Motives not Suspects

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon May 12, 2014 4:44 am

I thought I'd go about this in a different way. In this thread I'd like us to discuss possible motives WITHOUT naming suspects. It seems more objective to say "The Bordens are dead... why?" (instead of "Who?")
Crimes have motives. Greed, revenge, thrill, to keep someone quiet, etc. We have an elderly couple here who are quite dead, and we need to know why. Of course some motives point towards certain suspects. If we say "Greed" the only two who benefited financially were Emma and Lizzie. But I would like to try to keep names out of it if we can. Revenge is a possible motive, if someone got angry enough at Abby and/or Andrew, they may want to kill them. Problem here is why not just kill the person you were angry at? Why kill the spouse also? I could even understand why someone furious at Andrew would kill Abby, then Andrew would have to live knowing his wife was murdered. But why both? Was someone angry at Lizzie and/or Emma enough to kill their parents?
Killing for the trill of it is a possibility, but thrill killers generally don't stop at 1 or 2, I think we would see a pattern in the geographic area as we did in the Jack the Ripper case. There was only one other ax murder about the same time and place, and I believe they caught the guy and he couldn't have killed the Bordens b/c he wasn't in the country at the time. What about killing them b/c they knew something they shouldn't have? Doesn't seem likely, they led simple lives, and what kind of thing could they have learned worth killing them over?
What other motives can we think of to warrant killing a couple of old folks in their home?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon May 12, 2014 5:12 am

I suppose you could say revenge might be a motive if long ago in Andrew's past he had wronged someone so deeply that the only way they, or their child (when an adult) could get back at him, would be by exterminating both Andrew and his wife. Sarah could have been implicated in this long-ago wrong, but with her death, the blame could shift to Abby if the person was consumed by hatred.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon May 12, 2014 8:49 am

Curryong wrote:I suppose you could say revenge might be a motive if long ago in Andrew's past he had wronged someone so deeply that the only way they, or their child (when an adult) could get back at him, would be by exterminating both Andrew and his wife. Sarah could have been implicated in this long-ago wrong, but with her death, the blame could shift to Abby if the person was consumed by hatred.

Ah, "Revenge is a dish best served cold"

I also was thinking that maybe someone wanted to get even by killing the Bordens then pinning the blame on Lizzie, Emma, Bridget, or Morse. Problem there is Emma and Morse had air-tight alibis so were not implicated and If someone was trying to "frame" Lizzie, why do it while Morse was staying there? Plus I know I sound like a broken record, but I have trouble believing a revenge killer would hide in the Murder house with Dead Abby for 90 minutes waiting for Andrew to come home.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon May 12, 2014 6:25 pm

It could have been I suppose, a business deal, far back in Andrew's past, which left a rival financially ruined or near to it. If a male child of this person grew up listening to the story and becoming obsessed about it that could lead to murder.
A tradesman or labourer working away from the other workmen in Crowe's yard, could have in theory, I suppose, slipped away for a few minutes and killed Abby, though there would have been difficulties over cleaning up afterwards. Again, of course, there are all the objections about avoiding Lizzie, etc., and murdering Andrew would have been virtually impossible.

There could be a scenario in which Lizzie somehow by chance met a male in the previous weeks, NOT a lover, but someone who was prepared to 'take care' of Andrew for her while she had the pleasure of disposing of Abby. Of course there are, as always, the difficulties of that person keeping quiet for the rest of their lives, but a large enough financial inducement might allow silence for several years, at least. Under double jeopardy Lizzie couldn't be tried again.

He could be smuggled in, immediately Bridget departed upstairs, (difficult but not impossible), then be installed ready in the dining room while Lizzie fussed over her father in the sitting room, making him comfortable on the couch. He could have disposed of the hatchet on the Crowe barn roof when making a get-away from the back of the Borden property.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon May 12, 2014 8:29 pm

Author John Lescroat lists four overarching motives for murder: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing. These might be split out into the following:
To Keep a Secret
Revenge
Frustration/Hate
Money/Greed
Sex/Jealousy
Property Dispute
Personal Vendetta
Political
Class Conflict/Hate Crime
During the Commission of Another Felony
Urge to Protect/Put Out of Pain and Suffering
Psychosis or Other Mental Disorder/Obsession/Stalking

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon May 12, 2014 9:00 pm

Which two or more would Lizzie fit into on that list? Whoops, sorry!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue May 13, 2014 5:28 am

Curryong wrote:Which two or more would Lizzie fit into on that list? Whoops, sorry!

That's ok, I know that suspects are going to get mentioned sooner or later. Many of the things listed on the above list can be ruled out but it helps us think outside the box.

My trouble is that I cannot get my mind around an outsider sneaking in the house avoiding the occupants, killing at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT in the perfect room not to be caught, then waiting for over an hour then sneaking downstairs avoiding 3 other people in the house (Andrew is home now), just happening upon Andrew on the couch with eyes closed, killing him, sneaking out of the house all unseen. Could it be done? Yes, perhaps 1 in every 20 attempts....but why would someone take that chance KNOWING the odds would be that they would be seen or confronted at some point in that hour and a half? Doesn't make sense. That alone convinces me it was someone who's presence in the house if passed on the stairs would be unquestioned.

Awhile back, I tried an experiment for several days when I came home from work. I tried to get in my house, upstairs and into my room without anyone seeing me. I have a wife and a 23 year old step daughter living here. Their location in the house is random, some days my wife was in the kitchen, some days she was upstairs folding laundry. I did sneak in a few times unseen, but like I said, it was more likely that I ran into one or the other during my "experiment" My house is over 2200 square feet, comparable size to the Borden home. The killer there had to avoid 3 people at all times Bridget, Lizzie, and Abby, then Bridget, Lizzie and Andrew. I had a difficult time avoiding just 2 people. Couple that with it being broad daylight, and the possibility of someone on the street or a neighbor seeing them come or go, and it is virtually impossible to guarantee to yourself before you start that you will not be seen

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue May 13, 2014 5:55 am

But in my second scenario of my previous post I put forward that Lizzie, who killed Abby for gain (and probably some pleasure) had managed to hire someone to kill Andrew, smuggling him into the kitchen through the side door as soon as Bridget departed up stairs.

This assassin for hire would then, as previously instructed, quietly wait behind the door in the dining room while Lizzie made Andrew comfortable on the sitting room couch, with hatchet in hand ready to finish him off.

