Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:10 am**

We know that Lizzie lied a number of times, for example, she changed more than one time her version of the barn story.

Lizzie testified that Mrs. Borden told her to have received a note, and after the murder occurred, she and Emma looked for the note, and then, they even offered a reward to the author and the messenger of the note; however it was never found. It’s true that Lizzie tried to give an explanation: when someone suggested that Mrs. Borden might have burnt the note in the stove of the kitchen, she said, yes, she must have burnt it. But Lizzie never changed her note story itself, she never thought of giving a new version to correct the old one, for example, as some members suggested, she never said: oh maybe I misunderstood Mrs. Borden, she might have received only an oral message, not a written note.

Maybe someone would say: ah, Lizzie may not be as smart as… (no comment from my part.)

I submit this post as a new thread because I would like to underline -- maybe someone has already underlined it --- the fact that Lizzie always insisted on her note story, always insisted on something that might strongly incriminate her --- and indeed it did ---.

Why Lizzie, this ferocious criminal, who --- as many of you believe --- barbarically murdered her stepmother and her father with a sharp weapon, being therefore conscious of her guilt, never thought of emending her stupid lie (if it was a lie)? why, instead, did she insist on the note story that would strongly incriminate her?

Just amazing.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:48 am**

Because murderers sometimes do stupid things, Franz, as I'm sure you've noted with other murders. Having told Andrew about Abby's note (to prevent him from going upstairs and looking for Abby (and, by extension Bridget who overheard her conversation with her father) Lizzie was stuck with it.

It would be extremely strange if Bridget blabbed to those first police officers at the house that Abby had received a sick note and Lizzie hadn't mentioned it to them. That would make it even more suspicious. Lizzie had to make it seem to her friends that Abby had intended to go out or had gone out, as otherwise it would be what the police came to the conclusion it was, Lizzie and Abby alone that Thursday morning in that house for hours while Bridget was outside. That was why she stuck with her story.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:50 am**

Curryong wrote:Because murderers sometimes do stupid things, Franz, as I'm sure you've noted with other murders. Having told Andrew about Abby's note (to prevent him from going upstairs and looking for Abby), and, by extension Bridget, who overheard her conversation with her father, Lizzie was stuck with it.

It would be extremely strange if Bridget blabbed to those first police officers at the house that miss Lizzie had told her that Abby had received a sick note and Lizzie hadn't mentioned it to the police. That would make it even more suspicious. Lizzie had to make it seem to her friends that Abby had intended to go out or had gone out, as otherwise it would be what the police came to the conclusion it was, Lizzie and Abby alone that Thursday morning in that house for hours while Bridget was outside. That was why she stuck with her story.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:05 am**

If so, why didn't Lizzie stick to the first version of her barn story? She had told it to the people and people would testify so to the police, right? So why did Lizzie change her first version? It would be extremely strange that people testified her first barn story version but meanwhile she continued to give new versions, wouldn't it?

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:14 am**

Good question, Franz!

This is just my best guess (and I could be totally off the mark!) but I think Lizzie knew she had to account for Mrs. Borden's absence from the home. (We know that poor Abby was a virtual recluse and seldom left the house, so her absence would have seemed odd.) Lizzie knew no one would accept the idea that shy, reclusive Abby was off on a shopping trip, or visiting some of her (virtually non-existent) friends, so Lizzie had to come up with some reason why her stepmother would be absent on this day of all days.

I suppose the idea that Abby just might venture into town on an errand of mercy--such as visiting a sick friend--would be more convincing than any other explanation. Why Lizzie stuck to the story of a mysterious note, rather than saying someone had stopped by the house to ask for Abby's help, I don't know. Maybe it was just the first explanation that occurred to her and she felt she had no choice but to stick to her story. I don't believe Lizzie ever actually named the sick person--in fact as I recall she denied knowing who had sent the note--but the most logical person would be a relative of Abby's--she did have a sister, a young niece, and the sister's mother (Sarah was actually Abby's much-younger half-sister: same father, different mothers) living in town and they were virtually her only friends. If she had gone to visit anyone, it most likely would have been these relatives. I think Lizzie made up this story because she knew, first, her father would be looking for Abby when he came home, so Lizzie introduced the idea of a note to explain Abby's absence. Later, people would be asking her where Abby was during all the commotion after Andrew's death, so she needed to place her stepmother several blocks away. Also, if Lizzie had claimed that a person had come asking for Abby to visit this "sick friend", police would have scoured the town searching for the mysterious messenger. A note is much harder to trace--just tear it up and toss it into the stove to burn. IF the elusive note ever even existed--we have only Lizzie's word for that. There may never have been a note at all--nor any other message.

