Lizzie Borden Society Forum

This from Emma's Inquest Testimony... "Q. Can you tell me the cause of the lack of cordiality between you and your mother, or was it not any specific thing? A. Well, we felt that she was not interested in us..."
The question was asked of the cordiality between Emma and Abby, NOT Lizzie and Abby. Why did Emma include Lizzie in the answer? Whatever the lack of interest was, it seems that it was felt, according to Emma, by both her and Lizzie. Also, just what part of the girls (or their lives) was Abby "not interested in..." Any thoughts?

I set very little store in the multiple psychics who have "sensed" every form of incest possible (one keeps saying, "Ewww, this is so icky...") but I do take heed to criminal profilers who see the murders as typical of a victim of sexual abuse who kills both the abuser and the person who should have protected them from the abuse. I realize this is a leap from what the written history indicates, but I'm equally unconvinced that such suspicion would ever have passed the whispered rumor stage especially after both Bordens were murdered. Then it would need to have been raised as a criminal defense to make it into print. There's also the possibility that Andrew had a sense of entitlement toward the maid. The fact that both Emma and Lizzie referred to Bridget as "Maggie" seems like they viewed her as an object, interchangeable with every other Irish maid. The Borden maid didn't have nearly the amount of work to do compared to many maids during that era. As driven and ambitious as Andrew was, I find this generosity of spirit somewhat out of character.

To me, "...not interested in us..." is such a broad statement. It could range from "not interested" in the clothes they wore, to "not interested" in their well being. I think Emma was thinking of one or two certain things that she knew Lizzie was aware of. That is pure speculation on my part. It just seems odd (to me) that she brought Lizzie into her answer. As always, thanks for your input.

Emma wasn't asked the question in general conversation but in the course of a trial in which her beloved sister was being tried for murder. If you look through the whole of Emma's testimony you can see she is trying her hardest to get Lizzie off and her answers are framed with that object in view. I don't really see anything sinister in it, just a sincere effort by one sister to get the other seen in the best light possible. Including Lizzie in the answer was purely unconscious and part of that process.

We know that Emma never took to Abby or regarded her as a mother. There's been enough conversation on the Forum over the years about her influence over Lizzie in that direction, and how grieved Abby must have been that her stepdaughters never thought of her as a help and guide to them. The coldness of the Borden girls towards Abby was known around Fall River.

I'm afraid I don't believe in the incest theory. There was never any hint, as far as we know, of it in town gossip. Lizzie's friends indicated that in later years Lizzie would sometimes speak fondly of her father (though no mention of Abby!)

Andrew, like most Victorian men, didn't concern himself with domestic things. The supervision of servants' duties would have been Abby's duty (the female sphere) and hers alone. Bridget not being allowed upstairs was probably part of the family's excessive secrecy about their lives and also an illustration of their anxiety about security.

When the question was put to Lizzie at her inquest it was a much different answer. Concerning how she and Abby got along........ Q. Cordial? A. It depends upon one's idea of cordiality perhaps. Q. According to your idea of cordiality? A. We were friendly; very friendly. Q. Cordial, according to your idea of cordiality? A. Quite so.
When a almost same direct question was asked of Emma concerning her and Abby, she seems to answer for both, her and Lizzie and cordiality was not mentioned.

Perhaps Lizzie was being a bit cagey about her relationship with Abby at the inquest. There might have been a bit of 'you don't speak ill of the dead' operating, even though Lizzie couldn't actually force herself into saying there was nothing wrong. She wasn't charged at that point however. A year later she was fighting for her life and the gloves were off as far as Emma was concerned. If she had to traduce a dead woman's memory she would have done so. As it was it didn't go that far.

I have always blamed Emma for the difficulties between the sisters and Abby. I feel Emma was given a lot of responsibility by her mother, to be a mother to baby Lizzie. I feel she resented Abby coming into the family and made sure Abby never had the mother role.

As things went along I think Lizzie and Emma wanted to social climb or their social set was very conscious of appearances and money, and Abby was common and not interested in those things. One thing that bothers me~amazingly I read it in Masterton the first time in my memory, but it is part of the inquest~is a recollection Lizzie had of her last conversation with Abby. Abby was going out (supposedly) and Lizzie said something like, "You will change your dress?" Abby replied like, "No, this is good enough". Funny as this sounds, I could see this setting Lizzie off more than I could see Lizzie committing slaughter for pure and simple greed. I still vote for Lizzie's innocence but this exchange bothers me on a number of levels.

I think too that Abby's family, especially Mrs. Whitehead, was an issue with the sisters. I think there was competition there. Possibly Abby was mostly good hearted all the way around or possibly she was trying to share a good portion of Andrew's money. I always have the feeling Mrs. Whitehead felt entitled or something.

On the other hand Mrs Whitehead might have felt desperate, not wanting the family home to be sold throwing she and her family into the rental market. I always get the impression that George Whitehead was a low income earner. He died young and Sarah then had to work.

It's odd, isn't it? Two very much older (half) sisters still very involved in their adult siblings' lives.

I don't know whether this is the right thread to pop this titbit in, but anyway...

As I was looking in the Lizzie Borden Quarterly as I sometimes do, I noticed this yesterday in LBQ 'Anonymous Letter' Jan 2000.

Apparently '16 months before the murders Abby's mother's remains were exhumed for reburial, at some expense, in the Oak Grove Cemetery'.

Two things, Abby no doubt did this for convenience so she and Mrs Whitehead could visit their mother's grave easily. Oak Grove was the largest and I would guess most prestigious of the Fall River cemeteries. If mrs Gray also was given a tombstone, then as now, the total bill would have come to a large sum. It wouldn't be Abby paying, or her half-sister, I think. So, another black mark for Abby recorded by the Borden sisters!

I don't have a direct comment on the expense of reburying Mrs. Grey but I found this in the old papers:

"Arizona Republican", 1/3/1895~~~ "When life is o'er" (title of the column about deaths in general)~"Lizzie Borden and her sister have placed a beautiful monument over the graves of their murdered parents in Oak Grove cemetery, Fall River. It is one of the most costly and artistic structures on the ground."

Still there, and no doubt gets lots of visitors, with Lizzie buried at Andrew's feet! I think what I was getting at with the previous post was that the expensive reinternment may have been yet another cause of tension in the Borden household. The sisters might well have felt that Abby was once again getting more than her due. The daylight robbery, in which Abby's jewellery was stolen, occurred not many months after that.

irina wrote: ... Lizzie had of her last conversation with Abby. Abby was going out (supposedly) and Lizzie said something like, "You will change your dress?" Abby replied like, "No, this is good enough". Funny as this sounds, I could see this setting Lizzie off more than I could see Lizzie committing slaughter for pure and simple greed. I still vote for Lizzie's innocence but this exchange bothers me on a number of levels.

...

Irina, you know that me too I vote for Lizzie's innocence, meanwhile, I agree that Lizzie lied on a number of things (I think you agree too.) --- to protect herself.

About the last conversation between Lizzie and Abby, if it really occured --- I think it was possible ---, we have only the testimony of Lizzie. I think her question about the dress of Abby is highly unlikely. This question, in my opinion, was most probably an invention of Lizzie.