If, by some chance, he had been caught by Andrew waiting in the kitchen prior, Lizzie could have made up some story of him coming to buy eggs, pickles etc. There would have been no-one else to avoid. Bridget was upstairs. Lizzie, sparkling clean, could have waited until he had cleaned up and cleared off, via the back yard, disposing of the hatchet on the way (Crowe's barn roof.) Then she would have called Bridget.

Of course, I believe that L----- did both murders by herself. Nevertheless, I do have an inkling that she (and Emma) could have been just cold and calculating enough to hire someone, if they could.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue May 13, 2014 10:28 am

I think any rational person who really looks at all of the "blind luck" that would have to happen for a stranger not to get caught, would have to admit if it wasn't either of the two people who were at the house, it had to be someone who got help from one of the ladies present. As you said Curryong, one of the two helping the killer hide, find Andrew, and get out without being seen. I am 80% sure Lizzie did it, BUT if she didn't - she or Bridget aided the killer. I mean how do you blindly sneak out of the upstairs room and "hope" nobody is standing there at the bottom of the steps, or in the hall, or coming from the kitchen, or.......?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue May 13, 2014 10:54 am

Whoever the killer was, they had a brilliant plan that obviously worked; they got away with the murder of two people!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue May 13, 2014 11:28 am

twinsrwe wrote:Whoever the killer was, they had a brilliant plan that obviously worked; they got away with the murder of two people!

"...They had a brilliant plan..." Not necessarily. IF it were a stranger from outside (NOT Lizzie or Emma or helped by one of them) THEN they had one truckload of LUCK- not skill - in not getting caught. If you sneak into someones house with THREE people awake and walking around the house, hide for an hour and a half kill two people and sneak out all unseen, that is NOT a brilliant plan, that is the most monstrously huge amount of luck I have ever heard of!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue May 13, 2014 8:26 pm

I agree, Possum, that if the killer was an intruder they had a whole boat load of luck. However, what if the killings were done by Lizzie?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue May 13, 2014 10:56 pm

I think luck was certainly with Lizzie on that day, and throughout her trial really.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed May 14, 2014 12:35 am

PossumPie wrote:I mean how do you blindly sneak out of the upstairs room and "hope" nobody is standing there at the bottom of the steps, or in the hall, or coming from the kitchen, or.......?

The only answer I can come up with to this question is that murderer was willing to kill anyone he/she encountered. At this point it makes no difference who has the misfortune to wander in into killer's path because they will end up on the wrong side of a hatchet blade. OR the killer needed to be willing to die on order to commit the crime...sort of like a suicide hatchet wielder...except he/she managed to escaped unnoticed. Or, what if Abby was the real victim, and Andrew happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (I am thinking way outside the box here....:-)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:29 am

The 'Andrew in the wrong place at the wrong time' would work better, wouldn't it, if the murders had been committed closer in time. However you look at it though, the killer(s) sure enjoyed a run of luck with the Borden murders.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:31 am

debbiediablo wrote:
PossumPie wrote:I mean how do you blindly sneak out of the upstairs room and "hope" nobody is standing there at the bottom of the steps, or in the hall, or coming from the kitchen, or.......?
The only answer I can come up with to this question is that murderer was willing to kill anyone he/she encountered. At this point it makes no difference who has the misfortune to wander in into killer's path because they will end up on the wrong side of a hatchet blade. OR the killer needed to be willing to die on order to commit the crime...sort of like a suicide hatchet wielder...except he/she managed to escaped unnoticed. Or, what if Abby was the real victim, and Andrew happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (I am thinking way outside the box here....:-)

This is unlikely...If you were in the hall at the bottom of the stairs, and saw a stranger carrying a bloody hatchet at the top of the stairs, Your scream and run for the outside would be more likely than the intruder killing you. If you are seen by anyone, they would raise an alarm. Running around swinging a bloody hatchet trying to catch 3 screaming people is NOT a good plan. If the intruder did not absolutely catch each and every occupant of the house with their back to him, and hit them across the skull with a hard blow, then they would scream and raise the alarm. The intruder wasn't using a pistol with a silencer, he had to get within arms reach of EVERY VICTIM without being seen, and whack them. No, whoever the killer was, it was almost certainly someone who was helped by Lizzie or Bridget, or it was Lizzie or Bridget themselves. Anyone else couldn't explain their presence in the house if confronted.
Abby being the actual victim is also illogical, why kill her, then sit for 90 minutes with her body? Why not leave?

This was always the most MAJOR flaw in Franz's plan that someone sneaked in and hid for an hour and a half and then just happened to know that Andrew was 1. downstairs alone 2. in the parlor 3. asleep or at least had his eyes closed and wouldn't see the attacker and 4. Lizzie and Bridget were no where around....WAY to many uncontrolled variables.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:53 pm

I made a somewhat long comment yesterday that didn't seem to post. So I will make a very shortened version now in case the other turns up.

I think there is a possibility Abby accidentally murderously enraged, probably a drunk and/or mentally unstable man. For example what if she caught a transient stealing a few pears and while ordering him to leave, called him a thief or bum? There are lots of scenarios I can think of.

Then maybe the man slipped through the unlocked screen door, possibly followed Abby upstairs and figured he'd teach her a lesson because he won't allow a woman to treat him that way. (Meanwhile Bridget is outside, in the barn, talking to a friend over the fence. Lizzie seems self absorbed and involved with her laundry at least part of the time in the cellar.)

It bothers me that the doctors found Abby's skirts hiked up immodestly so they pulled them down. Did Abby insult a pervert?

Maybe Lizzie went to her room before the killer could leave. Maybe he didn't know there was anyone else besides Bridget outside and Abby inside. When Andrew came home and Lizzie went downstairs the killer could crack open the door and listen. Was Andrew hard of hearing? Did Lizzie and Bridget speak loudly to him? Could the killer understand that Andrew was going to nap & Lizzie was going downtown perhaps?

Lizzie subsequently said she had thought she heard Abby come in, though a short time earlier she had told her father Abby was out. As Lizzie went out the door to find some pears did she perhaps hear Andrew call out, "Abby", in response to hearing the killer creeping out of the house? Is this what sealed Andrew's fate?