Surely the police asked Abby's half-sister if she had been the sender of the note--if she had even been taken ill. I'm wracking my brain trying to remember whether they did that or not! Argh--my lamentable memory!!

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:20 am**

I agree with your take on this, Franz. For some reason Lizzie changed the barn story but didn't change the note story. I'm not sure there was a note but believe Lizzie thought a message had been delivered. Victoria Lincoln made a great bit of fiction with this, suggesting Andrew had sent a note to get Abby out of the house to conduct business, Lizzie knew about it and killed Abby. Another possibility is Abby invented a note so she could leave the house for some reason of her own. We know so little about Abby. Could she have made an excuse to go out to see a different doctor or to speak with her relatives?

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:22 am**

Well, with a note, there's either a note or there isn't one. That can't be changed. However, she may have felt, in those early questions that the police might be indulgent over her guessing the length of time she was in the barn (and later shortening the time), hearing scrapes, eating pears and so on. She didn't know that they would form suspicions about her alibi.

Having set her course early that she was in the barn Lizzie could hardly do a U-turn and say "I made a mistake! I wasn't in the barn after all. I was in the cellar, because of my period I was there for quite a while." In a way it would have been better for her to have said that, but she obviously just didn't think of it, I suppose.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:27 am**

Franz wrote:If so, why didn't Lizzie stick to the first version of her barn story? She had told it to the people and people would testify so to the police, right? So why did Lizzie change her first version? It would be extremely strange that people testified her first barn story version but meanwhile she continued to give new versions, wouldn't it?

I can think offhand of two possible reasons that Lizzie kept changing her stories:

(1) She was lying, and couldn't keep her stories straight. OR

(2) When she realized that a particular story was contradicted by the evidence, or the police pointed out inconsistencies in her stories, she was quick to alter her story to "fit" the new "facts".

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:31 am**

The police made a great fuss about finding the sender of this mysterious note, NESpinster. Hello, by the way!
They scoured the town looking for answers. No-one came forward, including Mrs Whitehead, Abby's half-sister, who was at the police picnic that Thursday, nor Mrs Jane Gray, Abby's stepmother.

If Abby intended to rush out to tend a sick relative she took her time over it. She was fiddling about with pillow shams when she was killed.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:34 am**

Curryong wrote:Well, with a note, there's either a note or there isn't one. That can't be changed. However, she may have felt, in those early questions that the police might be indulgent over her guessing the length of time she was in the barn (and later shortening the time), hearing scrapes, eating pears and so on. She didn't know that they would form suspicions about her alibi.

Having set her course early that she was in the barn Lizzie could hardly do a U-turn and say "I made a mistake! I wasn't in the barn after all. I was in the cellar, because of my period I was there for quite a while." In a way it would have been better for her to have said that, but she obviously just didn't think of it, I suppose.

And remember, Curryong, back in 1892 no woman--certainly no "lady"--would be caught dead telling the police (or anyone else probably) that she was having her period. It was one of those things that ppl simply did not discuss in the Late Victorian Era. Even when pretty much forced to admit it, Lizzie's only admission was that the blood on the outside of her skirt might have come from a "flea-bite". (Which still makes no sense--if so, it should have been on the inside of the skirt!)

Surely the Victorians could have come up with a better euphemism than that!!!

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:38 am**

Yes exactly! That sort of information would have had to be conveyed to the police by the sympathetic family doctor, Dr Bowen, in a discreet sort of way, of course.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:42 am**

Curryong wrote:The police made a great fuss about finding the sender of this mysterious note, NESpinster. Hello, by the way!
They scoured the town looking for answers. No-one came forward, including Mrs Whitehead, Abby's half-sister, who was at the police picnic that Thursday, nor Mrs Jane Gray, Abby's stepmother.