But for some reason. Lizzie, if innocent, invented this question and Abby's answer to justify the true --- but unfortunately unprovable and suspisous --- note story.

After having received such a note, Abby should have changed her house clothes for the visit, but she was found murdered with her house clothes, so Lizzie's explanation: yes she did receive a note, and she told me that her house dress "is good enough": Lizzie was trying to convince the police to believe that probably Abby received the note, went out with the house dress, returned (while Lizzie herself was in the barn?), and then, was killed in the guest room (with her house clothes).

Any thoughts?

(Yes, the note was never found, neither the author nor the messenger of the note identified, but this is another story.)

I agree with you Franz. I believe this conversation was a little invention of Lizzie's, a bit of embroidery round the 'note', but you'd expect me to say that wouldn't you! Just remember, we have only Lizzie's word for any conversation with Abby that Thursday morning. No-one left alive saw or heard her speak to Abby at all.

Franz wrote:... After having received such a note, Abby should have changed her house clothes for the visit, but she was found murdered with her house clothes, so Lizzie's explanation: yes she did receive a note, and she told me that her house dress "is good enough": Lizzie was trying to convince the police to believe that probably Abby received the note, went out with the house dress, returned (while Lizzie herself was in the barn?), and then, was killed in the guest room (with her house clothes). ...

Franz, Lizzie never claimed she was in the barn, when she thought she heard Abby return. I know you have a ‘?’ mark after stating, ‘while Lizzie herself was in the barn’, but Lizzie did not say exactly where she was when Abby was killed.

That's an interesting way to look at it, Franz. I hadn't looked at it that way. Another possibility if it is a lie, is that Lizzie remembered other conversations with Abby and told what had been said before.

There are other ways to look at it too. Abby undoubtedly never had the chance to change her dress. Surely she would have finished the dusting and cleaning before changing into another dress. It is also possible she would have thrown on a shawl (after all Andrew wore a fairly heavy coat on that warm day), and hat and called it good. One thing which could tell us a lot would be if she always wore her hair piece. Since Uncle John was visiting she may have worn the hair piece anyway. If she didn't have time to change her dress she wouldn't have had time to put on the hair piece just to go out.

If Lizzie is telling the truth and there was a note, the note may have come from close family and she didn't feel the need to dress up. Masterton has an interesting idea also, but I don't completely agree with his theory.

Why, irina, would a close family member, or a distant one for that matter, or a family friend, or anyone, keep quiet about having sent for Abby? The police made a widespread appeal for help, the town was in an uproar in those first few days (it was thought that a madman was abroad.) Everyone was anxious that the murderer be caught. What possible motive could anyone have for withholding that vital piece of information from the authorities?

Masterson's book was interesting in the first half although he does an excellent job of selective debunking. He disdains the 1892 forensics that says Abby died 90 minutes before Andrew, but relies without examination the same 1892 forensics that says the perpetrator would be covered in blood. He's the one who failed to catch the fact that Bridget had already been up the backstairs to get a sheet so she knew Abby wasn't up there. (So did I, thus the discussion here.)

The second half of the book derails directly into Fantasy Land. Fiction infuriates me when the protagonist lucks out in the final chapters. Having it happen in non-fiction, pulled completely out of thin air, is almost beyond bearable.... Masterson has Lizzie's killer 'finding' a new hatchet that Andrew had brought home and left close by where he was seated. Huh? Huh? There are hatchets in the basement. Why did be buy a new one? How did he get it into the house in a small white package? Or why did he leave it there if it had been purchased previously? Andrew doesn't strike me as a guy who leaves an axe on the dining room table or a bucksaw in an open dresser drawer or a hatchet underneath the sofa.

But he does write with humor. I like his humor.

twinsrwe wrote:

Franz wrote:... After having received such a note, Abby should have changed her house clothes for the visit, but she was found murdered with her house clothes, so Lizzie's explanation: yes she did receive a note, and she told me that her house dress "is good enough": Lizzie was trying to convince the police to believe that probably Abby received the note, went out with the house dress, returned (while Lizzie herself was in the barn?), and then, was killed in the guest room (with her house clothes). ...

Franz, Lizzie never claimed she was in the barn, when she thought she heard Abby return. I know you have a ‘?’ mark after stating, ‘while Lizzie herself was in the barn’, but Lizzie did not say exactly where she was when Abby was killed.

twinsrwe, you are right: Lizzie never claimed she was in the barn when she thought she heard Abby return. What I mean is: 1) Lizzie obviously lied when she said she was most positive to have heard Abby return; 2) Lizzie, if innocent, could have thought if Abby had returned home while she was in the barn. So she wished to stimulate others to look for her by telling a lie that she was positive, etc., etc.. Do I explain better in this way?

With regard to Lizzie lying: I think all of the major players - Lizzie, Emma, Bridget, Uncle John - lied to protect self or others.

I think there was extreme jealousy and competition between Mrs. Whitehead who was like a daughter to Abby, and Lizzie and Emma. I think it entirely possible that as Masterton suggests, Mrs. W's small son delivered a MESSAGE though not necessarily a NOTE. I think Mrs. W would be glad to see Lizzie squirm. On the other hand maybe Mrs. W. went to Jennings for example, and explained the message along with tales of Lizzie killing cats, acting strange and being cruel to Abby. Perhaps Jennings arranged for Mrs. W. to be paid off (the house) with the understanding that if Lizzie was convicted she would/could come forward with information about a message rather than a note.

irina wrote:I think there was extreme jealousy and competition between Mrs. Whitehead who was like a daughter to Abby, and Lizzie and Emma. I think it entirely possible that as Masterton suggests, Mrs. W's small son delivered a MESSAGE though not necessarily a NOTE. I think Mrs. W would be glad to see Lizzie squirm. On the other hand maybe Mrs. W. went to Jennings for example, and explained the message along with tales of Lizzie killing cats, acting strange and being cruel to Abby. Perhaps Jennings arranged for Mrs. W. to be paid off (the house) with the understanding that if Lizzie was convicted she would/could come forward with information about a message rather than a note.

No attorney would allow that kind of testimony to go unsworn. Jennings knew full well that once convicted and sentenced that the introduction of additional evidence might not get the case reheard. Plus, there's a difference between watching someone 'squirm' and withholding evidence in a capitol case.

I do think the possibility exists that Mrs. Whitehead's son came to the door with words rather than paper, and like things get misquoted or misinterpreted, Lizzie assumed the message came by note. We do know that Mrs. W canceled Abby as babysitter that day, and I, for one, am unsure how Abby found out she wasn't needed.

As for the the house being gifted to the Whiteheads, Emma and Lizzie did it because a) the cost was paltry compared to their net worth b) they didn't want the bad publicity of a court fight c) it might've ended similar to OJ where he was found not guilty of murder but the tort suit found him responsible. I doubt the case law for this existed at that time, but maybe it did. The Massachusetts court was somewhat forward looking - it disallowed interrogation while in custody something like 73 years before Miranda. Given the way Abby died, if Mrs. W managed to open the door to civil damages, there's no telling how much Lizzie and Emma might have ended up paying.

debbiediablo wrote:With regard to Lizzie lying: I think all of the major players - Lizzie, Emma, Bridget, Uncle John - lied to protect self or others.

