Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: Everyone's Theory  

1. "Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-6th-03 at 10:54 PM

i'd like to hear what everyone thinks happened that day.  understanding that is to the best of your ability, and knowing that this is changing or evolutionary in character.  i've changed my mind a lot as i'm sure most of you have.  but this is an exercise that might open up some valuable inquiries.  for example, it would let me know who to address to certain questions to or who to compare notes with.  if it's not rude, i'd rather not be first, though i will weight in.  who wants to be first?  give as much detail as you can, with as much supporting "fact" as you can find.  hopefully this could start a dynamic, focused discussion.


2. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Tina-Kate on May-7th-03 at 1:24 AM
In response to Message #1.

Tall order, haulover -- esp if you want us to be detailed.  Yikes.  We may be going for the record on the longest post!

My theory is constantly evolving, esp as I've been heavily into the research for the past few months.  I have several scenarios, but no "final" opinion yet.

Basically, I believe Lizzie is not innocent.  What has always tripped me up is whether she acted alone, or helped.   I also believe Emma is not without blood on her hands.  I think she was very manipulative, whether she helped plan the murders or not.

What I thought I'd find as I "got serious" with this a few months back was more clues to show Lizzie had "helped" that day.  Strangely enough, things seem to be pointing toward her having acted alone. 

However -- my jury is still out...


3. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by kimberly on May-7th-03 at 3:43 PM
In response to Message #2.

I don't have a theory -- I just love the case. But I think it was
probably a group effort & not Lizzie having a "spell" and going
off. I have also always thought it could have been an outsider,
a lunatic, lots of those running around killing freely today --
1892 wasn't so long ago.


4. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by njwolfe on May-7th-03 at 6:49 PM
In response to Message #1.

I think that Lizzie was behind the scheme, Uncle John provided
a butcher and helped with the planning.  I think Lizzie may have
hid the butcher in the closet right by the front door after Abby's
murder, waiting for Andrew.  Lizzie kept her hands (and dress) clean
by staying out of the way.  The butcher escaped quickly after doing
Andrew...out through the back yard to the wooded lot behind the
Borden house where he had a place to bury the hatchet ready..with
a clean set of clothes. 
That is my short version!  


5. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-7th-03 at 10:32 PM
In response to Message #4.

those are all interesting comments.  come to think of it, my post should have been called "Completely Convinced" -- the question being:  what, if anything, about the case are you completed convinced about?

like tina-kate, i think i'm convinced that lizzie is NOT INNOCENT.  yet i can't find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  either she did it or some unidentified person is in the house with her that day and did it.  i'd like to find a way to believe that she didn't realize what was happening until she discovered andrew, but i can't do that.  we can't afford to throw out bridget's account since she's the only other witness.  lizzie is right there where and when each murder is committed, controlling, overseeing the situation.


6. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Doug on May-7th-03 at 11:09 PM
In response to Message #1.

I believe “something” was coming to a boil in the Borden household during the latter part of July and early August of 1892. I suspect it had to do with Andrew making plans for the eventual disposition of his assets and property, though other interpersonal problems of long-standing between the family members likely played a part, too. Whatever was going on was serious enough that Andrew apparently mentioned to an associate that he had trouble at home; it caused Abby, the day before she died, to make an early morning visit to her doctor/neighbor in fear of poisoning and possibly her life; and, it caused Lizzie to return home early from a trip out of town to visit friends and then to predict disaster befalling the Borden household only hours before disaster actually struck (no pun intended).

My opinion is Lizzie was the killer and acted alone. I don’t know what her motive truly was and I don’t know the mechanics of how she did commit the crimes though obviously she had enough time and space to clean up, to successfully hide the weapon and bloody clothing, and to otherwise initially deflect suspicion from herself. I don’t think there was a conspiracy in planning the murders but I do suspect that members of the household fairly quickly (before the inquest and Lizzie’s arrest) figured out what had happened and did their best to either shield Lizzie from the authorities or at the least not implicate her in the murders. Lizzie was blessed with loyal family and many friends and supporters. She was able to engage excellent legal counsel and evidently listened to their advice. She had the personal fortitude to withstand hours of aggressive questioning at the inquest and ten months of incarceration before her trial without breaking. And, as has been pointed out by other commentators on the case, Lizzie had incredible luck!


7. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Tina-Kate on May-7th-03 at 11:32 PM
In response to Message #6.

"Lizzie was blessed with loyal family and many friends and supporters." 

This is 1 of the things I find most interesting.  That people would pull together & go to bat for her.


8. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-8th-03 at 1:04 AM
In response to Message #7.

tina-kate:

yes.  like dr. bowen tearing up that note and burning it.  why would he do that?  he said, "oh it's nothing."  why destroy any evidence at all?  why manipulate anything at the scene? 

doug, you think lizzie acted alone?  from what we can know with reasonable certainty, that does appear to be the case. 

i can't even decide whether the murders are mostly spontaneous or premeditated.  abby's murderer looks to have been lying in wait for the right opportunity.  andrew's murderer is somewhat different, taking greater risk and responding to chance.  think about it.  what if bridget had not decided to go upstairs? what if she had decided to hang around the kitchen?  how could the murderer have pulled it off at all without having to kill bridget as well?  chance circumstances make it possible.  could the killer truly have had such luck? 

lizzie says abby told her she had made the bed and was going up to put on some pillow cases to put at the foot of the bed.  this is one thing that lizzie says we tend to believe.  we can see the bed is made, but i don't see any extra pillows.  but we can't know that any of this conversation is true.  after knowlton has pressed her about what abby could be doing, lizzie says that abby had given her some pillow cases to make.  i wonder at this; why does her mind go to that at that point?  maybe i'm reading this wrong, but it looks like she is saying that abby was going to put on some pillow cases and then she refers to pillow cases as something that abby had given her to do.

we've gone over this before, but is it possible for lizzie not to have heard abby's body fall to the floor?  if you look at the body, she fell from a standing position, meaning that her 200 pounds fell at once. 

if a hitman was hired (with lizzie sort of supervising the operation) -- why would this particular choice be made?  obviously it would implicate lizzie, obviously she would look guilty.  why not have it done in the middle of the night?  lizzie knew where the key was.  yes, one of them might have woken up and fought the killer, but the killer would have had the advantage of seizing them in their sleep.  looking at it in that light, the first murder must have been a crime of passion, with the killer taking advantage of an opportunity that could have been foreseeable but not with certainty.  what if abby had decided not to go back up to the guest room?  would she have been killed anywhere in the house?  or perhaps abby did not go "back to the guest room" but went only once and was killed after she had made the bed.  and what kind of hitman would have agreed to it anyway, and stuck around for the second victim? what is the probability that a hitman would allow himself so much risk? why would an illegitimate son who wanted money murder the only possible source of the money he wanted? and then steal nothing?

the list goes on and on.  this is where i find that lizzie cannot possibly be innocent but is probably guilty.


9. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Susan on May-8th-03 at 1:43 AM
In response to Message #1.

Hmmmm, I replied to this the other night and my computer was going wonky, I guess my reply didn't make it.  I'll try again.  My answer was that I find Lizzie guilty, but, how guilty?  I vacillate between Lizzie having committed the murders herself, or, she knew who did and may have had a hand in the planning of that.

Emma is still an enigma to me, I don't know if she knew what was going on that day and had a hand in it, or, knew and turned her back on it and let it happen, or, (as stated in another post here) came home and quickly figured out what happened and stood by Lizzie.

I think John Morse is in on it somehow, his too tight alibi, his hesitation of going into the house the day of the murders, his just happening to be there that day, etc.  If you go by Mrs. Churchill's testimony(which differs from Mr. Sawyers), she says that upon coming into the house and being told what happened; he says something like,"My God, how did this happen?"  And then hollers for "Lizzie!"  Sounds almost like he knew something was going on and who the culprit might be.  Plus the bit about how Lizzie and he don't see each other at all until after the murders, like they may be trying to hide that they had seen each other before the murders, maybe they had a private chat about that day?   


10. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Kat on May-8th-03 at 12:18 PM
In response to Message #1.