If Abby intended to rush out to tend a sick relative she took her time over it. She was fiddling about with pillow shams when she was killed.

Hello right back at ya!

Yes, you're right, thanks for the reminder! Also I wonder just how well Abby felt that morning--I mean before the obvious happened!

After all, she hadn't been feeling too well herself!

I strongly suspect that note existed only in Lizzie's imagination.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:51 am**

You're welcome. Yes, I agree, but then I've always felt that Lizzie did it. Abby consumed breakfast that morning according to John Morse, and indeed it was only partially digested when she was killed, so she must have been feeling a bit better. Poor old Bridget, however, had to wash windows after vomiting earlier.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:28 pm**

The barn story is a mess that got worse with time. I am inclined to believe Lizzie was in the cellar, heard the murder~scraping, groaning, etc~had a bad case of survivor's guilt and felt the overwhelming need to place herself somewhere as far away as possible so she could live with the fact she couldn't/didn't help her father. Of course I believe she is some level of innocent.

The note however was never embellished. Lizzie was a lousy liar and contemporaries at the time felt she would not lie, that it was easier to think she would commit murder than that she would lie about having done so. Her biggest lies place her as far away as possible from the murders/bodies, i.e. the barn and not upstairs when her father came home. It could all stem from a very personal thought of, "Why did I survive?" "I wasn't there", mentally at least.

I still think there is the possibility that Abby invented the note story so she could leave the house for a longer than usual period of time. Possibly she wanted to consult a doctor outside of her various next door neighbors considering how rude Andrew was to Dr. Bowen.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:24 pm**

Franz wrote:We know that Lizzie lied a number of times, for example, she changed more than one time her version of the barn story.

Lizzie testified that Mrs. Borden told her to have received a note, and after the murder occurred, she and Emma looked for the note, and then, they even offered a reward to the author and the messenger of the note; however it was never found. It’s true that Lizzie tried to give an explanation: when someone suggested that Mrs. Borden might have burnt the note in the stove of the kitchen, she said, yes, she must have burnt it. But Lizzie never changed her note story itself, she never thought of giving a new version to correct the old one, for example, as some members suggested, she never said: oh maybe I misunderstood Mrs. Borden, she might have received only an oral message, not a written note.

Maybe someone would say: ah, Lizzie may not be as smart as… (no comment from my part.)

I submit this post as a new thread because I would like to underline -- maybe someone has already underlined it --- the fact that Lizzie always insisted on her note story, always insisted on something that might strongly incriminate her --- and indeed it did ---.

Why Lizzie, this ferocious criminal, who --- as many of you believe --- barbarically murdered her stepmother and her father with a sharp weapon, being therefore conscious of her guilt, never thought of emending her stupid lie (if it was a lie)? why, instead, did she insist on the note story that would strongly incriminate her?

Just amazing.

At some point, even an inept liar has to see that they had better not change their story any more...If I lied about multiple things already, I'd stick to my note story...she knew it couldn't be proven either way. This proves nothing.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:07 pm**

PossumPie wrote: At some point, even an inept liar has to see that they had better not change their story any more...If I lied about multiple things already, I'd stick to my note story...she knew it couldn't be proven either way. This proves nothing.

Yes, you are right: nobody has never PROVED that Lizzie's note story was a lie. Many believe so but they are not able to prove that it was a lie. The unique person who could prove that it was a lie is Lizzie herself, with her confession. But she never did such a thing.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:36 pm**

Perhaps a more fruitful way to look at the note is what wa the note and why was it sent. If there was a note/message it was out of the ordinary.

If it is a total lie, an invention on Lizzie's part, then she is guilty and the story was made up to explain where was Abby and why she shouldn't be expected for lunch, in case that became an issue.