Lizzie originally said she heard a scraping sound and a groan until everyone disabused her of this since Andrew could not have made such noises. Windows were open that day. Bridget testified she had closed some so she could wash them. Did the killer open (scraping sound) and go out a window, hitting the ground with a groan?

An outsider as killer could explain the missing weapon. (I never accepted the broken hatchet from the basement.) A stranger may have kept the weapon to kill anyone he had to. Perhaps he did throw it onto a neighboring roof or perhaps he kept it. Possibly it was a hatchet from the Borden's home or yard. Perhaps the weapon wasn't a hatchet after all and it was a personal possession of the murderer.

(It bothers me that bits of Abby's skull were attached to hair fragments, cut by a "sharp instrument". A hatchet does not necessarily fit this profile.)

I am new to this forum but have been involved in similar forums. By presenting many different ideas from different view points and experiences make it possible to find new perspectives. Someday some of these historic mysteries may even be solved. I do not pretend that my ideas here are answers, but they are reasonable possibilities.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:55 pm

Barely got the last one posted & the smilies came out in the middle. I'm not that good with the computer yet.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed May 14, 2014 4:46 pm

irina wrote:Barely got the last one posted & the smilies came out in the middle. I'm not that good with the computer yet.

Welcome...Your theory is well thought out and makes logical sense. The only problem I have with it is that from all medical information I have read, and reading all the autopsy reports of Abby and Andrew, and reading the testimony, there was about 90 minutes between killings. That just seems too long to hang out in a house where you just murdered a woman.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 pm

What do we have if everyone told the truth? I know the hider in the house presents problems but to me no more problems than no weapon and no blood evidence. If Lizzie and the killer were in cahoots then Emma's room would've been the perfect hiding place because Lizzie would be between the killer and anyone trying to gain entrance. I'm not sure we can make any assumption that the killer operated from an axis of logic....that staying in the house for 90 minutes was even the plan. Maybe the killer got stuck in the house after Abby's murder and couldn't get out without killing Andrew. Everyone has looked at Andrew as having the enemies....what do we really know about Abby other than she was Andrew's wife and the daughters didn't much like her.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed May 14, 2014 7:11 pm

Welcome irina, good to see newbies posting.
With the question of Abby's skirts, I'd just like to say, having been a long time student of the Jack the Ripper killings, three of his five victims were found with their skirts hitched up. (Of the other two, one was in bed and he was disturbed while killing the other.) I don't think the killers of those women or of Abby Borden really cared about their appearance of respectability after death. It was just a form of contempt but the body wasn't 'arranged' in any particular way.

An intruder could have slipped in through the side door while Bridget was washing the windows. That is very true. The trouble is, no-one knows Lizzie's location at the probable time of Abby's murder, (round about 9:30am or a little earlier. I tend to think earlier.)

A transient wouldn't know the layout of the house, and if Abby (who seems to me to have been rather meek and mild) saw a strange man who had been aggressive about pears or something, attempting to enter the house, you would think she would scream for Lizzie, or at the very least, open a window and scream for Bridget! A stranger seeing, hearing another person or possibly more inside a house he doesn't know would retreat, by logic, unless absolutely insane!

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed May 14, 2014 10:52 pm

I don't see a problem with an aggressive, psychotic, possibly drunk stranger hanging out in a strange house for a period of time. There are a lot of nasty criminals now who creep through houses while occupants sleep, etc. Some creeps get their thrills from prowling. A good reason to believe Abby was killed around 9:30 is because she wasn't seen by anyone after that, or just before that. Otherwise her time of death is estimated by stomach contents and blood coagulation, neither of which seem to offer much that is definitive.

I have a feeling Abby could be strong willed. I find it more possible that she would order someone out of her house than that she would run screaming to the window. Maybe the man was drunk and she ordered him to leave. Actually that would probably be my first inclination. Maybe Abby did scream but Brigit was in the barn or somewhere outside and Lizzie was in the basement. In those days people were more self reliant and did not have ready means to call police, etc. Without steady media reports of horrendous crimes such as we have today a homeowner's first reaction to an intruder I think would have been to take charge and order the intruder out.

The forensic description of Abby's wounds seem to me to not necessarily substantiate effective rage nor incredible strength. One could argue that Lizzie did it and she chopped wildly, however another explanation could be that a man was drunk. If so I believe it would be even more likely that Abby would have ordered the man out of her house. "You should be ashamed of yourself, you drunkard!" Maybe that set the man off.

I mentioned Abby's hiked up skirts to defend my idea of a man doing it. While it would be possible the killer put his (or her) foot between Abby's legs and stepped forward in the commission of the crime, thus pushing the skirts upward, that seems less likely than that the skirts were purposely lifted and left in a way that humiliated the victim. However those skirts were found the doctors felt the necessity of restoring modesty. I too am a student of Jack the Ripper. He fully intended to defile his victims and horrify anyone who stumbled on his crimes. Possibly Abby's killer was a drunken pervert. Neither Abby's age or appearance would preclude this. JtR even preferred middle aged women and Mary Kelly may have been in her thirties and not the young aberration to the pattern.

Also in defense of a man as the murderer there is the issue of the murder weapon. As I mentioned previously I have some doubts a regular hatchet was used. I live in the western US and have cut up meat scraps and road kill for petfood, using a hatchet. (I'm always a bit squeamish about this because it reminds me of the Bordens.) Anyway a regular hatched that has been used for other things like splitting kindling isn't all that sharp as far as lacerating flesh. If the weapon used on the Bordens was something other than a hatchet, what could it have been? What might a man carry with him that could do that damage and why would he carry it? The weapon was likely not found in my opinion. What kind of tool would a man walk around with and want to keep after a horrific crime? A shingling hammer comes to mind. (I believe one of these was found on a neighbor's roof a year later but apparently claimed by a workman.) Would a man in the building trade in those days have carried tools with him? I would think likely. There were probably a lot of odd tools back then, that workmen may have carried, so there might be a number of them that could have been used in the murders.

As for where was Lizzie when a man entered the house~I would suggest in the basement/cellar. Seems like she was dealing with her laundry on that day and Bridget had hung the laundry in the cellar earlier in the week. Lizzie sewed a bit of tape on a garment and later prepared to iron handkerchiefs. Also the indoor toilet (WC) was in the cellar. Perhaps she paid a visit there. Beyond that Lizzie seems to be self absorbed. Despite expressing her fears to Alice Russell Lizzie seemed to barely pay attention to a man Andrew had an argument with in the morning. If she was downstairs and she merely heard foot steps enter the house she may have assumed it was Bridget, if she paid attention at all.