The more I think about this question, the more I realize I cannot share any theory because Stef & I usually develope ours together.  We each add crucial parts and then it becomes *ours* so it's not ever *mine* to share.

One element to a theory that I myself developed of which Stef was not too impressed and which I just LOVE is a theory about Lizzie being on drugs or a drug user, which I think would lower her inhibitions enough where we would no longer be really dealing with the question of a tame, puritanical Victorian spoiled Miss, because a drug addict is a drug addict, in most places and times.

I do think Cancer's are prone to suffering from *addictive personalities*.

In over-kill crimes, I do think there are drugs involved...Bundy admitted to alcohol and Jack the R. had to be on something.  So was O.J., I believe.

To me this can explain Lizzie's *peculiar* disposition, and why we have such differing reports of her character.  Some times she would be the good girl, but oftentimes her addiction took over?  My opinion.

That ties in with the lack of emotion shown by her, supposedly, and greed for more money --  And her Desperation to commit murder for it.  It also ties in to that Dr. Bowen, who has always seemed suspicious to me.  If he had been *helping* Lizzie all along when she was in need, that would be why the secret of her addiction (my opinion) never got out.  I think he could have kept that secret.


11. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-8th-03 at 3:32 PM
In response to Message #10.

I think Lizzie snapped that morning.  She might've been toying with Abby for a while, as poisoners do, or not.  Whether or not Victoria Lincoln was right about that transfer of property and Uncle John's role in it, I don't know.  I think Lizzie and Abby, out of Bridget's hearing, had words that built to a confrontation. 

(You know, I've recently been wondering, like that ax-murder case in Texas that was the basis of that excellent TV movie, KILLING IN A SMALL TOWN, starring an Emmy-winning Barbara Hershey and Brian Dennehy, if the eventual victim, in this case, Abby, was the person who first had the hatchet.  Could she have been terrified of Lizzie at this point?  She had just that week run across to Bowen babbling about poison, and had nearly vomited in his office.  So, maybe Abby brought that weapon upstairs with her, for protection, and Lizzie ended up with it.)

ANYWAY, I think Lizzie overreacted and killed Abby, and then she did change her dress to "go out for a walk," as the song puts it.  I think Andrew got back before she could leave, and I think they had some words as well - or, as in Lincoln's version, she realized that if he were to find out what she'd done it would destroy her; she wouldn't be able to live cast out of his grace.  Also, could she trust her father to squelch a murder investigation the way he'd gotten the "burglary" hushed up?  So, she killed Andrew.  She then tried to establish an alibi, thinking that everyone would suppose that "someone came in" and killed them both while she was out "in the yard...in the barn...upstairs in the barn."

I think when she heard Bowen's early statement that he was positive that Abby had surprised the killer "at his bloody work" and been pursued upstairs and slaughtered she was overjoyed; that's just what she hoped everybody would think.  When it turned out that Abby had clearly been on that guest room floor for about two hours, though...well, that was the first fly in the ointment.

In any case, I think her family and friends, guessing what had happened (was it so hard to figure out?), did gather around her and band together...except for that damn moralistic Alice "Bigmouth" Russell*, who HAD to go and talk to her lawyer about her troubled conscience.

That's what I believe, at the moment.

*I have unbridled admiration for this woman, who, as Len R. tells us, was pretty candid in later years about how the dress incident convinced her that Lizzie was guilty.  However, he's got some neat stuff coming on this, so I won't go any farther with it.             

(Message last edited May-8th-03  3:39 PM.)


12. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by stefani on May-8th-03 at 7:36 PM
In response to Message #11.

Bob, that movie is one of my and Kat's all time favorities. Yes, let's examine that idea one more time.

IF Abby had the hatchet and was either using it for protection or was planning on killing Lizzie and Lizzie was attacked for whatever reason by Abby and Lizzie ended up killing her attacker, then why Kill daddy? To cover up murder number one? Possibly. It would seem awfully odd for both Abby and Lizzie to be thinking of murder on the same day. If this scenario is to work, the first murder is self-defense and the second is pre-meditated. Why not just say self-defense and leave it at that? Why go to all the trouble of actually killing your dad (who you were closer to) to cover up the accidental killing of your estranged step-mother. Of course I am just blabbing here and have not thoroughly thought it through, as you can tell.

