The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Reasonable doubt due to Bertha Manchester"
Posted by Nicole on Apr-4th-02 at 2:36 PM

I am sure this has been discussed already, but since I am new, humor me.

Was the acquittal due in part by the murder of Bertha Manchester?  When in fact, it was noted later that Correira was not even in the country at the time?  Am I right on this or what?

That's a great question Nicole.

The murder of Bertha Manchester occurred on May 31, 1893 only 5 days prior to the opening of the trial.

The entire jury was selected on June 5. Correiro was arrested on June 5. However, the jury was impounded the same day and theoretically could not have known of his arrest.

I can find nowhere in the questioning of the prospective jurors by council for either side or by the Justices any questions regarding the Manchester murder.

There is no doubt the jury pool must have heard of the crime. I think it almost certainly worked in Lizzie's favor. However I don't think it was a major consideration. To me, it was just the lack of evidence against her.

And the prosecutions lack of possible lead-ins. Brown states (of William Morse), "His return to the Borden House the morning of the murders was most questionable.  Had he, for instance, returned for dinner as he had claimed earlier?  Had Andrew invited him back when he left in the morning?  Moody managed to avoid these questions as follows: "Won't you describe what occurred at the door, not stating what anyone stated to you but what occurred at the door as you went out?"  I agree with Brown in that why wouldn't he question what was stated to him by Andrew? Wouldn't that be important?

And then Brown states, "Similarly, Moody asked, "Now, without detail, where were you until you returned again that morning to the Borden house?"  Again no detail? Why the hell not?  But I guess it all falls back on Browns theory of the Mellen Group.

I think that even though the Manchester murder might not have been brought up to the jurors in questioning and even though they might not have known Correiro was arrested for that crime that the newspapers the jurors read must have contained information about the farm, the people involved, the reference to a "Portugese" worker, etc. and suppositions as to a villain which fit the cultural context of what people expected because of their era prejudices, and that villain most likely was assumed to have been a man.  During the trial Robinson made many points that revolved around Lizzie's gender so this Manchester murder was one more point which could have added reasonable doubt to her being the killer of the Bordens. 

Arnold Brown has many references to the Manchester murder in his book, Lizzie Borden, The Legend, The Truth, the Final Chapter. Page 316-317 is interesting in that he almost suggests that Billy Borden might have been the Manchester killer.  His body was evidently found in the woods near the Manchester farm.

I would love to read the files on the Manchester murder.

Nicole,
I always assumed that those questions phrased so oddly, were determined by rules of what was admissable testimony, and what was not...like heresay, where a person being quoted is not around to be questioned or cross-examined on what Someone Said they Said.

I could very well be wrong..that was just the only thing I could come up with in my mind as to why they asked some questions the way they did.  I kept expecting, in the Prelim, after a TON of those, to have them *get back to the question, and ask it directly*, later..that they WERE *leading* up to asking What I Wanted Asked!---No such luck!

SO, you knowledgeable people...was this a *quirk* of the trial (or Prelim.) or THE RULES?

I thought the same too. But maybe they were asked so as to give only the information they wanted to hear and nothing more. This according to Brown of course.

It would indeed be hearsay evidence. That is defined as follows:

"Hearsay testimony is secondhand evidence; it is not what the witness knows personally, but what someone else told him or her. Scuttlebutt is an example of hearsay. In general, hearsay may not be admitted in evidence, but there are exceptions. For instance, if the accused is charged with uttering certain words, a witness is permitted to testify that he or she heard the accused speak them."

There is a very thorough explaination of hearsay at this site:

http://www.tpub.com/maa/38.htm

Obviously a murder of a woman "just like Abby Borden" is reasonable grounds for assuming someone else did it. The question is: was it "natural", or planned to remove suspicion from Lizzie?
I think Willy went of his nut again - because of the similarity in the method of operation. This is more likely than hiring a random murder to remove suspicion, IMO.

Quite so.  If the Manchester murder case could be studied simultaneoulsy with the Borden case perhaps there would be more coincidences that pop up.  It's interesting alone that it was the female who was killed first (I find it hard to accept the theory that Masterton suggests that Abby might have been killed either at the same time or even later than Mr. B.) in both cases, although in the Manchester murder evidently the man in the family didn't come home in time to become a victim if I recall.  If a woman killed Bertha Manchester in the same fashion as Abby Borden was murdered the patriarchy would be in a fine fit over it to explain such a coincidence with Lizzie locked up.