One final thought about my previous suggestion of the murderer going out a window, Lizzie initially said she was in the barn looking for a piece of iron to fix a screen. Since the point is made that she was never questioned about what screen and lead sinkers got added, nobody knows what she meant or if this was a truthful statement. I always thought it was crazy to talk about fixing a screen with "a piece of iron". Then I got to thinking about how those old screens were attached to the window frame. I own a house built in 1890 and little has been done to it since. Little iron tabs hold some of the screens to the frames. (Nails suffice for others.) I could understand a "piece of iron" repairing a screen if it was used to hold the screen to the frame. Was there a screen that Bridget couldn't replace after her window washing for example? Maybe this is going far afield but it could address Lizzie's honesty and support the idea that the Borden home may not have been as secure as all the locks and precautions made it seem.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu May 15, 2014 2:52 am

My pet theory has been that the killer came in with Lizzie the night before, after dark, and went upstairs with her to Emma's room. Lizzie got up late which would further keep anyone from intruding.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu May 15, 2014 3:14 am

What if, debbie, Daddy dearest had got up when he heard his daughter come in, and, throwing open the sitting room door, gestured to Lizzie "Come in and say Hallo to your Uncle John!" Awkward!!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu May 15, 2014 3:34 am

I think Bridget gave testimony (have to look it up) that she had left piles of clean, ironed linen in the dining room, ready for Abby and Lizzie to collect it that day. A very sharp, very new hatchet could leave such blows as you've described, I think, but then I believe that the Crowe's Barn weapon is THE one.

I'm interested in why you feel the Borden murders are so much more of a male crime than a female's, irina. Are females, especially young fit ones in the grip of a murderous rage, unable to summon up enough ferocity to kill, in your opinion?

Motive comes into it, too, I think. How fortuitous for Lizzie, facing years of drabness as a spinster daughter wanting a better life, that a mentally deranged man comes into her father's house and not only kills the woman she despises and hates, but also murders her father too. Sparing her life too, the only other person in the house!

Thus leaving her to pick up the pieces--er, engaging her time and money in spending a great fortune in very comfortable surroundings, books, the theatre, travel, restaurants etc!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu May 15, 2014 5:15 am

I've posted quite extensively in other threads about the medical aspect of gastroduodenal emptying times, the effect of pancreatic enzymes on digestion time, and other things I've read in the autopsy and testimony that set the time of death at about 9:30. I've read other published authors who NEED them to be killed about the same time for their theory to work, but they twist or ignore mountains of medical evidence -either b/c they don't understand it, or b/c it doesn't fit their theory.
The coagulation of blood in the larger pools happened much earlier in Mrs. Borden. The chemical process of fibrinogen converting to fibrin and clotting in large pools can be roughly calculated based on time since spilled, amount of blood, and temperature. The blood in a dead body ceases to be able to coagulate due to the release of fibrinolysins, That is why we can tell if a body has been moved post mortem- Livor Mortis is the pooling of un-cloted blood in the lower areas of the body due to gravity. The back, arms and legs of a body laying on it's back will be purple, while the belly and chest will be white. BUT, the blood that has pooled around a body will harden and clot at a given rate because there is no fibrinolysis outside the body. There was extensive clotting/drying of the blood around the body, pointing to a much earlier time of death than Mr. Borden.
Also, they ate breakfast about the same time but the peristalsis through the upper GI tract of Mrs. Borden shows much less digestion than Mr. Borden, pointing to death of Mrs. Borden very soon after ingestion of the food. If she had been killed much later than 9:30 the stomach acid and pancreatic enzymes would have digested her food to a greater extent than was seen in autopsy.
Taken along with the blood coagulation, about an hour and a half longer time to live.
Abby left to go upstairs about 9:30am with some slip covers for the bed in the room she was found dead in. She more than likely was putting on those covers when she met her death. No one else saw or heard from her after that period. We know T.O.D. of Mr. Borden was about 11:00-11:10am, working backwards, Mrs. Borden was likely killed about 9:30-9:45am.
I agree that an intoxicated person or one who was psychotic may have had no regard for their safety and boldly entered a house with three people in it, but the ODDS of them not being seen by any of these people who were not stationary but also walking in and out up and down around the house is far-fetched.

It is not impossible. Richard Speck entered a nursing dormitory in Chicago, raped and killed 8 women armed only with a knife. His careful movements and threats kept them from screaming out. But that was 11:30 at night in the dark, and he was seen by a survivor who described him. Both Lizzie and Bridget testify that they did not see anyone even though Bridget was all around the outside of the house, and Lizzie was all around the inside.

I don't think alcohol played a part b/c Lizzie found her father literally moments after he died, and reported no smell of alcohol in the air. Alcohol when ingested in very large quantities is excreted in the breath, and pores, giving someone a distinctive odor which lingers even when they are gone.

BTW, there were no screens on the windows at the time, Bridget testified that she scrubbed them with a long pole, and if there had been screens they would have all had to been removed before washing.

For whatever reasons, the Borden's were obsessed and paranoid about locking things. Mr. Borden had to get the key and unlock the basement door on "wash day" and the day of the murders it was testified by different people that it was locked. Nobody got in or out through the cellar.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu May 15, 2014 6:20 am

[quote="PossumPie] ...
My trouble is that I cannot get my mind around an outsider sneaking in the house avoiding the occupants, killing at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT in the perfect room not to be caught, then waiting for over an hour then sneaking downstairs avoiding 3 other people in the house (Andrew is home now), just happening upon Andrew on the couch with eyes closed, killing him, sneaking out of the house all unseen. Could it be done? Yes, perhaps 1 in every 20 attempts....[/quote]

I agree. But if Lizzie were innocent, who could be involved? Wasn't Morse a good condidate? In the "perfect room", yes, it was the room just occupied by Morse; "just happening upon Anbdrew on the couch with eyes closed", yes, Morse could have known well the family's routine. The intruder's not being seen? If he were not so lucky, we would not have to do with one of the most mysterious murder cases in the history. Many other murder cases were not so mysterious because the killers have not been so lucky as the murderers of the Boden case (Lizzie or others). The luck does occur one time a century, doesn't it?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu May 15, 2014 10:20 am

I cannot come up with a motive for Morse but I do agree that his presence in the house would not be alarming to either Abby or Andrew. But I also don't see Andrew as such a gregarious guy as to throw open the door to welcome Lizzie in to welcome Uncle John.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu May 15, 2014 10:22 am

Franz wrote:[quote="PossumPie] ...
My trouble is that I cannot get my mind around an outsider sneaking in the house avoiding the occupants, killing at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT in the perfect room not to be caught, then waiting for over an hour then sneaking downstairs avoiding 3 other people in the house (Andrew is home now), just happening upon Andrew on the couch with eyes closed, killing him, sneaking out of the house all unseen. Could it be done? Yes, perhaps 1 in every 20 attempts....