Don't you all think that IF Lizzie killed Abby then she had to have also killed Andrew?

And if Lizzie didn't kill Abby then she didn't kill Andrew?


13. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-8th-03 at 10:01 PM
In response to Message #12.

stefani:

i know that movie too.  that's a very powerful murder scene.   unlike what lizzie says, they could have gotten into a very  violent argument.  if this did happen, lizzie would have known that there was no witness to her self-defenese.  in killing andrew, she might have been eliminating the one person who would have been able to figure out what happened.  with abby killed, it would have been lizzie's fault in one way or another.  her plan might have been to give the killer a way in and out by her going to the barn -- not realizing the bodies themselves would tell the time difference between the two killings.

i don't think we can lose sight of the fact that abby was killed first. lizzie might have been right behind her, threatening her with the axe as abby ascended the stairs to the bedroom.  or perhaps, lizzie was following abby up to the room to see about these pillowcases -- and then unexpectedly sruck her.

it might have been lizzie' suggestion that we go up and you show me those pillow cases. in other words -- as opposed to the theory that abby went up and was struck -- that lizzie got her to go with her to the guest room, thinking this would be the best place to commit the murder.

lizzie then might have been trying to avoid suspicion and thought that killing andrew would make her look less guilty.


14. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Tina-Kate on May-8th-03 at 11:01 PM
In response to Message #13.

Re. Len. Rebello & Alice -- Oh Bob, how could you?  I can't even stand "To be Continued"!    But seriously, thanks for the little tease; sounds very interesting.

I'm not so sure re this Abby/Lizzie scuffle.  Why would Lizzie attack Abby without being armed herself?  Why would Abby be lugging a hatchet around while she did her chores?  (Even if she was paranoid, you'd think a kitchen knife would be easier).  Also, an argument that got out of hand with a weapon...all sounds a bit too convenient in timing to have happened while Bridget was out of the way washing windows. 

I really think the plan was to have Abby die 1st...keeps the goods away from the Whiteheads et al.


15. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by njwolfe on May-8th-03 at 11:14 PM
In response to Message #14.

Lizzie was just too cool to have just committed two brutal
murders, and too clean.  I think she was cool enough though
to have planned it all...


16. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Kat on May-8th-03 at 11:15 PM
In response to Message #14.

My thought on this would be , as I've stated before, that if the killing of Abby was Spontaneous , then I picture a person grabbing up what's at hand to strike.
A pair of scissors in a sewing room would suit those requirements.
However, I am not disclaiming anyone's theory.


17. "Who had the hatchet?: speculation continued"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-9th-03 at 12:00 PM
In response to Message #16.

Stef - no, I wouldn't imagine Abby and Lizzie both contemplating murder on the same day!  SO, it would not have been exactly as it was in KILLING, where the cheated-upon wife came out to attack adulteress Hershey with the ax, only to have Hershey grab it in the tussle and end up slaying her attacker. I can only imagine that Abby, let's say, became afraid of Lizzie and pathetically armed herself (picture, if you will, Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance in THE SHINING, waving that baseball bat at her loony husband as she's backed up the stairs), and the situation got out of hand.

Did this happen?  Probably not, but it's fun to speculate.

Anyway, if something like this did happen, I still don't know if Lizzie could trust Andrew to believe her that it was self-defense, so she, regretfully, killed him.  Or they got into an argument over something, let's say Abby's whereabouts, and Lizzie felt she had no other way out.


18. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Carol on May-9th-03 at 3:39 PM
In response to Message #8.

I don't have quoted testimony right here now but from what I remember Lizzie saw Abby making up the bed in the guest room before Lizzie came down the first time in the morning. Then Abby comes downstairs and Abby and Lizzie have that conversation about the note. Then Abby takes some folded pillow covers up to the guest room to put on other pillows than the regular bed pillows, after this no one sees her alive again. Since the police removed the bedclothes before the photos were taken then reassembled the bed maybe these extra pillows never got put back where Abby put them. I assume she did put them on the pillows or someone would have found a pair of cases in the room still folded up.