Have any of you people on this list, especially those who might meet for lunch this summer, who live in Mass-hatchets or thereabouts researched the Manchester case in depth? If so I would love to hear your theories.

Living in nearby Attleboro...home of one of the men of trial jury, Frank Cole, home to at one other who was called to New Bedford, I have only the limited knowledge of the Manchester murder from reading A. Brown.  It is rather intriguing that Miss Bertha was whacked with the same type of weapon as Abby and Andrew, in order of their deaths.

Though the Bordens and the Manchester families seem to have little more in common then that they lived in Fall River at the same time. If you have read of the farming area where the Manchester's lived on Boston Road, which is still there though not in its former day style, you can imagine that the Borden's lived in the "city" while the Manchester's lived in the "country" despite the fact that both areas were in the corporate boundaries of Fall River.

Boston Road then like today is a major road into and out of Fall River on the Northeasterly side of town.  In 1892/93 the area was farm land and there were vast acres of undeveloped land.  Brown has asserted that Billy Borden may have been the true culprit in the death of Bertha, just a random act of sorts, but with a clear message to those in the "city" who knew (according to Brown) that he was the culprit in the double homicide.

Of course history shows that the non-English speaking Portugese farm hand committed the act in anger/frustration over wages.  It is interestiing that 25 years after his arrest and imprisonment the Governor of the Commonwealth at the time, pardoned him and he was deported back to Portugal.  Makes us wonder about the payoff deal in another thread.

In his final chapter Brown writes of the "suicide" of Billy Borden who ironicly was found hanging by his neck from a tree on the Davis farm which was next door to the Manchester farm.  Not only had poor ole Billy hanged himself he had first drank a bottle of carbonic acid, yech!!! 

Brown points out that, according to his research, Billy's body was hanging precisely four feet from the ground level, which Brown points out, is the height of a conventional buckboard (horse drawn wagon).

So as Brown implies, Billy was removed from society as sign that the saga has ended and that Lizzie and Emma could sleep nights not worrying about Billy getting them.

One other curious observation:  Brown writes that after Lizzie and Emma purchased 7 French Street, Maplecroft (later 306 French) they had bars afixed to the windows.  During my recent visit to the B & B on Second Street I asked about those bars, which do not appear in any photos of common circulation, and no one seems to know of them.

Guess its time to pay Maplecroft and its current owner a visit...eh??

BC

So who do they say killed Billy Borden?  More names to add to the overall conspiracy?  I'm confused...

Also, I've been thinking--if it was Davis or Billy who *dun it* why didn't they do it at the Swansea farm?  The elder Bordens were planning on going there that summer, supposedly...

Was Abby considered an accidental killing, or was she *on the list*?  I haven't read brown in a while.
If she was accidental, why not kill Andrew ANYWHERE else, at ANY time?

The girls would still get 2/3, without a will.  That's better than nothing, and better than almost HANGING!

I wonder if the court case records files and information on the Manchester case have "disappeared" or are not available to researchers or else why would not someone have read them by now?

I also read about those "bars," supposedly installed on Maplecroft when the Borden sisters lived there, from the same source and wondered if they were there.  Right, they don't appear in any of the photos that I can see. 

I have wondered why those who live nearby have never checked that out.  It seems to me that people don't have much of an interest in Maplecroft from the lean writings on the house in this forum.  If I lived nearby I would pounce on learning more about the house first hand.  To find out if a new generation of squirrels were descendants of Lizzies bunch alone would be fun, just how does one find that out? 

One answer I have thought about from time to time is that the bars were put on the inside of the windows which is why a photo of the outside of the residence would not show them. 

 

Brown says on page 306 that it was the Mellen House gang that had so much to lose who killed Billy Borden.  He says they had him killed and the public accepted it as a suicide.

I would suppose because of the will, the inheritance factor, that if the money was to stay in the control of the Borden link that Abby's murder was premeditated, not an accident, and she had to be killed first and over such a time period that the doctors would say she was dead for a longer period of time to make it conclusive. Personally I think Andrew did have a will and it "disappeared" on purpose.

I think, if the inheritance factor was indeed the motive, it was most likely someone familiar with the results of what a "hatchet" killing would produce, that killed the Borden's.  They would, having killed many animals in the past, have had the experience of watching just how fast the blood coagulated and how soon a body would become cold. And if their goal was to insure the money stayed under Borden control (the sisters) then they would have had no problem hanging around till Andrew came home.