I agree with you there Debbie. I think everyone is lying here. I think Bridget was really frightened given her Irish lineage during the week after the murders. She probably realized given the stature of the Bordens, they might get her into trouble for the murders. While reading the inquest testimony of Lizzie, one should keep an eye on all the responses Lizzie gives in regards to Bridget's location since Lizzie apparently hooked the screen door to the point of her finding Andrew dead. Lizzie does not support nor dismiss the claim that Bridget was washing the windows from the inside, nor does she mention that Bridget told her that she might rest for a bit. I don't think anyone saw Bridget clean the windows from the inside (correct me if I am wrong here). Later on, Lizzie mentions that from her supposedly visit to the barn, she enters the sitting room to take her hat off, and finds her father dead. She runs to the stairs and calls for Maggie. How did she know Maggie was up there in her room? She could have been in the parlor. Also, based on newspaper articles, it seems that Bridget is frightened almost gets to a point wherein she asks for full clearance if she tells them everything about the family and that nightmarish day at 92 Second Street. It may be possible that Jennings decided to play on Bridget's insecurities and bought her out as long as she keeps it all a secret to the day she goes to her grave. As previously mentioned, Victoria Lincoln does mention Jennings and the sisters involved in buying witnesses.

I personally believe all the major players mentioned by you are in some way or the other involved in staging the murder. I wonder what would have happened if the cops got smart and played a game of arresting all four of them. Putting them in separate cells, and falsely accusing them of the murders and giving them an impression that they will be hanged to death as there is no way to get away with it unless they tell them the truth. Maybe one of them would blurt out the truth to safeguard their life.

Curiousmind2014 wrote:... Lizzie mentions that from her supposedly visit to the barn, she enters the sitting room to take her hat off, and finds her father dead. She runs to the stairs and calls for Maggie. How did she know Maggie was up there in her room? She could have been in the parlor...

Yes, Bridget could have been in the parlor or any other place in the house. But before "her supposedly visit to the barn", Lizzie knew that Bridget went to her room to have a rest, didn't she? And if I recall correctly, Bridget used to have a rest - if possible - before the preparation of the lunch. So returning from the barn and finding her father murdered, Lizzie called Bridget for help and her room should be the most possible place where Bridget was, wasn't it? I don't think this strange.

Franz wrote:... twinsrwe, you are right: Lizzie never claimed she was in the barn when she thought she heard Abby return. What I mean is: 1) Lizzie obviously lied when she said she was most positive to have heard Abby return; 2) Lizzie, if innocent, could have thought if Abby had returned home while she was in the barn. So she wished to stimulate others to look for her by telling a lie that she was positive, etc., etc.. Do I explain better in this way?

So, what you are saying here is that Lizzie may have thought she heard Abby come in when she was in the barn. Is this correct?

If the above is correct, then why didn't she also hear 'the killer' leave the house after her father was killed?

As I have previously stated in other posts: I don't believe Lizzie was ever in the barn. She lied in order to cover her own behind. You see, Franz, I believe she didn't hear 'the killer' leave the house, because the killer never left.

Hey Franz,

Good to see you around! For sometime I believe people haven't been talking of John Morse as the murderer! We need your inputs!

In regards to Lizzie's knowing that Bridget is going for a nap; Bridget had stated that she mentioned that to Lizzie. Lizzie never mentioned having such a conversation with Bridget as far as I understand. They later ended up covering each other during the trial.

In regards to Lizzie's implying Abby had returned; I never mentioned that or even thought of it. I think Lizzie and Bridget, both knew Abby was being murdered. However, I am not sure if murdering Andrew was a part of the plan; at least I have some reasons to believe it was not a part of Lizzie's plan unless she had to because her father figured out Abby was murdered. There are a few things that disturb me about Andrew's death. However, I will keep it for another post.

twinsrwe wrote: ...
So, what you are saying here is that Lizzie may have thought she heard Abby come in when she was in the barn. Is this correct?

...

No, twinsrwe, I didn't mean this.

Lizzie never heard Abby come in at any moment, neither in the barn (if she really had been there for some minutes), nor before her calling Mrs. Churchill, nor when Mrs. Churchill went to find a doctor... never. I think Lizzie didn't think so by confusion; instead, she knew very well she was lying.

What I mean is: if Lizzie innocent and she did go into the barn, after the discovery of her father's body, she might have thought of the possibility that Abby had returned home while she herself was being in the barn, if so, where Abby was now? was she still alive? was she killed as her father? So Lizzie worried about the safety of Abby, that's why she lied --- saying she heard her come in --- in order to stimulate others to find Abby. Do I explain well this time?

Curiousmind2014 wrote:

debbiediablo wrote:With regard to Lizzie lying: I think all of the major players - Lizzie, Emma, Bridget, Uncle John - lied to protect self or others.

I agree with you there Debbie. I think everyone is lying here. I think Bridget was really frightened given her Irish lineage during the week after the murders. She probably realized given the stature of the Bordens, they might get her into trouble for the murders. While reading the inquest testimony of Lizzie, one should keep an eye on all the responses Lizzie gives in regards to Bridget's location since Lizzie apparently hooked the screen door to the point of her finding Andrew dead. Lizzie does not support nor dismiss the claim that Bridget was washing the windows from the inside, nor does she mention that Bridget told her that she might rest for a bit. I don't think anyone saw Bridget clean the windows from the inside (correct me if I am wrong here). Later on, Lizzie mentions that from her supposedly visit to the barn, she enters the sitting room to take her hat off, and finds her father dead. She runs to the stairs and calls for Maggie. How did she know Maggie was up there in her room? She could have been in the parlor. Also, based on newspaper articles, it seems that Bridget is frightened almost gets to a point wherein she asks for full clearance if she tells them everything about the family and that nightmarish day at 92 Second Street. It may be possible that Jennings decided to play on Bridget's insecurities and bought her out as long as she keeps it all a secret to the day she goes to her grave. As previously mentioned, Victoria Lincoln does mention Jennings and the sisters involved in buying witnesses.

I personally believe all the major players mentioned by you are in some way or the other involved in staging the murder. I wonder what would have happened if the cops got smart and played a game of arresting all four of them. Putting them in separate cells, and falsely accusing them of the murders and giving them an impression that they will be hanged to death as there is no way to get away with it unless they tell them the truth. Maybe one of them would blurt out the truth to safeguard their life.

Totally agreed regarding Bridget. She understand that being an Irish servant and recent immigrant in 1892 put her at the bottom of the Fall River food chain.