I would like to know the answers to several questions before I  would be able to say Lizzie was guilty.  What were the complete contents of Andrew's safe once it was opened?  Why did Andrew buy back the Ferry St. property from the sisters one month before the murders?  What color dress was Ellen Eagan wearing that morning when she went into the yard sick?  Did Lizzie have a boyfriend or any boyfriend ever?
Was Emma verified as being in Fairhaven the morning of Aug. 4th?  What was in the letter that Lizzie sent to her lady friend in Marion received on Aug. 4th.  What was Andrew reading at the window when Bridget saw him there before he sat on the sofa?  What was in the white package Andrew brought home with him Aug. 4th.  Did or did not Uncle John really see any crowd in front of the Borden house when he approached the house?  Why did not Knowlton give the defense the information there was gilt in Abby's wound?  Why didn't the defense nor prosecution mention the mysterious hatchet found during the trial on the Crowe roof? What exactly was written on that note Dr. Bowen burned?  If the Bedford cord dress had blood on it where was it hidden that the police couldn't find it?  Also, incidentally, why did Emma really move out of Maplecroft?


19. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-9th-03 at 4:07 PM
In response to Message #18.

"I assume she did put them on the pillows or someone would have found a pair of cases in the room still folded up."

Which, given the limited knowledge of forensics of the day, no one thought would be important to note!  Not like it could verify anyone's story,or anything...

I think the answer to the question about Crowe's hatchet would be that the prosecution was trying to tie the crime to a hatchet clearly found in the house and thus to Lizzie, and that the defense wouldn't bring it up because Lizzie had already talked about being out within tossing distance in the yard.

Neither side found it helpful to their case, in other words.


20. "Re: Who had the hatchet?: speculation continued"
Posted by william on May-9th-03 at 4:13 PM
In response to Message #17.

I like to keep it simple.  I believe that Lizzie "did it," and I also believe she planned it, although there might have been some modifications to her original scheme to fit a change in circumstances.
The conversation she had with Alice could have been considered just small talk if subsequent events did not take place in such a short span of time. Bearing that in mind I think her words were highly suspicious and incriminating. Even if you don't believe Lizzie tried to purchase prussic acid (I do), you must admit this event coupled with the possible poisoning of Andrew and Abby a short time before does defy coincidence. After Lizzie killed Abby, I believe she realized Andrew wouldn't buy her story so she had to do him in. . .or maybe she planned to knock both of them off from the beginning? That sure would go a long way towards speeding up her inheritance.
I think Bridget assisted her after the fact.  After all, her specialty was "clean-up," right?  I'm confident that she was amply reimbursed for this little favor. . . you'll read more about this in the coming months.(See Bob, you're not the only one who can be mysterious). I believe Emma had knowledge but not until a later date.

Did I say simple?


21. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by diana on May-9th-03 at 4:14 PM
In response to Message #5.

Haulover presents a nice device  -- i.e.  thinking about the case by asking the question: ‘What , if anything, are you completely convinced about?’  It forces us to closely examine half formed feelings or instincts.  At this point, I don’t think that I’m completely convinced of even one thing related to the event.  In fact, as I delve deeper into the material, more and more of my initial convictions are shaken. 

I am of the opinion that Lizzie’s testimony was muddied by morphine and shock.  My instincts are to believe Emma and Addie – and to distrust Alice.  I sense Morse had secrets he wanted to keep (but not that they were necessarily connected to this crime).  And I think Philip Harrington had a definite agenda from the opening move. 

But what a constantly frustrating exercise it is to attempt to buttress our suppositions with the conflicting and incomplete evidence we have available to us.



22. "Re: Everyone's agendas"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-9th-03 at 4:49 PM
In response to Message #21.

Well-put, Diana, well-put!

As I just posted elsewhere, Lizzie's lady friends may have had the agenda "Stress Cleanliness and Whiteness of Lizzie's Hands - No Murderess, She," not realizing that over a hundred years later we'd read their statements and think, "Okay, no blood - but also, no dust from a visit to the barn, either - so, does that mean she was guilty or innocent, or did she rinse her hands at some point which she never mentioned and was never questioned about?" 