There is, of course, the question of "Did the murderer know that it would only take a few minutes for Andrew's body to be found, freshly killed with blood still dripping from the wounds, showing precisely that he was killed AFTER his wife. 

I have no answers, just speculating again.  

Carol...all this is speculation on Brown's part...when I spoke to Len Rebello, "Lizzie Borden: Past and Present", 1999, at the B & B he told me that Brown was way off with his theory.  He let on that Brown was in the midst of a "theory war" over the case and Len mentioned the opposing author but the name slips me.

Len said the two men were arch rivals who apparently were at odds over the illigitmate son theory...Len is a very cryptogramic type of guy and i had a hard time following him.  In a nut shell I got the message that Brown was pushing a "bogus" theory and it wasn't well liked by the "locals".

I think it had something to do with Brown's source, Henry Hawthorne but again I am not totally sure on this.  In any event both Brown and the other author are now deceased and it doesn't make a snowflake in a blizzard's bit of difference. 

There are those of us Bordenites who accept or reject any and all theories and there are those of us who use all theories in concert to create our own.  Until I read Radin this past week I was leaning toward Brown now I am sort of leaning toward Radin and the "Bridget or Uncle John" did it. 

But I still like the "Billy Borden" did it too. 

BC

Carol, that was really interesting what you said about Andrew had to be found still dripping (not a direct quote), to show the yokels the time- difference in the death's of he and his wife....
That's why the summons had to be called out right away, no delay, by LIZZIE.  That's why she couldn't just wander off to the drugstore for a sarsparila, as an alibi?  That makes sense!

And, BC:  I LOVE that you can still be influenced by every good book you read on the case...shows a mind still open and wanting to be challanged...

(Message last edited Apr-7th-02  5:18 AM.)

When we have read the many verisons of the story, most of them are pure spectulation as no one really knows, we tend to "like" or "dislike" certain aspects of each author.  I kind of like having a variety of options when rendering a theory.

It would be exciting, I suppose, to know what really happened but if that day comes what will there for us to discuss here?  Where would we go?  What will *I* do for a hobby???

I doubt even that the private notes in the "tin-tub" of Andrew Jennings would or will change anything.  If his notes do...well then lucky is the author who gets first dibs on that tub.



BC

I don't have the book handy, but A R Brown deduces (or speculates) that Wm Borden was killed to keep him quiet: he knew too much, and, had no self-interest in speaking out. Asking powerful people for blackmail? They may find it cheaper to remove the threat (see that Boonsbury cartoon strip from last month).

Not Lizzie; she was found "not guilty" and could never be chatrged again. But those who manipulated the law had a lot to lose. Reminds me of that movie "The China Syndrome", based on real facts: the death of Karen Silkwood (the fictional was better than the real movie, IMO).

A R Brown also deduces Wm Borden's "death by hanging" as a delayed punishment for Bertha Manchester's murder (same vicinity).

They used to execute murderers close to the scene of the crime until the late 19th century (as I once read something).

I don't think that ALL the books and opinions written on the Borden case are "pure speculation."  As Brown says in his acknowledgments his book was based on facts and sources. He says when he can support what he says with documentation and when he can't. He weaves his story of the crime from inferring from the facts he collected. The reader is left to determine and accept whether what he has said has validity or not just like in any other book.  The reader must validate or confirm or disbelieve whatever he says with regard other evidence not presented in the book.

I believe I have to speculate on whether the Brown book is valid because I didn't interview Henry Hawthorne or others which he uses as sources, but Brown himself inferred from the evidence they presented to him.  I think that there is a big difference between speculation and inferring and attorneys make a big point of this in questioning prospective jurors on their ability to do this.

In any case if as you "speculate" or "infer" from your conversation with Len Rebello that the two authors, Brown and the anonymous man, were in some sort of ego war that transcended and became more important that presenting what they really thought of the Lizzie case, then we, as students of the case would have to read both books and see what we think.  I hope you remember the name of the author or book so we can do that.  I don't remember a recent book that deliberately took on to debunk Brown's theory.

The Brown book seems a rather straightforward recital of what Brown thought after he collected his material, he thought it was the truth and final chapter but his reader's may not. I find it highly unlikely that an author would spend two years specifically to deliberately write a book based on information which he knew and believed to be false. It seems that what you said about the "locals" not liking Brown would be apparent because in his acknowledgment section there were only a few names of people locally who helped him out.

Like you I like to read everything and let the pot cook.