Without digging though documents I recall a conversation between Lizzie and Bridget regarding a fabric sale, but Bridget declined. She felt ill and was going upstairs to rest. I do not recall whether she voiced this to Lizzie or just did it. Which makes me wonder what Lizzie REALLY had planned for that August afternoon. The night before she confided to Miss Russell that she feared for her family's safety, worrying the house might burn down around them. Perhaps her initial plan was to send Bridget off to buy fabric, kill Andrew (Abby being already dead but accounted for by a fabricated note), light the house on fire to cover the murders and then celebrate by going to buy material for a plethora of new dresses. It's not like she was attached to 92 Second Street. Plus she complained about the kitchen stove all morning. Except Plan A was scotched by Bridget being sick and refusing to leave the house and Uncle John on the way back for lunch. A fire to cover the crime makes a whole lot of sense to me.

I think all four of them lied. I think all of them knew who the killer was. But I don't think John Morse or Bridget were involved in staging of the crime. Emma probably helped Lizzie plan and then took a vacation because she lacked a stomach for follow through. Bridget lied to protect herself and to protect Lizzie who, in turn, didn't turn suspicion toward Bridget. Morse lied about first hearing of the murders when he arrived back at the Borden home. This kind of news spreads like wildfire; I'm fairly convinced he heard at least a little bit about the crime either before leaving his niece's house or en route home for lunch. He realizes their deaths are a fact (as opposed to a different Andrew Borden in Fall River) when he sees the crowd milling outside. Stopping at the pear tree gives him time to gain composure before going inside to the emotional milieu. I doubt that Uncle John did emotional milieus too well. Both he and Bridget understood that the citizens of Fall River would prefer their hatchet murderer to be an outsider.

I have no doubt that witnesses were bought and paid for if they could had for any price. All men may be created equal in this country, but the wealthy ones have always been more equal.

Curiousmind2014 wrote:Hey Franz,

Good to see you around! For sometime I believe people haven't been talking of John Morse as the murderer! We need your inputs!

In regards to Lizzie's knowing that Bridget is going for a nap; Bridget had stated that she mentioned that to Lizzie. Lizzie never mentioned having such a conversation with Bridget as far as I understand. They later ended up covering each other during the trial.

In regards to Lizzie's implying Abby had returned; I never mentioned that or even thought of it. I think Lizzie and Bridget, both knew Abby was being murdered. However, I am not sure if murdering Andrew was a part of the plan; at least I have some reasons to believe it was not a part of Lizzie's plan unless she had to because her father figured out Abby was murdered. There are a few things that disturb me about Andrew's death. However, I will keep it for another post.

Thank you Curiousmind2014. I hope I would come back and post regularly soon. I will still work hard, very hard, with our dear uncle John.

To be honest I have never considered the possibility of the "conspiracy" between Lizzie and Bridget. And you know very well why.

Franz wrote:

twinsrwe wrote: ...
So, what you are saying here is that Lizzie may have thought she heard Abby come in when she was in the barn. Is this correct?

...

No, twinsrwe, I didn't mean this.

Lizzie never heard Abby come in at any moment, neither in the barn (if she really had been there for some minutes), nor before her calling Mrs. Churchill, nor when Mrs. Churchill went to find a doctor... never. I think Lizzie didn't think so by confusion; instead, she knew very well she was lying.

What I mean is: if Lizzie innocent and she did go into the barn, after the discovery of her father's body, she might have thought of the possibility that Abby had returned home while she herself was being in the barn, if so, where Abby was now? was she still alive? was she killed as her father? So Lizzie worried about the safety of Abby, that's why she lied --- saying she heard her come in --- in order to stimulate others to find Abby. Do I explain well this time?

If Lizzie is lying but innocent then the truth would have served her much better. Why not say, "I didn't hear Mrs. Borden return but what if she did. Maybe we need to search the house." The weird thing about all of this is not one of the early arrivals on the scene thought to search to see if the killer was still lurking on the premises. In fact Lizzie has no problem remaining in the house alone while Bridget scurries through the neighborhood. To me, the only reason not to immediately search (or at least discuss it while waiting for police) is Lizzie already knew the killer posed no danger to her.

Yes, so many actions were weird on that day. Oh, for a modern crime scene operator and a photographer with a decent camera, so we could at least see what Lizzie was wearing before the pink wrapper with the cherry red ribbons made its appearance!
As far as I know (I'm out and haven't got my notes) Officer Allen was the first person to check whether the killer was still in hiding. He was the first policeman on the scene. Even he seems to have confined his searching to the downstairs closet!
Surely the most normal thing for Lizzie to have said, however shocked she was, would have been to this first policeman. "I am not sure whether my stepmother has returned from shopping yet. I may have heard her come in. Could you go and check to see if she is here and is all right?"

Actually, I believe one of the first things the police do nowadays is to check on the whereabouts of all residents of the house in a case of domestic murder. This obviously wasn't done in this case as it was left to Bridget and Mrs Churchill to find Abby's body.

Curryong wrote: Actually, I believe one of the first things the police do nowadays is to check on the whereabouts of all residents of the house in a case of domestic murder. This obviously wasn't done in this case as it was left to Bridget and Mrs Churchill to find Abby's body.

This caused me to immediately think of JonBenet.

True! Maybe I should have written 'the police are supposed to...' Etc! All the same, it is odd that Officer Allen did not ask the exact whereabouts of Abby or about her welfare if she HAD returned. Lizzie's eagerness to have someone go upstairs and find Abby is quite significant, in my opinion.

debbiediablo wrote:...
If Lizzie is lying but innocent then the truth would have served her much better. Why not say, "I didn't hear Mrs. Borden return but what if she did. Maybe we need to search the house." ...

Yes, debbiediablo, it should have been better for Lizzie, innocent or guilty, to say something like: oh Mrs. Borden told me to have received a note and she went out to pay a visit (or, she went out for shopping, if guilty), but I am afraid if she had returned home while I was being in the barn. We should search the house to see if she is somewhere. And if she was guilty, her lie (I am almost positive to hear…) sounds (to me) much more unbelievable.

Irina has just posted two threads about Consciousness of innocence and Consciousness of guilt. Very good ideas. Now let’s have a look from these two points of view.

1. Let’s begin with the hypothesis that Lizzie was innocent and her consciousness of innocence. After the discovery of her fathers’ body and being asked about Abby’s whereabouts, Lizzie, with her consciousness of innocence (for that moment it should be better to say her unconsciousness of her being suspected afterwards), she told ---honestly --- the note story (without foreseeing, certainly, that the note had been taken away by the real killer --- an hypothesis --- and would be never found). The supposedly innocent Lizzie, at that moment, should think, unconsciously, that Abby, after having received the note --- she told her so --- should have changed her clothes for the visit and went out, and if Abby returned home while she herself was in the barn, Abby should be somewhere in the house, alive (Lizzie unconsciously hoped so) or dead, but with her clothes for visit. So Lizzie, in order to stimulate people to go to look for Abby, lied, saying that she was positive to have heard Abby come in. By saying so, the supposedly innocent Lizzie couldn’t know that Abby was indeed lying dead in the guest room but with her house dress, and this house dress demonstrated very convincingly that most probably Abby never left the house. But Lizzie, innocent, couldn’t know this, so she said she heard her come in from outside (with the clothes for visit).

