1. "Lizzie's Motive to save Bill Borden"
Posted by can on Oct-20th-03 at 2:50 PM

Hi, I just found this site.  I've been doing research on the Borden murders for several years and prefer to believe the theory that Andrew's illegitimate son, William did it.  I also believe in A.R. Brown's theory that Liz took the fall for Bill and made arrangements for the mellen house gange to try her and find her innocent to lead suspicion away from him.  Apparently her only crime was greed.  But what continues to stump me is this:  wouldn't she still have gotten her inheritance if she told the truth and said it was Bill?  He would have been tried and found guilty and whatever inheritance he would have gotten in a will would be hers anyways, right?  Did Dr. Bowen burn the will in the stove or did Bill take it with him?  Any thoughts on this? 

I just keep thinking that either way, she would have gotten her money so why did she protect him?  She didn't care for him - in fact - she was afraid of him - so it would have been even better for her if he was locked up.  So why?  

RAY!!!  Oh, Ray!!!  You wanna take this one?

You are funny Bob G! Rays will love to respond i'm sure.
Welcome Can, Interesting to hear your thoughts.  I think
Lizzie was too self centered for your therory to work but
ya never know what might surface..

Welcome to the forum, Can.  I don't think Lizzie would have ever taken that chance.  But then again, some people do stick their necks out and risk exposure, depending what they think they're gonna get out of it.

thankyou.  i wait for rays in anxious anticipation myself.

That's right - she wouldn't have stuck her neck out unless she was getting something out of it -- that's why I'm stumped.  In order for this theory to work she had to have wanted something - but what?  She would have inherited her money anyways, right?  Unless there's some law I don't know about that says if Bill was convicted she wouldn't get her money which would be unreasonable.

I started reading some of all your back messages and see that a general idea is that you all call AR Brown's book, "fiction".  Anybody care to explain why they believe his research is inaccurate?

I think some call AR Brown's solution (based on eyewitness statements) a "fiction" is that a solution would prevent them from speculating and imagining a solution. Which they can do.

(Message last edited Oct-22nd-03  12:45 PM.)

I've answered this before. The reasons are:
1) Andy told her to "never mention his name".
2) If found "not guilty by reason of insanity" his sharp lawyer could put in a claim on the estate.
3) This would be a MAJOR scandal for the Borden family.
4) Uncle John could have been charged with something by bringing WSB to see Andy.

I don't believe this was part of a scheme to kill Abby & Andy.

in regard to number 2:  what would this mean?  that the borden sisters would then be paupers -- and the insane prisoner would own the estate -- or that the state of massachusetts would own the borden fortune?

and what would lizzie's lawyers have done about it?

What this means that by publicly acknowledging Billy as Andy's son, a sharp lawyer COULD put in a claim agains the estate. "Either pay what I'm asking or a lot more to defend yourself against this claim, AND suffer a lot of unfavorable publicity."

If you think such suits are not file today, think again. (I am not a lawyer.) Ever hear of "greenmail" suits?

There is another explanation, but I don't believe it since the police investigated it that time. IF Emma indeed snuck back to commit the murders, then all the posturing falls into place. Lizzie takes the fall knowing she could expose "the real killers" if need be. And Emma gives Lizzie ALL the help she needs.

An alternative to the "Bridget did it" theory which makes more sense.
We know Uncle John had an alibi ("elsewhere") at the time, assuming one murderer did both of them (correct assumption).

Thank you Rays.  That all makes perfect sense. 

Rays, I have another question.  One, I suppose, you probably answered before as well - forgive me - I'm new to this site and all of you are the only ones I can discuss this seriously with. 

I've gone over this in my mind quite a few times about how Abby was struck in the back of the head between the dresser and the bed.  Standing in that position you would see someone coming in the room so it wouldn't have been a surprise.  Therefore the person had to already be in the room and pounced when she was perhaps leaning over to make the bed or putting something in the dresser.  But where was this person? If it was Billy she hardly would turn her back to him if she was having a conversation so therefore he must have hid.  What was in the back left corner of the room (if you are standing in the doorway looking into that room?)Was there a tall dresser that he hid behind, perhaps?  Either that or she was speaking with someone, perhaps Lizzie, and didn't feel any danger turning her back on them and didn't fear for her life.  So... any thoughts?  Was she speaking with someone she knew and bent over the bed and turned her back?  Or did someone hide and strike when she turned her back without a word?  If you solve the Abby case, then the same person did Andy.  Because of the way she was found and the make-up of the room in view of the stairs gives more of a clue I think.

By the way, I've spent a night in Lizzie's room about a year or so ago, as I'm sure most of you have as well.  Interesting night.  I was the only one there at the time and the caretaker had left as well.  I took some good photos of the basement and found several "orbs" of light passing through it.  For those that believe in the after-life and believe the house to be haunted, these photos make a good case for it.  I also found dead pigeons with their heads chopped off the next moring in the next yard - actually where the old barn used to be.  It was about 4-5 days prior to Aug. 4th and I found this a bit weird. I took a picture of it as well.  Very very strange. Couldn't have been some sort of a joke.  Who would decapitate a few pigeons in this day and age?  It was a strange night.   