I agree. But if Lizzie were innocent, who could be involved? Wasn't Morse a good condidate? In the "perfect room", yes, it was the room just occupied by Morse; "just happening upon Anbdrew on the couch with eyes closed", yes, Morse could have known well the family's routine. The intruder's not being seen? If he were not so lucky, we would not have to do with one of the most mysterious murder cases in the history. Many other murder cases were not so mysterious because the killers have not been so lucky as the murderers of the Boden case (Lizzie or others). The luck does occur one time a century, doesn't it?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Luck does occur, unlikely things happen, but you cannot count on them happening ahead of time. I think Morse could have been guilty only if he himself somehow got his "alibi" to swear he was there when he wasn't there. Then if he was seen in the Borden home by Abby, Lizzie, Bridget, or ANdrew, he would not be suspicious...after all he was a guest. I don't think an accomplice of Morse's could sneak in and out in an hour and a half and be ASSURED that he wouldn't be seen, or that someone wouldn't raise the alarm and scream. Could it happen? Yes. Could he count on it happening before he entered? No. There would have been a lot of luck involved that the killer could not have controlled. It was broad daylight. People were watching the house and yard from their homes.
I would entertain the idea that maybe Morse's niece lied to the cops and Morse was at the Borden home...but then what motive? I know, you think he was protecting his nieces inheritance...I guess it's possible.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu May 15, 2014 12:49 pm

PossumPie wrote: Luck does occur, unlikely things happen, but you cannot count on them happening ahead of time. I think Morse could have been guilty only if he himself somehow got his "alibi" to swear he was there when he wasn't there. Then if he was seen in the Borden home by Abby, Lizzie, Bridget, or ANdrew, he would not be suspicious...after all he was a guest. I don't think an accomplice of Morse's could sneak in and out in an hour and a half and be ASSURED that he wouldn't be seen, or that someone wouldn't raise the alarm and scream. Could it happen? Yes. Could he count on it happening before he entered? No. There would have been a lot of luck involved that the killer could not have controlled. It was broad daylight. People were watching the house and yard from their homes.
I would entertain the idea that maybe Morse's niece lied to the cops and Morse was at the Borden home...but then what motive? I know, you think he was protecting his nieces inheritance...I guess it's possible.

Very well said, PossumPie, I agree with you. But I think that you would agree with me as well if I say that to some extent, every murder crime's author runs some risk; no killer could be assured that the things would occur just as they wished. Well, for the uncertainty and the risk of the murder plan, did all the killers finish by abandoning their murder plan? Certainly some killers did: I am sure there are a great number of planned murders were never put in action, since their authors abandoned them because of the fear of the risk. But others? No, the others continued. They knew well the risk they were going to run, but they decided to run this risk, because they thought the risult of the murder "deserved " an tentative (there is some risk, but let's go, try it!). And among these laters, a great number of them were not so lucky, they finished by being discovered, caught, and maybe hung; but few of them were lucky, they succeeded in their "enterprises". In this last list we find the names like Jack the Ripper, and the killer of Borden case (Lizzie or someone else). Every time Jack the Ripper killed, he run the risk to be caught, but he killed as well, he continued to kill, and, being lucky, he was never caught. I am not a killer, maybe not because I am a good man, but because I have not the courage and the adventure spirit of a killer.

In this world there would not be murder cases at all if all the killers stopped before the risk.

(P.S.: PossumPie, maybe you would not kill, not being assured that everything would be under control; but some people would.)

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu May 15, 2014 1:32 pm

My very long post just disappeared but Franz hit on a lot of the points. One of the elements of psychopathy is fearlessness. Irina said it well, too: predators crawl in windows, roam through houses, kidnap and or kill. Brazenly. I just finished reading one of the most memorable books in a long time, The Road Out of Hell by Anthony Flacco, about pedophile/serial killer Stewart Northcott. Trying to view his crimes on a continuum of luck, reasoning, rationality and probability would deny their commission. The same could be said for Jeffrey Dahmer and the kidnappers and/or killers of Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Kaylene Harris, Polly Klaas and the three girls held captive for over a decade by Ariel Castro. Psychopathy may involve planning. execution and luck but much of the time it's simply about "doing".

irina · Post by **irina** » Thu May 15, 2014 3:12 pm

Quick reply before I have to go out to work in the garden. Have to do what I can before the next snow storm.

Considering creeps sneaking around houses, don't forget Jon Benet Ramsey. Much bigger house than the Bordens' but that creep really made himself at home. I believe at this time there is DNA evidence that proves the perp was an outsider and also male.

In reply to specific question, I do think women can murder for many reasons and in horrific fashion. Look at Charlie Manson's girls. This thread is suspects without naming anyone, but using a name, I don't believe Lizzie did it. Never have. The time element alone with Andrew's death seems to me to eliminate her. So if she didn't, who did? I feel a stranger or acquaintance did it and that such a person would have a high probability of being male in my opinion. Then their is the matter of Abby's skirts being left in an immodest position. Lots of possibilities but also a pervert enjoying his conquest of a woman.