On the other hand if there was a note or message, as many have pointed out, the sender never came forward. While I feel some of Abby's relatives hated Lizzie enough to remain quiet, probably knowing Lizzie would likely be acquitted and would never be hanged, many disagree with me. Moving along then we have a note/message with no one admitting they sent it. Why? Like I said earlier Abby may have made up the story so she could get away for a few hours. Did she have plans to meet someone for some reason? Was Victoria Lincoln correct that Andrew sent a note? Could Abby have referred to someone she knew who was sick while never mentioning a note or message? Did she refer to the recent sickness in the Borden household and her desire to see another doctor? What other possibilities might there be? Some have suggested a street kid was paid a nickle to deliver a message. Was there a note or message from Mrs. Whitehead saying Little Abby wasn't coming for the day, period, end of the message? Did Aunt Abby mention this to Lizzie and then ramble on about someone who was sick, etc? How good did Lizzie listen, was she distracted or uninterested?

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:14 pm**

If Andrew sent the note-- and Abby didn't show up to meet him-- or whatever the contents of the note said-- once he got home and heard she had indeed received the note, surely he would have thought he missed her in passing and returned to the meeting place he suggested in the note or at the very least searched the house to see if she had taken ill?

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:19 pm**

If Abby did intend to consult another doctor (though Dr Bowen was a friend, convenient for consultations and as far as we know hadn't insulted her,) surely, in those much more formal days, she would have made an appointment? It wouldn't, you would think, be Drs Kelly or Chagnon, (sectarianism) or Dr Handy (unless she wanted to enrage Andrew further.)
Anyway, she was feeling better, as she had informed Phoebe Bowen. The time to be consulting other doctors would surely be on the Wednesday when she was worried about 'poison' and still had the symptoms, such as they were. Judging by Dr Bowen's testimony Abby seemed to have had a bit of a relapse over the baker's bread at breakfast, after a night of vomiting. He described her as almost gagging as she was talking to him. If you were almost gagging and dissatisfied with Dr Bowen's response, surely you'd send a message round to another doctor that morning asking him to call, not wait a day.

If it was Andrew's health Abby was worried about, good luck in getting another doctor over the threshold! He couldn't even bear the sight of Bowen, a neighbour and friend of his wife and daughter!

Also, surely if another doctor was to be consulted he would have come forward in the wake of the murders, unless Abby intended to toddle down the street later and just call in on the off-chance! It wouldn't have been morning surgery, surely, as Abby didn't look as if she was going out soon.

Posted: **Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:03 pm**

I don't think people made doctor's appointments much in those days. I think they just walked in when the doctor had office hours. Plus doctors did come to the home as you mentioned, Curryong. Even in my lifetime medical care was done along these lines. Which doesn't really prove anything one way or another as far as Abby and the note.

The theory of Andrew sending a note, etc. was developed by Victoria Lincoln. Her book filled in all the cracks and answered all the questions. If I remember correctly she suggested Andrew assumed his wife had chickened out and had not responded to his note. Therefore I think he accepted Lizzie's story. Have to read her book. I read it over 45 years ago.

I fortified myself with three pears before responding. Pears are ripe here, or rather falling off the tree green and ripening subsequently. This is actually a Borden point though it has nothing to do with the note. These old trees make little pears and bigger pears and a few fairly large pears. So a regular person can eat up to half a dozen small ones or one or two big ones. If they have a little worm in the centre then one only eats part of the pear. So it's understandable that a lot of pears were consumed that day. Realistically Lizzie would have had dirty, sticky hands if she had eaten them in the barn loft though, and witnesses said her hands were very clean. Just a thought.

(One of those little, yellow smilies ought to be pear shaped, don't you think?)

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:42 am**

Franz wrote:If so, why didn't Lizzie stick to the first version of her barn story? She had told it to the people and people would testify so to the police, right? So why did Lizzie change her first version? It would be extremely strange that people testified her first barn story version but meanwhile she continued to give new versions, wouldn't it?

That's a great question! I've wondered about that for years. She was making herself look quilty. I mean, if you're going to lie, at least keep your lies straight!

As for the note, who knows? There may or may not have been a note, no one ever found one. I can't even say if Lizzie was lying about that. It appears that she was because she was changing her alibi all the time.

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:23 am**

Yes. Lizzie was a bad liar and that note was never found!