(Let’s imagine now: if Abby were found dead with her clothes for visit, even if the note was never found, wouldn’t the note story seem much more believable? Wouldn’t be Lizzie’s lie (I heard her come in) much less suspicious? But Lizzie, if innocent, how could she know that the note had disappeared and Abby would be found dead with her house clothes? Therefore, she told honestly --- with her consciousness of innocence ---, the note story, ignoring that this note story would be against her; therefore she lied saying that she heard Abby come in, ignoring that her lie would be against her.)

2. Let’s consider now the case with the consciousness of guilt of Lizzie, if Lizzie were guilty, with her consciousness of guilt, how could she tell an invented note story, knowing very well that the note didn’t exist and would be never found? How could she lie saying that she heard Abby come in, knowing very well that this was not possible because she herself had killed Abby in the guest room?

Lizzie’s lie of hearing Abby come in, for most of you, is a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie, but for me, on the contrary, it demonstrates Lizzie’s unconsciousness of being suspected afterwards for the murder, and therefore, her innocence.

When people were all terrified and confused before Andrew’s body, in the sitting room, when they came in and went out, to search for a doctor (Bridget), to search for Alice (Bridget), to search for another doctor (Mrs. Churchill), to search for sheets (Bridget and Mrs. Churchill for Dr. Bowen), to go to the post office (Dr. Bowen), etc., etc., during all this time, all these movements and all these confusions, only the real killer knew that Abby was lying dead in the guest room, with her house clothes on her. And this real killer, in my opinion, was not Lizzie. It could not be her.

(I hope I expressed well what I wish to say. It’s difficult for me.)

You express yourself very well, Franz, certainly much better than I would be able to in a language not my own!

You always express yourself very well, Franz, and I do understand the points you are making. I also admire anyone who fluently speaks and writes in more than one language!!

But I don't agree.

I think Lizzie's 'unconscious' was busy at work, too, but not because she was innocent but because she had an unconscious need for punishment as a means of evading her guilt. This is taken from the abstract of "The Unconscious Need for Punishment: Expression or Evasion of Sense of Guilt" by Donald L. Carveth, PhD, presented at an International symposium on Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, McMaster University, Hamilton,Ontario, September 1999, and that subsequently appeared in Psychoanalytic Studies 3,1 (March 2001): 9-21.:

"In Civilization and Its Discontents and other writings, Freud equates the unconscious need for punishment expressed in various patterns of self-torment and self-sabotage with the unconscious sense of guilt. But there are cogent clinical and theoretical grounds for distinguishing between genuine guilt and the unconscious need for punishment that serves as a guilt-substitute the function of which is precisely to ward off an unbearable sense of guilt. Whereas guilt embodies the depressive anxiety and the capacity for concern for the other that characterize the depressive position and that motivate the desire to make reparation, the unconscious need for punishment reflects the narcissistic and sado-masochistic dynamics associated with the paranoid-schizoid position."

IMO Lizzie's behavior that morning did not reflect innocence that (I'm far from the expert here) seems to smack more of Romanticism than reality.... but rather of an unconscious need for punishment because she had done the deed. Lizzie's statement's that day are typical, not of an innocent party, but of the perpetrator of a domestic homicide. Here's yet another quote:

"The attitude and emotional state of the family members present at the crime scene can offer insight into the victim–offender relationship. The offender is often at the scene when law enforcement or emergency medical personnel arrive and often makes incriminating statements."

Resaid with fewer descriptors: The offender often makes incriminating statements.

Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime (p. 171). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

I am explaining my idea in another way.

Let’s suppose that Lizzie was innocent, and she was told by Abby that the later had received a note, and she did go into the barn. Well.

After leaving Abby and during all that morning, Lizzie might not really think about Abby but in her unconsciousness, she should think that Abby had changed her clothes and went out to pay a visit to that sick friend. After the discovery of Andrew’s body and the first moments of shock past, she begun to worry about Abby: where is Mrs. Borden now? Still in the town for the visit? Or could it be possible that she has returned home while I was being in the barn? If so, where is she? Is she safe? Or has she been… as my father? In order to find Abby, she told to others, lying: I am almost positive to have heard her come in.

Two possibilities: 1) Abby would not be found in the house. Well, if so, a good news for Lizzie and for everyone: this would mean that Abby is still in the town for the visit and therefore she would be (most probably) alive. In this case, no one would care that what Lizzie said was not true: she could have confused some noise as Abby’s coming in. And for Lizzie, the important would be that she could be certain that Abby was not in the house, and so, alive. 2) Abby would be found in the house, or alive, or killed, but with her clothes for visit. Her clothes for visit implied that she must have gone out for visit and at some moment returned home. In this case no one would care if Lizzie really heard her come in and when she heard her come in, because it’s clear that Abby most probably did go out and, being found dead now in the house, did come back at a certain moment.

As I said above, the supposedly innocent Lizzie, being told by Abby the note story, might unconsciously think Abby had changed her clothes and gone out, and if she was now in the house, alive or killed, she must have come back at a certain moment. So Lizzie lied, saying, I am almost positive to hear her come in. But unconscious of being suspected afterwards, the supposedly innocent Lizzie didn’t know that the facts discovered afterwards (the note’s not being found, Abby’s being found dead wearing her house dress) would strongly incriminate her. She couldn’t know this, so she lied. And this lie, told by an innocent, is totally comprehensible for me.

On the contrary, if Lizzie was guilty and with her consciousness of guilt, if she wanted the body of Abby to be found, she would have had other ways to realize what she wished, why did she tell this lie, knowing very well that Abby, being already killed by herself, could absolutely not be heard come in? why did the guilty Lizzie think to tell such a lie that would undoubtedly incriminate her afterwards?

The reason Lizzie lied (throwing psychological pseudo-science out the window) is because she thought people would believe her. She thought she had it covered. She set the stage with Alice Russell by foreshadowing their deaths. She puts the idea of an intruder into Bridget's head ("Someone has come in and killed Father.") Lizzie, because she is Lizzie, thinks she will not be caught...that her lies will be believed. Most criminals do not enter into a capitol crime thinking anything other than they will not get caught. Psychopaths are absolutely fearless.

I could possibly entertain your scenario, Franz, if it were the ONLY lie Lizzie told, but she had too many other discrepancies. Was she looking for sinkers or screen repair in the Barn? Had she been upstairs or in the kitchen?

I think this crime was not only premeditated but well-planned, that when Lizzie worried the "house will burn down" that burning down the house to cover her crimes was exactly what she planned to do. From Douglas, et al, "Postoffense interviews of close friends or family members often reveal that the victim had expressed concerns or fears regarding the victim's safety or even a sense of foreboding."

I think she planned to poison them and then destroy the bodies and the evidence by fire. But Bence refused to sell her the prussic acid; Bridget refused to leave the house for the fabric sale; Morse was coming back for dinner, not to mention he showed up out of the blue on the day before.

But Lizzie was nothing if not stubborn. So she did the best she could with Plan B - the hatchet. Except Plan B didn't have a believable alibi established (like going out to a fabric sale while the house went up in flames) so she was forced to extemporaneously fabricate. Which resulted in multiple contradictions and lying without fulling thinking through the consequences.