Sorry my replies aren't nice and tidy. I work off a very small screen & I'm not very cyber-accomplished. Back later, ASAP.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu May 15, 2014 4:59 pm

I agree with everything you all say about sociopathic killers....they take risks and don't think that they will get caught. Problem with that theory is that they can't stop at 2...we would have seen many more similar killings around the area and time of the Borden killings...especially since this was before cars, trucks, and planes. They did look for similar but didn't find any. Well the one they found the man was not in the country at the time of the Borden's killings.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu May 15, 2014 5:08 pm

PossumPie wrote:I agree with everything you all say about sociopathic killers....they take risks and don't think that they will get caught. Problem with that theory is that they can't stop at 2...we would have seen many more similar killings around the area and time of the Borden killings...especially since this was before cars, trucks, and planes. They did look for similar but didn't find any. Well the one they found the man was not in the country at the time of the Borden's killings.

Why do you say so? Do you know who did it?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu May 15, 2014 5:29 pm

I think Possum is referring to the Manchester murder, Franz. This occurred in a farmhouse not very far from Fall River just before Lizzie's trial, (in May 1893) and caused a sensation. It may very well have influenced the jury verdict in Lizzie's case.

Bertha Manchester was housekeeper to her father, Stephen, who was known locally as a miserly man who paid unfair wages. There was an influx of immigrants into the U.S. from the rural areas of Portugal at that time and one of them, Jose deMello, came to work for old man Manchester.

He fell out with Manchester over wages and conditions and the upshot of it was he hid around the farm for several hours waiting for him to return home. He must have confronted Bertha in the kitchen after growing tired of waiting, perhaps demanded money. (A purse containing some coins was missing.) The upshot was that she was found brutally murdered, with axe wounds.

As you can imagine, this caused a sensation. DeMello was located (by police trickery), brought to trial and found guilty. He spent 20 years in jail. The police investigated but it was proved that he was in Portugal (the Azores) at the time of the Borden murders.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu May 15, 2014 6:50 pm

Thank you Curryong.

What I meant, is that why PossumPie, assuming the the killer was an intruder, thinks that the killer can't kill only two people (Abby and Andrew)? why must he kill more?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu May 15, 2014 7:21 pm

PossumPie wrote:I agree with everything you all say about sociopathic killers....they take risks and don't think that they will get caught. Problem with that theory is that they can't stop at 2...we would have seen many more similar killings around the area and time of the Borden killings...especially since this was before cars, trucks, and planes. They did look for similar but didn't find any. Well the one they found the man was not in the country at the time of the Borden's killings.

Not all sociopaths who kill are serial killers. Some of them kill for a specific purpose, without conscience or remorse, and once that purpose is accomplished then it's over. So I don't think it's a given that there would be more murders. Plus, for a moment saying it was a serial killer, even in this day and age with internet and national tv news it's difficult to connect and track serial killers unless they leave DNA evidence that can be matched to other killings. The FBI estimates there may be anywhere up to 100 serial killers operating at this time without public notice. I'm not sure we can rule out a transient merely because there were no more murders in the area. The killer could've moved on to another region and killed again without much connection to the Borden crimes.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu May 15, 2014 7:41 pm

With respect irina, I think you are placing a bit too much emphasis on Abby's clothes being disarranged. There is no evidence at all of clothing being torn off, or skirts/petticoats being thrown up above the waist, for instance.

Dr Bowen, who saw Abby not long after Mrs Churchill/Bridget had seen her from the stairs would have given testimony had he seen such a thing, and investigators' thoughts would have gone at once to the possibility of sexual assault in Abby's case. Dr Dolan performed an autopsy on both bodies that day and found no evidence of sexual interference.

Abby's underclothing and clothing were buried days afterwards and would have been there in the cellar to examine until then. There is a great deal of difference between Bowen smoothing down Abby's skirts to her ankles, because a little of her legs was showing, to the full-blooded 'displays' of the victims of some modern killers.

(We don't know exactly in what position the bodies were in because they were moved a little during examination by the police and doctors before photographs were taken on that Thursday but any great deviation of body position/interference with clothing etc would have been noted by Dr Dolan at the time.)

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu May 15, 2014 8:29 pm

irina wrote: Considering creeps sneaking around houses, don't forget Jon Benet Ramsey. Much bigger house than the Bordens' but that creep really made himself at home. I believe at this time there is DNA evidence that proves the perp was an outsider and also male.

Yes. Jon Benet, Polly Klaas, Kaylene Harris, Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, the three captives of Ariel Castro, the Manson family, Jeffrey Dahmer and BTK victims. The killer(s) and/or kidnapper(s) acted fearlessly, brazenly and successfully in the face of odds that would not only seem insurmountable but outright foolhardy. As Irina mentioned Jon Benet and also with the Borden murders, police were so focused on family as perpetrators that they failed to pursue other possibly pertinent leads.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu May 15, 2014 8:46 pm

Yes debbie, but in the vast majority of those kidnappings/ killings, the assailant did not operate in a small house with rooms that led into each other without corridors or landings. The killer in the Borden case spent 90 minutes avoiding a live member of the family, Lizzie, with, (as regards the first murder,) no knowledge of whether Bridget would come in through the side door to begin the inside windows downstairs. In the second murder, Lizzie was also nearby, and was spared.

I'm not naming L. as a suspect, as per the rules, but you have to admit, (as I've said in an earlier post,) any mad/ drunk itinerant who decided to murder the older Bordens couldn't have done a more satisfactory job as far as the Borden daughters were concerned! A fortune in their laps, thanks to an unknown killer!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri May 16, 2014 5:17 am

Ok...First, many of the killings that people listed were at night, in lonely places...Sociopathic Personality Disorder folks are not stupid or reckless. They kill b/c they have no regard for human life, and no guilt. BUT they have motive. They are careful and plan. Sure, sometimes they are caught b/c they get too cocky, but often the cops only catch them b/c of the stupid mistake they made. Jon Benet was mentioned. The cops were so stupid in that case they didn't even find her body in the kid's OWN HOUSE. Friends tramping around destroying evidence found her in the basement room. That killer was never caught. Dahmer was devious and picked up guys at bars and such places, brought them to his apartment, and in private, killed them. The police were so stupid in that case that when a VERY young boy did escape -naked- the cops caught him and gave him back to Dahmer who promptly killed him. Manson is a Paranoid Schizophrenic with charm, who's followers went out at night, and killed. The cops were so stupid that they had the gun that was used, found by a young boy, who along with his father had to repeatedly call the police advising them that they should compare the gun to the grip that was found b/c they thought it matched. The police finally did.
Personality disorders are different than what common people call "crazy" If we are speculating on a sociopath killing them, I vote for Lizzie. IF she did it, it was cold blooded and for the money. That is sociopathic and a motive. If it was a "crazy" person, someone with no regard for their own safety who brazenly went into an occupied house and killed, than I'm stuck. There wouldn't have to be a rational motive...."God told me to do it." is commonly heard. But these folks are so psychotic that they would have confessed later to someone, they have no understanding that it was wrong.
So, a sociopath would have a reason, and a better chance of getting away with it, a disorganized psychotic person would have had only blind luck and probably would have ranted about it afterwards to people. The sociopath would need a reason- money, sexual, revenge... Despite the fact that this 60+ year old woman's ankles were showing, there is absolutely no indication that anything sexual was done. Lizzie and Bridget would have made more tempting sexual targets and were both in/around the house. Anyway, why stick around and kill Andrew while he slept? Why not just sneak back out?

