irrationality of killing your employers or being able to get a new job have any relevance in what would have been a crazed and emotional act.

I think Bridgett could certainly have had motive. There is no way to know. However, keep in mind that Lizzie's testimony exonerates Bridgett in Andrew's death, or pretty much does. And Lizzie's testimony confirms Bridgett's version of events all morning. So unless Lizzie is covering for Bridgett, which seems highly unlikely, Bridgett is largely off the hook.

Although there is the possibility that Lizzie and Bridgett were in cahoots, with Lizzie promising financial reward for Bridgett. I have not seen any evidence in favor or this...but I'm open if someone has some!

[Aamartin]

Just for fun....

1. Bridget, in a rage, murders Mrs. Borden, leaving the hatchet that she'd found in the barn when she went for water to wash the windows. She lies down to rest, plans her story, and waits for someone to discover the truth.
2. Lizzie goes up to her room and sees Mrs. Borden's body on the floor from the stairs. Investigating, she sees the hatchet. She realizes that only Bridget could have done this. She also realizes that she has her chance to be free from her father.
3. She takes the hatchet and murders her father.
4. She calls for Bridget, who is then thoroughly confused when Lizzie says, "Someone's murdered Father." Bridget realizes that Lizzie knows the truth and what Lizzie has done, but she can't speak out because she's implicate her own guilt.
5. Bridget discards the hatchet when she runs to summon help.

Mrs Churchill saw Bridget racing back and forth from the Bowen house. I don't think she could have secreted a hatchet while running-- but it is a fun scenario!

[leitskev]

Why not, Aamartin? A hatchet is small. I think someone found that a standard was like 14 inches. That would easily fit within one's clothing. I'm not saying she did have the hatchet, but she could have. I don't, in fact, think that's what happened, it's possible.

[Franz]

...
For me, the problem is that no matter what version of events someone accepts, you have to accept something that was rather unlikely. It IS unlikely that someone took the risk of taking out the hatchet for Lizzie. It is also unlikely that the hatchet remained hidden in the house through determined police searches by cops that were so desperate to find it that in the end they concocted the bogus broken hatchet theory. And it's also unlikely that an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed.

So it's a matter of choosing which unlikely scenario is most likely. In the end, that's what we argue about...

I agree.

And I have chosen my senario, in my opinion the most likely one among all these unlikely scenarios: "an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed."

[leitskev]

Lol, that is what it comes to, isn't it Franz? Now matter what scenario we choose, it's pretty unlikely. That's why the case is so intriguing. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that Abby and Andrew were killed. And I'm not biting on a murder/suicide theory!