Hey Debbie,

That's a believable hypothesis that you have presented. I personally do believe Lizzie was involved. However, based on various things that happened around the murders, I don't see all of this to be possible without an accomplice. If Lizzie was a psychopath, she definitely was one of the luckiest one ever around. I want to believe no one entered the house or left the house that morning other than the residents of that house and Mr. Morse (based on eye witnesses).

After reading through Lizzie's testimony and Bridget's behavior after the murders (some based of newspaper reports with a grain of salt), I don't want to believe in many things they said. As previously quoted by Debbie, I want to believe they were both partners in crime. Bridget lacked motivation, however, she definitely could have been compensated for it.

I know we have talked through this many a times. However, there are few things that still bother me about both murders.

A. Abby's murder:

A.1. Murderer's approach: I haven't been in the house personally. However, if we assume the murderer entered the guest room after Abby went in, she definitely was comfortable with his/her presence in the room. It had to be one of her own. She was not surprised to have them/him/her in the house at that specific hour.

A.2. Abby's shoes: I am not sure how true is this; from what I read someplace, Abby was wearing shoes which did not fit her size. Why would an aged lady go upstairs in a pair of shoes which does not fit her size!!! Especially the one who is paranoid about someone trying to kill her.

B. Andrew Borden:

B.1. Prince Albert coat: Usually, you would have your coat taken off and hung in the closet or the coat hanger as you get in the house. In Andrew's case, the coat was carefully folded and kept under his head.

B.2. Positioning of the feet: Assuming no one moved his body much before the famous pictures were taken; I find his body position to be of a man who was placed on the couch after death than someone who was sleeping on the couch when attacked. To validate this, try to take consciousness off your body, and drop on your sofa the way Andrew is positioned. You will notice that most of your feet will remain grounded to the floor (almost parallel to the floor). Now, do the other way round. Let us assume he was asleep when he got killed and his feet fell on the floor. In that case, his feet would be more perpendicular to the ground. My guess is that he got killed when he was awake if not standing tall.

C. Both Murders:

C.1 Urgency: Debbie mentions that Lizzie had a plan A which could not be materialized as John Morse showed up and later on Bridget refuses to go out of the house for a sale (I don't want to believe Bridget for sure). If we believe in this hypothesis, I wonder what was the urgency to kill the Bordens. Was it Emma's absence? I doubt that. she would have Abby dead if she had a choice. Would it be John Morse's presence? Maybe.

Several small points to add:

Debbie, your legal points are great, but there is always wiggle room in the law and lawyers are literalists. A note was sought, and/or the deliverer of a NOTE. If Mrs. W. was bubbling over with venom and gossip, besides the knowledge that her small son had run over with a message that morning, I think Jennings could have excluded/suppressed this knowledge in good conscience. There is always the possibility there WAS a NOTE in addition to a little nephew with a message. I also think Mrs. W. would have withheld information also to keep her son and family out of the spotlight of a double murder in the family. In short, if Lizzie was dying of thirst in the Sahara Desert I don't think Mrs. W. would have spit on her.

I'm not sure of Little Abby's apocryphal story about a plan for her to spend the day with Aunt Abby. I'm not saying she was lying but that over many years the story might have morphed into something it wasn't. Maybe Mrs. W. had THOUGHT to have Little Abby stay at 92 Second, but learned of the sickness there and simply decided to send her kids elsewhere. Aunt Abby may never have known she was considered as a babysitter, for example. As family discussed this through the years it could have become what Abby Potter said. It could also be wishful thinking that if someone from outside had been at the Borden home that day, the killer~whoever~wouldn't have struck.

Some of the old newspaper articles said that it was likely the photographers posed Andrew~that it would have been unseemly for a prominent member of FR society to be filmed with his shoes off, for example. Therefore they made sure his shoes were on. This wasn't a strong statement and I don't think I wrote it down. However there was a picture in one of the papers of Andrew's body and he was in his stocking feet. Keeping in mind the papers had artists who reproduced photos as etchings since the photos could not be reproduced. I can find that picture in the paper but judging by my recent performance the best I can do it name the paper, page and date. More than one paper touched on the idea of Andrew's body being posed. SO, if he was lying more or less flat of the sofa it would have been hard to actually show the damage. I know the Prince Albert coat has been discussed many times here. Is it possible photographers folded it & used it to prop up the body for better photos?

I don't find it odd that his feet are off at an odd angle. When I was little, not only did one not put shod feet on the furniture, but some considered it improper to put any feet in any condition on the furniture. I have a tendency to lie on a couch with my feet on the floor.

Considering Abby wearing Andrew's old shoes, it must be considered that shoes in those days were not comfortable, had to be broken in, may not have been made is right & left and women's shoes may have been limited in sizes. If Abby had extra wide feet, swollen feet, hammer toes, bunions, fungus on her toe nails, arthritic feet, etc. Andrew's shoes may have been a blessing. My mom was born in 1915 and I was born late in her life. I could easily have been born circa 1935 for example if Mom had married young, and my shoe troubles would be worse. Anyway, back in the time when people were much smaller than they are today, my family was big and tall with enormous feet. Mom talked about the need for women/girls to have shoes a bit too small as there was some shame in big feet. Shoes also were not made for comfort like they are today. New shoes were a misery. Even in my lifetime (born in the 1950s), shoes have been a problem. I wore a women's size 9 by sixth grade. Size 10 by high school. Size 12 today. In the late 60s/70s it became more fashionable for women to wear men's shoes. Now shoes are unisex. Until WalMart started carrying large sizes I bought fashionable women's shoes at rummage sales because I can squeeze into a size 10 if a heavy woman has previously worn them. Occasionally I could find extremely expensive shoes that a woman with large feet had had especially made for her. The Episcopal Church rummage sale was a gold mine for these size 11s but I think the donor died or something because my source dried up after about ten years. Only in the last ten years have I been able to purchase women's shoes in my size.

So I don't think it odd that poor Abby wore Andrew's old shoes in the privacy of her home. She probably thought it was shameful but she was desperate I suppose. I would have done the same! (Except my husbands all had smaller feet than I did.)

Back to Andrew~~this should probably be a different thread~~but if his head was propped up like in the pictures, wouldn't "left to right blows" from the area of the dining room door, have knocked him off the couch onto the floor? Mustn't he have been lying flatter? How does this change our understanding of the case? That blood heavily soaked through the sofa, perhaps even through the floorboards underneath, doesn't that imply there wasn't a pile of pillows, coat, etc. beneath his head? If he was lying quite a bit flatter, partially surrounded by the arm and back of the sofa, what does that tell us about the blood spatter? Wouldn't the killer have been even more protected from staining than we have assumed? Why wasn't Andrew knocked onto the floor, no matter how he was lying on the couch? Think about it.

debbiediablo wrote:The reason Lizzie lied (throwing psychological pseudo-science out the window) is because she thought people would believe her. She thought she had it covered. She set the stage with Alice Russell by foreshadowing their deaths. She puts the idea of an intruder into Bridget's head ("Someone has come in and killed Father.") Lizzie, because she is Lizzie, thinks she will not be caught...that her lies will be believed...