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:41 am**

FINDING the note isn't as important as finding the person who WROTE it. Who cares WHERE the note is? EVERY person known to and by Abby was interviewed and no one admitted to writing a note. A reward was offered... There is no note, no person jumped up and said they wrote the note, it was a fabrication. With the COUNTRY-WIDE sensation about the murders, you are saying that the note writer somehow just never heard that anyone was looking for them?

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:58 am**

I'M not saying anything of the sort, Possum. It was a throwaway remark!

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:59 am**

Just a shot in the dark, but maybe the person who wrote the note (if both really existed) didn't to get involved for reasons unknown --being scared not wanting to get involved or what ever. But we will never know, but it's fun to speculate!!

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:55 am**

Assuming Lizzie was telling the truth, the only sender of the note who wouldn't come forward is Andrew. What if there was a note, but it didn't say someone was sick? Lizzie was the master of the half truth. Let's say it said meet me downtown at the bank to sign papers and Lizzie found it and that was the impetus for Abby's murder.

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:58 am**

Thank you my fellows for your replies. Welcome back NESpinster!

We have many ways to discuss the note story, and some of them are more fruitful, as Irina said. However, the point of my thread, this one, is focused on the INSISTENCE of Lizzie on the note story, not on the note story itself (did it really exist? Was it a lie? who was the author? etc.).

I will submit a more elaborate post soon.

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:08 am**

I see the point. I'm thinking that the insistence on Lizzies' part I think, that maybe to throw the suscepion off of her, maybe. That the "real" killer was trying to get everyone out of the house, and the real target was Andrew?

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:17 am**

I think there is a kernel of truth to the story and that is why Lizzie stayed with it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:37 pm**

In our forum, and outside, when I read the posts and anything about the Borden case, I met many times something like: the mysterious Lizzie, the fascinating Emma, Bridget having a black history, Abby having much more to be discovered, etc., etc.

It seems that many think they were extraordinary people. Generally speaking I don’t agree. What was really extraordinary is the Borden case itself and its “unsolvedness”. It was the extraordinary Borden case that made its involved characters seem extraordinary. And these characters themselves, in my opinion, were all common people, very common. If the Borden murder never occurred, today none of us would know the least thing about them. They would have disappeared in the darkness of the history, just as many other common people of that time, common, normal, anonymous, people.

But one day, suddenly, a horrible double murder occurred, and it changed everything. I think Lizzie was just a very common woman of that time, but unfortunately for her, this horrible double murder occurred in her family, the victims were her stepmother and her father, and one day she found herself suddenly being in the centre of this horror.

Finished this long preface, I will come back to the point of my thread: Lizzie’s insistence on her note story, and her changing the version of her barn story.

This common woman, Lizzie, was not a smart “criminal”; she had no capacity to produce a perfect crime --- I am not talking about her intelligence in general, but I am saying that she was not a smart “criminal”. In what sense do I use the word “criminal”? --- Curryong, and others, please forgive me but I have to, I must, I am not able to avoid to, talk about Lizzie’s barn story. Yes, in my opinion, Lizzie was not the killer of her father and her stepmother, while her father was being killed in the sitting room, Lizzie had, as she testified, gone into the barn where she did something that she didn’t wish, she couldn’t, confess openly. Being totally strange for the murder, she certainly didn’t foresee that people would question about what she was doing in the barn, therefore she didn’t prepare a good version (a perfect lie) to cover up her activities in the barn. That’s why we now know what we know: Lizzie, this common woman and common “criminal”, gave different versions about what she was doing in the barn. When she was doing (lying) so, what occupied her mind at that moment might be only this idea: oh, I must cover up what I did in the barn, I must invent a better story to cover it up; and most probably she even didn’t realize that she would be suspected for the murder --- that she didn’t commit --- because of her barn lies. That’s why I said that Lizzie was not a smart “criminal” for her “crime” committed in the barn --- she was just a common woman. If the police insisted to find the truth in the barn, maybe they could succeed. But we all know that Knowlton didn’t care at all about what Lizzie did in the barn, because he believed that Lizzie, instead of being in the barn, was killing her father in the sitting room.