I'll never stop wondering about this case, but it is frustrating to want to think that we have all the pieces and if we just put them together correctly the pattern would emerge.  We don't and it won't, most likely!  Ergo, all we have is the mystery.     

(Message last edited May-9th-03  4:49 PM.)


23. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-9th-03 at 7:42 PM
In response to Message #21.

diana:

you explain my reason for the post much better than i did.

and i couldn't agree more with your last statement.

when i thought to answer the question, i felt overwhelmed to realize that "lizzie is not innocent" is the only thing i'm not completely puzzled about. 


24. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by njwolfe on May-9th-03 at 11:15 PM
In response to Message #23.

The only thing I'm convinced about is that Lizzie didn't do
the murders herself.  She is guilty and was behind the whole
thing but I feel convinced she did not do the butchering.


25. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Kat on May-10th-03 at 6:55 PM
In response to Message #24.

Put that way, the thing I am most convinced about is Lizzie was culpable in some way mainly because she never told, never spoke after trial, never explained, and never paid out that reward.


26. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-11th-03 at 11:41 AM
In response to Message #25.

I was thinking about Lizzie as I was falling into a nap the other day (not on the sofa), and I wanted to add, as I suspect that Lizzie wanted to have people believe that the awful murderer had entered the house ("the screen door was wide open") during her sojourn in the barn and done away with both Bordens, I'm prepared to speculate (why not?) that, had Andrew not returned home, Lizzie would have indeed gone out.  She would have come back later in the day, after Abby had been discovered, and not knowing that a general idea could have been formed about Abby's time of death, spun a tale about chatting with Abby right before she went out. 


27. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by haulover on May-15th-03 at 10:44 AM
In response to Message #26.

i've considered this too.  this is similar to victoria lincoln's theory.  my question though is this:  why did it take lizzie so long to get out of the house, if that was her original intention?  say abby was dead by 9:15; andrew got home about 10:30.  why was that not plenty of time for lizzie to change and take from the house all incriminating evidence?  does it not look more like she is waiting for father to come home?


28. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by rays on May-15th-03 at 12:46 PM
In response to Message #1.

I think AR Brown's book solved the case because it explained the otherwise mystery of the unsolved murders. I won't retype what I previously wrote, or review the book.

Anyone who wants to come up with a solution must answer this:
Why was the guilty person never suspected, or overlooked?
Why did Lizzie never tell after she was found not guilty?
What light can you shed on the mysterious conduct of the people involved?

I think AR Brown solved this for all time. But if anyone publishes another book for the general audience, I'll read it, and reserve the right to reconsider the above. Will anyone? Not from what I've seen here. (Not that I could do better.)


29. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Kat on May-16th-03 at 3:26 AM
In response to Message #28.

Over time, there have been rumors of new *Lizzie* books, even ADS for a new Lizzie book.  (Brown was one, and a book called "Iron & Lead", noted in the LBQ.)
I believe the more later books, Arnold, and Rebello, were self-published.
I think Masterton was published through Boston, tho.
Hixson was thru a University.  (an Article in a book)
Even the LBQ is published through BCC.

You would need a very impressive or outrageous product, now-a-days, to get a mainstream publication.


30. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by rays on May-16th-03 at 11:12 AM
In response to Message #29.

I think David Kent's "40 Whacks" is the one best book on the subject. Its bibliography lists all known editions; try to find them!

An "Encyclopedia of American Crime" says that Lizzie was tried for the murders, found not guilty, but judged guilty in popular opinion because she never told what she knew. A fair summary?


31. "Re: Everyone's Theory"
Posted by Lola on May-16th-03 at 12:39 PM
In response to Message #30.

I think Lizzie is as guilty as sin. The only question I have is WHAT is she guilty of? I don't think she swung the hatchet, but I think she knew who did. I don't know if she helped plan the murders, but I do think she helped cover them up. I believe she told so many lies, it's going to be impossible to discern the truth. There were so many factors influencing her behavior after the murders: drugs, fear, shock, grief, etc.

It's an agonizing delight, pondering this case!