Ok Debbie, let's suppose that Lizzie was guilty, and, as you said, her conversation with Alice was a setting stage, etc., etc...

But I can't understand, how could she expect people to believe her note story, if it were a pure invention and she herself knew very well there were no note, no its author, no its meggenger, nothing? How could she expect people to believe her being positive to have heard Abby come in, if she knew very well that it would be found that Abby had already been killed hours ago?

Does Lizzie, as you suggest here, really think she will not be caught, that her lies will be believed? I really don't see where her so big self-confidence, her so big assuredness, come from.

Curiousmind2014 wrote:Hey Debbie,

That's a believable hypothesis that you have presented. I personally do believe Lizzie was involved. However, based on various things that happened around the murders, I don't see all of this to be possible without an accomplice. If Lizzie was a psychopath, she definitely was one of the luckiest one ever around. I want to believe no one entered the house or left the house that morning other than the residents of that house and Mr. Morse (based on eye witnesses).

After reading through Lizzie's testimony and Bridget's behavior after the murders (some based of newspaper reports with a grain of salt), I don't want to believe in many things they said. As previously quoted by Debbie, I want to believe they were both partners in crime. Bridget lacked motivation, however, she definitely could have been compensated for it.

I know we have talked through this many a times. However, there are few things that still bother me about both murders.

A. Abby's murder:

A.1. Murderer's approach: I haven't been in the house personally. However, if we assume the murderer entered the guest room after Abby went in, she definitely was comfortable with his/her presence in the room. It had to be one of her own. She was not surprised to have them/him/her in the house at that specific hour.

A.2. Abby's shoes: I am not sure how true is this; from what I read someplace, Abby was wearing shoes which did not fit her size. Why would an aged lady go upstairs in a pair of shoes which does not fit her size!!! Especially the one who is paranoid about someone trying to kill her.

B. Andrew Borden:

B.1. Prince Albert coat: Usually, you would have your coat taken off and hung in the closet or the coat hanger as you get in the house. In Andrew's case, the coat was carefully folded and kept under his head.

B.2. Positioning of the feet: Assuming no one moved his body much before the famous pictures were taken; I find his body position to be of a man who was placed on the couch after death than someone who was sleeping on the couch when attacked. To validate this, try to take consciousness off your body, and drop on your sofa the way Andrew is positioned. You will notice that most of your feet will remain grounded to the floor (almost parallel to the floor). Now, do the other way round. Let us assume he was asleep when he got killed and his feet fell on the floor. In that case, his feet would be more perpendicular to the ground. My guess is that he got killed when he was awake if not standing tall.

C. Both Murders:

C.1 Urgency: Debbie mentions that Lizzie had a plan A which could not be materialized as John Morse showed up and later on Bridget refuses to go out of the house for a sale (I don't want to believe Bridget for sure). If we believe in this hypothesis, I wonder what was the urgency to kill the Bordens. Was it Emma's absence? I doubt that. she would have Abby dead if she had a choice. Would it be John Morse's presence? Maybe.

Abby
A-1) I have long entertained the possibility that Lizzie sneaked someone in the night before and he/she was hidden away in Emma's room - the very best hiding place in the entire house. Then, when this mystery person ventures out because the coast appears to clear, he/she runs headlong into Abby who raises a ruckus. Whatever happens between them results in Abby's death. Which points to the intruder purposely being there to kill unless Lizzie or Emma kept a new hatchet (instead of a baseball bat) under the bed for protection.

A-2) I think Abby had Andrew's boots to wear them out which would prove she was every bit as frugal as he was.

Andrew
B-1) The coat: This act alone greatly contributes to my view that Lizzie had some part in the killings. Somewhere here I posted the entire chapter on domestic homicide from Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime Wiley. Kindle Edition. Placing a pillow under the victim's head or covering them with a blanket or washing their wounds are gestures of 'undoing' and are commonly found in domestic homicides. So commonly that modern-day police look immediately to the victim's near and dear when they find a corpse made comfortable.

Many people here think the coat was worn to protect the killer from blood splatter and then placed under Andrew's head to mask the splatter with ooze from the wounds. I'm undecided on wearing of the coat, but for the coat to be most effective in absorbing ooze then it needed to be directly under Andrew's head, not under a pillow that was under a doily. Plus I don't see Andrew as a guy who sleeps on his coat; then again he's John Morse's main man and John likely slept in his.

B-2) I have posted about both feet on the floor and the hands which appear to be drawn up oddly. Who on earth takes a nap in that position? Not some old arthritic guy who is 70 sayeth this old arthritic woman who is almost 64. My bones ache just looking at him twisted around that way. One of my posts describes the forensics done on a woman who was murdered with an ax while she sat in a chair, blindfolded. (The murderer told her he had a surprise for her, and he sure as Sheol did!) The description of her hands as they were raised into a semi-defensive position sounds exactly like Andrew looks:

"Neal fetched his splitting maul and “ambushed Rebecca from behind, unleashing a violent and ferocious attack using the hammer side of the maul,” Tingle said. He brought the weapon down “with such force that it completely caved in the back of her skull,” sending skull fragments into her brain and a two-inch piece of bone flying across the room. Her hands came up on the first blow and were injured when caught by the second blow...

...There were also defense wounds on Holberton’s hands, Galloway testified, indicating that for all of Neal’s supposed care to kill instantly, she had reacted to that first blow by raising her hands to her crushed skull. However, the destruction was massive as the back half of her brain had been “mashed” and fragments of bone had pierced deep into her brain."

Jackson, Steve (2011-04-01). Love Me To Death. Kensington Publishing Corp. Kindle Edition.

Both Murders
C-1) Yes, I think the urgency was, in part, Emma's absence. I think the sisters planned the murders together but Emma lacked a stomach for follow through. Plus Emma needed to be the squeaky clean eldest daughter to inherit the boatloads of money which would keep Lizzie off the gallows!!! Also the mounting mistrust of Andrew's duty in death to provide for his family which did not include Abby's sister.

The only way to stop Sarah Whitehead and her brats was to stop Abby!

Had Andrew died without a will then Abby would've inherited everything which could have channeled the entire Borden fortune to the in-laws. Maybe the problem wasn't that Andrew was writing a will but more like he was vacillating. Dying with a will is better than leaving most of it to Abby and thus to Sarah by dying intestate. That summer, but not August 4, had been miserably hot, plus Lizzie needed to be sent to the Moon Hut. (Supposedly.)

There's always the possibility that Morse brought alarming news, but I'm more inclined to think his conversation with Andrew and Abby the night before was alarming. Even if Lizzie couldn't hear it from upstairs, she could her it from on the stairs.

Bridget
And perhaps one more thing, still nebulous, having to do with Bridget which is why I think she became complicit a posteriori. Seems that Bridget truly liked Abby, but 'something' made her want to leave one of the cush-ier maid jobs in Fall River. The pay was good. She had 1 1/2 days off. And her duties were light. This is where my radar starts to blip. Why did a skinflint like Andrew pay the maid so well, blip. blip. Was he equally generous with other employees and business dealings, blip. blip, blip.

Just thinking.