But the same Lizzie, while she changed more than one time her barn story’s version, insisted firmly on the note story, why? For me the answer is a very simple one: being innocent for the murder, Lizzie didn’t need, Lizzie never felt the need, to lie, to change the note story. She just testified, as honestly as possible (because in the note story she had nothing to have to cover up), what Abby told her. Indeed I think that probably Lizzie never realized, immediately after the murder occurred, during and after the trial, and during all her life, that there might be a link between the note and the murder itself (I personally think that the note was a crucial part of the murder plot). So even when the note was never found, even no author neither messenger was never found, even the note not found was strongly incriminating her, Lizzie insisted always on the same note story, never changed her version, because she was not the murderess, the note story was not her (bad) invention, she was just telling the truth.

Yes, in my opinion Lizzie was not a smart “criminal”, becasue she betrayed herself by giving different barn stories to cover up, badly, her "crime" in the barn. On the other hand, as she was not criminal at all for the murder and didnt' invent the note story, she insisted on it, honestly. Lizzie was innocent, and, a very common woman.

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:55 pm**

Why then did she state she thought she heard Abby come in? And if Abby did indeed get some sort of note or make mention to Lizzie about a note and possibly going out, why, if she thought she heard her come in did Lizzie not call for her upon the discovery of Andrew's body and the arrival of neighbors and a doctor?

Posted: **Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:03 pm**

Aamartin wrote:Why then did she state she thought she heard Abby come in? And if Abby did indeed get some sort of note or make mention to Lizzie about a note and possibly going out, why, if she thought she heard her come in did Lizzie not call for her upon the discovery of Andrew's body and the arrival of neighbors and a doctor?

I, you, and many other members have discussed this in other threads and posts.

In a simple way, I will say that this is a lie of Lizzie who, believing --- wrongly --- that Abby, after having received the note, went out for the visit, and being in the barn for some minutes, doubted if during that time Abby had returned home. And if so, what might have happened to her, giving that her father had been killed. So Lizzie lied in this way in order to solicit others to go to search her. While giving this lie, Lizzie was not certain at all where Abby could actually be (she was probalby wishing secretly that Abby would not be found at all in the house, this would mean her being still alive).

So I would say that this time Lizzie lied, not for covering up a "crime" as she did for the barn story, but she lied for her worry about Abby's safety. But unfortunately she was betrayed by her kindness.

P.S.: And this lie, again, indicates to me Lizzie's innocence: She didn't commit the murder so she never doubted that she would be suspected, and she couldn't foresee that Abby would be found dead with her house clothes in the guest room and this would prove her statement as a lie (with good intention). If by any chance Abby were found in the town, perfectly alive, nobody would care that Lizzie lied by saying that she heard Abby come in; they would easily think that Lizzie might have made a confusion. If Abby were alive, who would care this unsignificant lie? Lizzie herself could not know that this lie would be proved as a terrible circumstancial evidence against her, because she couldn't know that Abby would be found dead in the house!

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:17 am**

PossumPie wrote:FINDING the note isn't as important as finding the person who WROTE it. Who cares WHERE the note is? EVERY person known to and by Abby was interviewed and no one admitted to writing a note. A reward was offered... There is no note, no person jumped up and said they wrote the note, it was a fabrication. With the COUNTRY-WIDE sensation about the murders, you are saying that the note writer somehow just never heard that anyone was looking for them?

If the note writer was the same person as the murderer (if intruder), or his accomplice? (I say "his" because I believe the executive killer was a man.)

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:47 am**

Franz, you believe Morse as a noble gesture had an accomplice enter the Borden house and kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden. Lizzie and Emma then would get rich. What would the murderer have done if Lizzie happened to walk in on him killing them? He would have had to kill Lizzie so she wouldn't be able to identivy him in court, or raise an alarm. And Morse would have known that after doing Lizzie and Emma "A favor" by killing their parents that suspicion would have gone to Lizzie. IF he did all of that...then he was mentally deranged. His "Favor" would have traumatized Lizzie seeing her dead father, and possible gotten her hung. THAT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A FAVOR!!!!!
Your logic just doesn't hold up. Your whole theory is put together with spit and tape and strange illogical reasoning. It is full of "This could have happened" without any evidence or even logic behind it. No note found? No one admits writing a note? Me: "There never was a note" You: "An accomplice sneaked in behind Mrs. Borden, wasn't seen when she told Lizzie about the note, followed Abby upstairs, killed her, took the note and left." Sure it's possible but is is very convoluted, messy, and needs a LOT of luck on the part of the killer.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:36 am**