My comment that was misunderstood by Franz was that if it were a serial killing sociopath, there would be more similar killings somewhere around. People have over the past 100 years combed through police records looking for similar patterns from the same time of the Borden killings...no convincingly similar cases have been found. Sociopathic serial killers don't radically change their M.O. They slowly evolve it as they find more efficient ways to kill. We would be able to see their signatures with a little digging through old cases for the area, and there are none to be found. While it is possible to spin a tale that some transient bum wandered into Fall River, picked a house at random, killed them, left and went to another part of the country, that is more unlikely than other ideas, say killing them to inherit a HUGE amount of money.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri May 16, 2014 11:03 am

PossumPie, this thread (it's yours) is "Motives not Suspects". Well. Do you know who was the author of Julia Wallace murder? if you don't know, you don't know either the motive of the murderer. Do you know who was the author of Villisca murder? if you don't know, you don't know either the motive of the murderer.

So why does the ignorance of the motive of Borden case trouble you so much? In order not to be troubled so much by this ignorance, maybe you, and many others, find a easy motive for the case: the victims being a rich couple, so the motive should be money, and Lizzie being the daughter of the killed rich couple, this motive becomes automatically her motive. Ohlala.

In the past so many events occured. And we ignore a lot of them. Please accept this "vérité, âpre vérité!"

(P. S: I don't think I misunderstood you. You said: "if it were a serial killing sociopath...". But this hypothetical sentence IMO has no sense, because around that time and in that region the killer killed only two people in one murder, so it WAS NOT a serial killing. We can say: if Lizzie were guilty (or innocent), because we don't know if she was one or another, but we don't need to say: if it were a serial killing, because it WAS NOT.)

(P.S.: In other words, if you say: if it were a serial killing sociopath, they couldn't stop at 2. I am not able to understand the sense of such a sentence, in front of the fact that the murderer killed only two people.)

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri May 16, 2014 12:15 pm

My preoccupation with Abby's skirts is temporary, merely a possible clue to a man as perpetrator. Were more than her ankles showing? How much more? What constituted enough immodesty that a doctor felt he needed to correct it? Since the bar for sexual daring was so much lower in those days, a peek under a woman's skirts for a deviant may have been fulfilling. I do not imply Abby was sexually molested but would leave the door open to the possibility that the attacker could have been a sexual deviant and his deviance could have been an element of the crime.

Without proof all we have is possibilities and probabilities. When we share ideas in forums we all function as a few brain cells in a bigger brain. A huge mistake to make on forums is to have an absolute theory and bitterly defend it. However what if someone should take a stray theory, do newspaper research and find there was a creepy man in Fall River at the time who accosted women and prowled through yards. Any peeping toms for example? Any patterns there? I'm not saying there are but there could be and any one of us may find that information and thus any one of us could have a hand in solving this enduring mystery.

There is no reason the murderer of the Bordens had to be a serial killer. The theory I have suggested merely concerns a man who got very angry with Abby, perhaps thought he was insulted and wasn't going to take that from a woman, for example. Not all killers are serial killers and even mass murderers with more victims than two, are necessarily serial killers.

There is a type of criminal who prowls and peeps. Many years ago I had a neighbor kid who stole and ate womens' underwear. He crept through houses and stole underwear and things. My friend was a DA and she said this kid was going to kill someone some day. I questioned this as he just stole things, albeit primarily underwear. She said he was dangerous because he did not acknowledge boundaries and it would be easy for him to cross other lines as he had no respect for other peoples' private spaces. At this time the kid is grown up and doing hard time in the state prison for assault. The last time he got in my house he climbed a tree to go in an upstairs window. I am a tall woman with big feet and plain underwear. He stole my long dresses and sandals which would probably have fit him if he played dress-up. At this time in criminology peeping toms are no longer considered harmless perverts as many of them move up to more serious crimes.

The Vilisca axe murders did happen at night but the house was not isolated. I believe it was much smaller than the Bordens' house and was not built originally as a duplex as the Bordens' house was. Upstairs and down some psychopath chopped people to death with the axe he found outside the back door. One pre-teen girl had her nightdress raised up, displaying her legs. Beyond that there were just odd things done. The axe was left at the scene. There were other similar crimes before and after Vilisca. A couple crimes in Colorado come to mind. However there were a number of historic axe murders in the US ranging from the 1800s to the early 1900s. For whatever reason axes seemed to be a preferred weapon. Possibly because most homes had them and a perpetrator could pick one up on site. Still, I think it takes a certain kind of crazy to kill someone with an axe. My opinion.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 16, 2014 1:39 pm

irina wrote: A huge mistake to make on forums is to have an absolute theory and bitterly defend it.

I totally agree with this because once we make up our minds about anything it skews the ability to give unbiased consideration to all that follows. Staying open to possibility is the key to innovation, discovery and solution. To me, the probability of the killer being a transient is less likely than the killer being a member of the household. But Possum made my point for me regarding Jeffrey Dahmer and the very young man who was literally handed on a platter (maybe poor choice of metaphor) back to Dahmer by the police. I'd like to think the likelihood of such an egregious event happening is zero, but it did happen. When we talk about motive for a psychopath, the motive doesn't need to be logical in the eyes of a non-sociopathic personality. Tommy Lynn Sells murdered a child because he perceived that the child's mother was rude to him in the convenience store where she worked. So he followed her home and killed the most important person in her life. Due to a minimally impolitic interaction between two total strangers. Motive is part of solving any crime as is opportunity. But motive needn't make sense to anyone other than the killer.