George O. Whitehead, Abby's nephew was five years old in 1892, having been born in March 1887. Even in an era when children were allowed to do a great many things that children nowadays are not, five is a little young to be entrusted with notes and running through busy streets and traffic to deliver them.

George went to a babysitter that Thursday, 'little Abby' to her other aunt. The parents went to the police picnic at Sandy Point a way away and would probably have started early in the day, a bit late to be arranging for notes to be sent to babysitter Abby.

Sarah Whitehead adored her half sister and would have done anything to assist finding her murderer. The police appeal to whoever sent the note came early in the investigation. Why would Sarah immediately leap to the conclusion that Lizzie must have done it and so decide not to help just for the satisfaction of seeing Lizzie hang, at that early stage of the proceedings?

No note was ever found in the house. No person was ever seen delivering it. No-one answered the police appeal at a time when the town was in an uproar. The only two people who mentioned that Abby got a note were Bridget and Lizzie, and guess who Bridget got that particular piece of information from!

My guess is that when Abby and Andrew were feeling seedy on the Wednesday Abby wrote a short note to Sarah and put it in the post, telling her to make other arrangements for the police picnic as regretfully, there was summer sickness in the house. Sarah would have done just that, and alternative arrangements were made.

Curryong wrote:... No note was ever found in the house. No person was ever seen delivering it. No-one answered the police appeal at a time when the town was in an uproar. The only two people who mentioned that Abby got a note were Bridget and Lizzie, and guess who Bridget got that particular piece of information from! ...

Abby receiving notes from sick friends, family and neighbors, may have been a very common occurrence in the Borden household. Lizzie would have known this, so would Bridget and Andrew. I believe the only reason Lizzie mentioned a note was to account for Abby being absence for an indefinite amount of time. There never was a note.

There is an interesting question in some part of the testimony where I believe Lizzie is asked if it was normal for Abby to go out for a long period and how many times had this happened in the past. The reply is lukewarm~that it had happened but rarely.

Considering the Lizzie is guilty angle, what this tells me is that the note was an excuse to say Abby isn't just marketing for lunch items; in fact she won't be back until after lunch. This would buy time to keep Andrew calm before he was killed and would give her time to leave the premises and go down town.

As with everything in the case it doesn't hold together all the way. The other part of the note story is that Abby is also marketing for "meat" for lunch. That says Abby planned to do the marketing AND visit the sick friend AND return in time for lunch. (This might make a lot of sense in that Andrew may have/likely have told his wife Uncle John was coming back for lunch and it makes sense that Abby would buy some fresh "meat" for lunch.) Plus Lizzie called Bridget so fast after Andrew was killed that if she had a major plan, she didn't carry through. Even if she was too overcome by emotion from killing her father to go down town for an alibi, she would have done better for herself if all she could do was stagger into the street and pass out.

I think twinsrwe meant a very UNcommon occurrence for Abby to receive notes in her (twinsrwe's) last post as it was known that Abby had few friends or relatives who would have written her in that way and fewer for whom she would have hurried to check on their health. That is what puzzled Bridget so much and why she immediately thought of Mrs Whitehead as the writer of the note.

If you didn't mean that, twins, I apologise in advance!

I believe there were several things that started to unravel for Lizzie that Thursday morning (including the unpleasant news that Uncle John was returning for the noon meal.) That was why to a certain extent she had to play it by ear. It would certainly have been a better look in the eyes of observers had Lizzie run screaming from the house or fainted in front of witnesses, but she didn't.

No, I meant common occurrence. If receiving a note from a sick friend, family or neighbors was an UNcommon occurrence in the Borden household, then it would have sent red-flags up for Bridget and Andrew, resulting in Lizzie being bombarded with questions, to which she would not have had any answers for. Granted, Bridget was puzzled when it was Lizzie who informed her of the note, instead of Abby, but she then thought it must have been Mrs. Whitehead who sent the note. As far as I know, there is nothing in testimony in regards to Andrew being surprised that his wife received a note, therefore Abby receiving a note was a common occurrence.

Lizzie needed a believable reason for Abby being absence for an indefinite amount of time. She could have told Bridget that Abby went to the market, which was another common occurrence, except that task had a relatively short time span. Does this explanation make more sense?

You're apology is accepted.

Thanks, twinsrwe! Got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Nothing unususual for me!

You're welcome. Don't worry, we all misinterpret or misunderstand things at one time or another. Besides, I could have explained what I meant better than I did in the first post. I'm just glad we are on the same page, now.

I don't think Lizzie knew Uncle John was coming back for lunch. Perhaps she learned this from her father when he came home but I don't think she knew earlier. I'm not sure Abby knew but if she said she would get some "meat" for dinner perhaps she did know. We really don't have any way to know who knew what and when about that. I don't think Bridget knew he was coming back.

Lizzie may have thought her social position would protect her from investigation. Certainly she~or most people in those days~would have had NO idea what happens after a murder is committed or discovered. No crime shows then and ladies would NEVER read 'True Detective' or whatever they had in those days.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that the note was from Bowen, inquiring after the family's health, since Andrew had driven him out the day before? Why this makes a bit of sense is because of Bowen burning that piece of paper. Perhaps he had his assistant~possibly a young man or boy~deliver a note assuring Abby that he would be happy to care for her if she was still unwell. Bowen might not have realised the importance of the spurious note until he had burned the paper, and if he came forward with an explanation it would look like he had deliberately destroyed evidence. I think Debbie would say Bowen wouldn't keep quiet or if he told Jennings, Jennings would have used the information. Such knowledge though would undermine Lizzie's story that the note was sent to summon Abby to a sick friend. If it turned out to be a friendly contact from the doctor it might have helped or hurt depending on how it was taken. Again however we have a case where LITERALLY such a note would not be the note that summoned Abby to a sick friend and as such, in my opinion may have been suppressed so as not to further confuse the situation. This is just a thought to add to the mix for what it's worth.

Franz wrote:

debbiediablo wrote:The reason Lizzie lied (throwing psychological pseudo-science out the window) is because she thought people would believe her. She thought she had it covered. She set the stage with Alice Russell by foreshadowing their deaths. She puts the idea of an intruder into Bridget's head ("Someone has come in and killed Father.") Lizzie, because she is Lizzie, thinks she will not be caught...that her lies will be believed...

Ok Debbie, let's suppose that Lizzie was guilty, and, as you said, her conversation with Alice was a setting stage, etc., etc...

But I can't understand, how could she expect people to believe her note story, if it were a pure invention and she herself knew very well there were no note, no its author, no its meggenger, nothing? How could she expect people to believe her being positive to have heard Abby come in, if she knew very well that it would be found that Abby had already been killed hours ago?

Does Lizzie, as you suggest here, really think she will not be caught, that her lies will be believed? I really don't see where her so big self-confidence, her so big assuredness, come from.

Yes. Yes! Yes!!! This way of thinking is part of Lizzie's pathology...not much different than Bill Clinton staring with absolute sincerity into the tv cameras...saying, "I did not have sex with that woman," knowing full that he had, and probably knowing full well that the DNA proof was on Monica Lewinsky's dress.