I think that if the note was written, the person didn't want to come forward because they didn't want be involved. As for Lizzie saying she heard Abby coming in, maybe in her mind, she was trying to throw the police off her trail.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:54 am**

It may be, Snokkums, that the suspense of waiting was too much for Lizzie. She was eager for someone to find the body, to get the show on the road, so to speak.

What I can never quite understand is, why Bridget, (who had been up in her room and did perhaps think that Mrs Borden maybe had come in in that period of time), would have gone immediately up to look for her in the guest room, where she'd been last seen two hours before.
If Abby was capable of messing about with pillow shams for half an hour in the guest room earlier, why would she not be capable of dumping her parcels temporarily, resting her feet for a while and dozing in the parlour after a long shopping trip? Why did they go straight to searching in the guest room first?

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:46 am**

Curryong wrote:It may be, Snokkums, that the suspense of waiting was too much for Lizzie. She was eager for someone to find the body, to get the show on the road, so to speak.

What I can never quite understand is, why Bridget, (who had been up in her room and did perhaps think that Mrs Borden maybe had come in in that period of time), would have gone immediately up to look for her in the guest room, where she'd been last seen two hours before.
If Abby was capable of messing about with pillow shams for half an hour in the guest room earlier, why would she not be capable of dumping her parcels temporarily, resting her feet for a while and dozing in the parlour after a long shopping trip? Why did they go straight to searching in the guest room first?

I agree with you on Bridget, because what has always confused me is that she was in her room at the time Abby was supposedly in the guest room getting hacked to death, why she didn't hear anything. The house is a very tight, close house, and if she was in her bedroom, why she didn't hear anything. Just that alone would make think that Abby really was out.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:48 am**

PossumPie wrote:...
Your logic just doesn't hold up. Your whole theory is put together with spit and tape and strange illogical reasoning. It is full of "This could have happened" without any evidence or even logic behind it. No note found? No one admits writing a note? Me: "There never was a note" You: "An accomplice sneaked in behind Mrs. Borden, wasn't seen when she told Lizzie about the note, followed Abby upstairs, killed her, took the note and left." ...

I beg your pardon Possum, I never said such a thing.

(P.S.: I don't know if I have been illogical, but I never distorted, REPEATEDLY, theories of other members.)

(P.S.: Specifically for the note's not bing found. I can even agree that apparently your conjecture is more probable --- because much more easier --- than the mine, but I don't understand why my conjecture (that the note came from the murderer(s) and was taken away by the executive killer) is illogical. Being improbable does not mean being illogical, does it?)

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:21 am**

Think its time for a "beer summit".

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:40 am**

If we have it at my place it might be rather a long journey. Cold Aussie beers are very good, though!

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:05 pm**

Snokkums, I think Bridget was washing windows or otherwise outside when Abby was killed. Bridget was supposed to be lying on her bed on the third floor when Andrew was killed.

I posted earlier in another place, my ideas about logic and intuition. Logic helps sort and classify things to reach...well...logical conclusions. Intuition leads people to look for answers frequently outside the realm of logic. The research has to bear fruit (in this case pears?

) to be worth anything. Thus the police and courts used logic to try and defend Lizzie. Writers and others have worked from many different angles for years. Both approaches are valuable in writing. Believe it or not I am a technical writer.

I would define illogical as fantastic and unlikely to be proven. The main problem with your theory Franz is that it will have the most value when proved, but how will you find proof? For example one can read old news accounts to look for similar crimes then work backward to see if any could be in any way tied back to Morse. Was there another nasty murder where the suspect was a man or men who subsequently worked for Morse for instance?