I think Abby's skirt was slightly bunched up because the killer sat on her butt to deliver some of the blows, and the skirt was pulled forward (toward Abby's head) when the killer stood up. To me, the fury of the assault is a mismatch to a possibly provocative peek at Abby's ankles. This was not a lust killing...nor a foot or ankle fetish killing. Look at her boots...:-) Slightly rearranging her skirt was the doctor's a way to make amends for the killer's disrespect in bashing in her head.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 16, 2014 1:42 pm

Welcome Irina. Are you in geographic proximity to the Villisca axe murders? I'm not super close but within driving distance. At a conference recently I discussed this with a woman from that area. The locals have their own ideas about the perpetrator just as the Fall River residents do about the Borden murders.

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri May 16, 2014 2:08 pm

I'm in Idaho, near the Oregon border. Previously lived in Oregon and Los Angeles. There are even unsolved axe murders in the last century in Oregon. I'm a journalist and always thought a journalist could solve some of these historic mysteries. In some ways I was ahead of the curve. I could see possibilities in genealogy about 30 years ago. I used to ride my bike on snowy streets, clear across town to look at micro fiche at the Mormon Family Center, pertaining to Jack the Ripper suspects. This was too arduous and I never found anything of interest. The internet gives us so much. I am hampered in some ways because I am afraid to buy anything online for security reasons. All I can do is look stuff up. I'm working up the nerve to buy online with a pre-paid credit card. Doesn't help my confidence that Google is forever letting me know that they know where I am located. The day they tell me to take my pre-paid card (with whatever balance) to the nearest WalMart (with correct address & Google map,directional line from my home,of course), I will probably shoot my laptop and then myself!

Google is watching!

I think there is possibility for a journalist to write a book or article on the seeming series of axe murders that had extreme similarities to Vilisca. A perpetrator like Angel Resindez Ramirez comes to mind~someone who rode the rails & murdered at will. Vilisca is another case where normal people worked hard to find normal motives yet some of the odd things with the lamp and bacon and the fact that child guests were also killed, implies to me it was another weirdo for whatever reason enjoying mayhem. Looking for normal motives was what allowed serial killers to get away with so much for so long. Now profiling, DNA and interagency cooperation have made it a lot harder for them to get away with insane crimes.

As it is I did figure out something extraordinary concerning a historic mystery. It may or may not be important in the long run but I'm the only one who figured it out so far and I plan to write an article pretty soon. It's not a murder mystery subject.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 16, 2014 3:18 pm

I buy online a lot...and sometimes use a paid proxy service. GPS is turned off on all of my technology. When I really don't want to be tracked I use TOR browser and countermail.com for email. (My son-in-law is a computer security analyst aka reformed hacker.) The prepaid credit card is a good idea. As for Google, I stopped signing in years ago after I sent this joke to a friend:

Q: What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop, bang, bang, bang?
A: An Amish drive-by shooting.

The next day my screen and email were full of Amish furniture advertisements. (We live among Amish so if I want furniture it'll be purchased locally, but getting all that stuff really opened my eyes as to how vulnerable we all are.) I doubt that not signing in to Google makes any difference other than to make me feel slightly more in control...:-) What I never do is social networking like Facebook and Twitter. That scares the Hades out of me.

irina · Post by **irina** » Fri May 16, 2014 3:31 pm

I'm in my late fifties and didn't have internet of my own until a couple years ago when I got a semi-smart phone. I learn as I go so when the phone wore out I got a chrome book which works like a phone. Problem is it's a Google system and I can't turn off the tracking/locating part. When I do I'm not allowed even in my email. I get a stupid notice something like "Oh dear, something is terribly wrong. Are your cookies disabled?" No way around it. So I'll get some other wi-fi-capable laptop that avoids google pretty soon and try to buy online. Lots of stuff I can't get in the country and it gets embarrassing interacting with authors and then not being able to buy their books. Amazon won't sell except online. I'd use a phone and a credit card but lots of companies want online buying only.

That was funny about the Amish drive-by shooting! I had some questions about cosmetics earlier this year. Lip plumpers to be exact. For months there were pop up ads with Angelina Jolie type lips. It got ridiculous especially when the ads tried to imply I am old, ugly and dysmorphic. Nothing farther from the truth. Finally cleaned out all cookies back to the beginning. Besides all that I enjoy photography but can't share any of my pictures unless I go through a google network. I have to name people as friends or famiy or circles. Can't put any of my pictures on Twitter and I have NO idea how to use a picture for a profile picture or anything. I could do that on the phone.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 16, 2014 3:36 pm

irina wrote: A perpetrator like Angel Resindez Ramirez comes to mind~someone who rode the rails & murdered at will.

You have just hit the nail on head as to why so much about the Borden case cannot be ruled in or out. I entertain multiple scenarios one of which the murderer (either hired or for personal reasons) kills Abby because she somehow gets in the way, discovers him hiding upstairs, when the intended victim is Andrew. Or he/she kills Abby over some personal slight a la Tommy Lynn Sells and then waits 'til Lizzie really is in the barn, Bridget is upstairs resting and somehow disturbs Andrew on the way out which resulted in his immediate dispatch. This does not explain what I view as overkill and depersonalization in both murders, but especially Andrew's. Truth can be stranger than fiction.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri May 16, 2014 4:00 pm

irina wrote: Problem is it's a Google system and I can't turn off the tracking/locating part. When I do I'm not allowed even in my email. I get a stupid notice something like "Oh dear, something is terribly wrong. Are your cookies disabled?" No way around it.

Yahoo revamped their email to new and improved, and it's now smartmouthed, too. Try a paid proxy service. I use Netshade but that's 'cause Apple is my preference in all areas of technology other than iPhone. My old BlackBerry not-so-smartphone is also the only flip smartphone I've ever seen, and I worry way too much about butt dialing....:-) There are loads of good Windows proxy servers for $30-50/year, and they're fairly intuitive to use. Just be careful as CNET and a number of other download sites have bundled a toolbar with many of their free downloads and possibly paid ones. It's part of the standard installation so the user needs to read carefully through the directions and uncheck all the junk on the advanced installation screen. CNET used to be somewhat reliable. TOR is freeware that allows you to browse via consecutive connections around the globe and is as untraceable as internet browsing can get. It's fairly easy to use but slow.