I can't comment on Brown's book or his theory, as it's been quite a while since I read it.
I can, though, help with the research to help you decide what you yourself determine.
I have prepared a scene, in photoshop, which fits the basic furniture pattern in the room, specifically in the area where Abby was found. There was also a washstand in the room:

Prelim, Morse, 250:
Q.  When you went into that room Wednesday night, was the wash stand here on the south side of the spare room?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  And to the west of the door?
A.  Yes Sir.
.......
To sum up the following testimony:
Abby was probably standing and facing her attacker, in order to sustain the flap wound to the side of her face.  She was probably nearer the window than in front of the bureau mirror, in order to account for the blood on the mop board below and to the east of that window.  There was a chair there, as well, and one at the east wall near the head of the bed.  The testimony describes a sewing machine on the north wall on the west side of the window with a chair, and a washstand on the south wall to the west of ther door.
It's possible Abby was not too near the bureau mirror and also possible her back was turned from the door into the room.  Her exact position is open to interpretation, though it's pretty certain, per Medical Examiner, that she first faced her assailant, though whether it was casual at first, or by surprise, we don't know.

Prelim.
Dolan
144
Q.  What of these wounds on the head, in your opinion, if any of them, were given while the person were standing up?
A.  I would say the glancing scalp wound, which I spoke of, on the left side, that did not mark the skull; that flap drew right back.
Q.  Now you tell us of a glancing scalp wound on the left side of the head over the left ear?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You think that wound might have been given under what circumstances?
A.  While standing up, and facing.
Q.  That was not necessarily fatal?
A.  No Sir.
...........

177
Q.  Then the assailant would have been obliged to be, would he not,  astride the hips?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  With one foot between the body and the bureau, and the other foot between the body and the frame of the bed?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  Standing in that position do you judge that the spots which you found came from the hatchet, or dropped from the person of the assailant; I mean the spots which you found on the paper, the moulding of the base board between the bureau and the window, and also upon the bureau drawer?
A.  Those near the window I think were struck while Mrs. Borden was near the window.
Q.  In your opinion they could not be adequately accounted for by a person standing in the way you have described, and giving the blows you have described?
No sir, I do not see very well how they could.

.....
Rest of furniture, and blood on mop board:
.....................Available at:  http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/BloodEvidence.htm



Prelim., Dolan, 103-105.

[She was lying on the floor with her head towards the east wall] Probably four or five feet- four feet [from the east wall].

On the moulding, the piece of moulding east of the north window, that is the moulding that caps the mop board, about five or six inches from the casing, there was a spot of blood.

On the moulding that caps the mop board. Above that, about two feet, there was a spot on the paper.
From the head they would be between six and seven feet at an angle, that is, the dressing case formed an angle, the body lying here, the spots were over here.

There was a straight line, but the dressing case intervened [No uninterrupted straight line].

..............

Pg. 197:
I am glad you spoke of that chair that is lacking from the photograph. There was a kind of camp chair, you might call it, an upholstered chair between her head and the east wall; and the feet of that were covered with blood.

[at the end of the bureau between the bureau and the window] I think there was a cane seated chair.

[work basket] immediately in front of this chair.

. . . I think it was a rocking chair up against the bureau, and then the basket was sitting on the other ordinary cane seated chair, opposite.

[The other chair was on the other side of the window in front of it] and the sewing machine behind it

..






(Message last edited Oct-23rd-03  11:49 PM.)

My opinion, or conclusion, was that William S Borden was snuck into the house that morning (empty guest bedroom) in order to meet in private w/ Andy. Uncle John was the messenger or go-between that arranged the meeting. Andy would not like to meet in public with a young man who resembled him, given the rumors of an illegitimate son. I think the meeting was originally planned for Wed afternoon, but Abby's meddling (assumed) delayed the meeting (and caused anger on WSB part).

The note was to draw Abby away, so she wouldn't interfere. (I know of an elderly man who also let his younger wife take charge of things.) When Abby saw WSB, she realized the note was a trick, and spoke out and stoked WSB's anger.

That is my interpretation of the few facts known of that time. Based on my reading of AR Brown's book, and the others. Obviously Lizzie knew, or suspected, about this but remained quiet (after speaking to Uncle John, recalled by her note to Dr Bowen).

AR Brown solved this case: if neither Lizzie or Bridget did, and Emma and Uncle John had alibis, who did it? It had to be someone whose existence was unknown to the police, and kept hidden by the Bordens.

Excellent job of researching the Trial Testimony. Did it differ from any statements made during the first week? The intervening months gave the lawyers plenty of time to rehearse their testimony.

Any suggestion on where the filler was in the room?