I spent a whole day looking at the old papers looking for axe murders in proximity to the Borden case, before or after. I was looking for patterns. I did find other axe murders but they were coincident with robbery. I found other murders of families, again with robbery for a basis. In some cases homes were at least attempted to be burned down afterward. I remembered Debbie's thought about Lizzie maybe burning down 92 Second to cover the murders. So I checked to see if any of those other cases pre-dated the Borden murders~could Lizzie have gotten any ideas to commit a copycat crime? I couldn't prove that either. I looked closely at Bertha Manchester but the accused showed authorities where he had hidden her gold watch in a stone fence. That pretty much convicts him right there. Why Knowlton let the man Correiro/de Mello be tried for second degree murder when Lizzie had so recently been charged with first degree, I don't understand. Maybe that has some thread from the Borden case attached. Strange anyway.

That's how I did some original research to look at Lizzie's innocence or guilt. That is how I used intuition of Lizzie's innocence to search for truth to answer logic.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:43 pm**

Some very good research involved there, Irina. Well done! No wonder why debbie and I were wondering where you'd got to! 'Smile'.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:36 pm**

For me, it's simple. The note was a total lie. Had Andrew sent it-- he would not have been blase about her not being home when he got there-- like I said above-- he would have returned to the meeting site. If Abby's relatives sent it-- they would have come forward and claimed the reward. It would have been all they were going to get anyway. Uncle John? While his alibi is fishily iron clad, I just don't see it-- how did he benefit? And it isn't like they remained close or even in contact afterwards.

Posted: **Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:43 pm**

Thanks, Curryong. I also read the old articles with an eye to Franz' theory. I just couldn't figure any connexion between any of those cases and the Borden case.

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:18 am**

You are right Irina, Bridget was outside washing windows. Oops, I was wrong! But I still have this nagging feeling that she would have heard a thud on the floor when Abby hit the ground, even if she was outside washing windows. I was, and is, a small tight house, and she was on the side of the house where the guest bedroom was.

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:15 am**

There was a thick carpet on the floor wasn't there, and maybe she just sort of slumped to the floor rather than fell over like a log, though she did injure her face when she fell? I'm sure I've read old threads here that discussed the noise Abby might or might not have made as she hit the floor.

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:06 am**

A TV programme made a big point that Abby would have sounded like a tree falling in the forest. I thought that was ridiculous. PLUS BRIDGET WAS WASHING WINDOWS WITH A BRUSH. Thump on your own windows with a brush or let someone run water from a hose nozzle on your windows and hear the noise inside the house. I think this is an important part of the case when considering noise. Windows magnify noise, as least in every house where I have lived. I think this is a valid observation.

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:27 am**

Of course we don't know exactly when Abby was being killed. It could have been while Bridget was having a natter with the Kelly servant or she may have fallen when Bridget was getting water from the barn.

I've asked this before in a musing sort of way, but I wonder who washed the outside of the bedroom windows? Did Andrew get up a ladder and do it to save on the services of a professional window cleaner? I can't imagine it somehow, and the poor unfortunate odd job man was probably sent up there once a month or so!

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:07 am**

You're right Curryong, we know that Bridget was outside, but we don't know exactly what she doing when Abby was killed. She could have been chatting with the Kelly servant, getting water from the barn, or washing those dirty (closed) windows! When you think about it, what Bridget was doing or where she was at the time Abby was killed make no difference; she wouldn't have been able to hear any noises that occurred inside the house.

Lizzie on the other hand was INSIDE the house. Where was she, what was she doing and why didn't she hear any noises that occurred during the time Abby was killed? We have her alibi for when Andrew was killed, but as far as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), she didn't have an alibi for when Abby was killed.

Posted: **Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:32 am**

My contention is that if Bridget was actively washing windows she would have made noise that would have been magnified inside the house. It could have coincided with the murder of Abby but we don't know.

Somewhere there is a comment that the odd job man did the upstairs windows. In testimony Phebe Bowen said Bridget washed windows once a week, usually on Thursdays. So much has been made of poor, sick Bridget being forced to wash windows, as if it was an odd thing. Seems to have been a weekly thing.

What people in the modern world may have forgotten is that before pavement there was a lot of dust that stuck to everything. I imagine a house like 92 Second, close to the street, would have had a lot of dust.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re:

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story

Re: Lizzie’s insistence on the note story