Hi Kat.  Yes, and isn't it interesting that when Lizzie sent Bridget for Doctor Bowen she said that Bridget should get him because "I" need a doctor which to me would mean that it was herself, Lizzie, who was in need of Dr. B.s skills.  She wasn't, by using that wording (although it's possible), asking for Dr. B. to come and see or attend her father, i.e., because she had just told Bridget that her father was KILLED.  Just thinking.

I use the word "speculate" or "speculation" in a very broad and general term.  Since no still living can truthfully say that they "know the inside scoop" on the story I must rationale that each writers story, though containing bona fide verifiable facts, still is at the heart of the story, speculative theory.

If we look at E.H.Porter's book one must ask, "what can we glean from his work"?  He certainly did not present us with a purely fact based work.  He was very biased against Lizzie solely because of his occupation of the time: police reporter for the Globe. 

We know that the Globe was the only one of three papers being printed in Fall River not owned by Borden family ties.  Because the police had a deep rooted suspicion of Lizzie from the get-go so too did Porter.  Sadly his work leaves us wondering.

Next author to leave us with numerous gaps and holes and again because he is anti-Lizzie is Edmund Pearson.  He like Porter did not care to include any facts that shone poorly on the police.

Victoria Lincoln wrote from the perspective of being a "neighbor" of Lizzie at Maplecroft.  Though she was a child during Lizzie final years Lincoln surmises that Lizzie was the victim of "temporal epilepsy".  Though there is not one shred of factual medical evidence to proof otherwise except for Lincoln's own 20th century medical investigation.

Edward Radin writes an interesting and compassionate point of view in complete support of Lizzie's innocence.  He bases his theory on conversations with adults, in the year 1961, who were children during the time of Lizzie's adulthood while she lived at Second Street.

His work is the complete opposite of Porter and Pearson and at the end of this book affords the reader a trio of "who-dun-it".  Was it Lizzie, Bridget or Uncle John?  Radin leans towards Bridget.

David Kent wrote a work that parallels Radin.  Rebello wrote the "Big Book of Facts" so you have to the guessing of "who-dun-it" but he provides the research.

I personally have changed my mind about "who-dun-it" with each book I have read that is what keeps this piece of history alive.  But when all is told or read one can but only "speculate" as too what really did happen at No. 92 Second Street on the morning of August 4, 1892.

BC

Carol,
I realized tho, that Lizzie *blew it* if your theory is correct, about Andrew having to be found dripping.
She says, "I think I heard her come in-won't somebody go and look?"  [not a direct quote]  She's implying to her "audience" that Abby has just arrived home from her outing around the time of Andrew's murder .  This is unaccountable, except as a mistake on her part...either she *honestly* thought she heard Abby, or a mistake in that that wasn't what she was supposed to say at all...
Like the cellar door incident...Morse seems to expect it to be open (or unlocked) and it isn't, but he keeps quietly pestering people that he thinks it was open--he's almost sure of it .
Somehow we are left *spectulating* that the cellar door should have been left unlocked as part of a plan...   Lizzie evens asks Bridget, Friday morning, (expressly?) in front of an Officer, " Are you sure the cellar door was locked?" [not an exact quote].
Again, a mistake...a missed cue..a bunch of AMaTUERS....

--now BC:  When you went to Fall River, did you find V. Lincoln's house?  And whether it was near or far from Maplecroft?  I forgot to ask...

Haven't been in that neighborhood...once the weather warms up a bit my daughter...who by the way is now a L.B.S. member, tada...and I are trekking off to Fall Revv...the father/daughter sleuth team will have photos and answers soon...if I can ever get my youngest son to fix this darn scanner....ladedada

BC

Some more thoughts on that Kat.  My idea (not theory but no need to get picky) was that IF inheritance was an issue and IF the purpetrators knew that to insure the money would stay within the Borden link that Abby would have to be known to have been killed first perhaps Lizzie was not an accomplice. 

If Lizzie was not an accomplice and didn't know of this plan to murder the parents, i.e., IF possibly it was set up by Uncle John and Emma or others, then the remarks made by Lizzie about Abby coming in and Lizzie sending out for help makes sense. 

Also, at no time did Lizzie give a "time" for her statement about when she thought Abby came in.  At first she said that she thought Abby had a note and had gone out, and then she said she thought Abby had come in, but when....we have no record of the time she thought these incidents might have occurred.

Also Lizzie did not state "where" to look for Abby who might have come in.  She did't say Abby's bedroom nor the guest room.  It was purely the other women who found no body in Abby's room and a body in the guest room. 

So the mystery deepens.

Hi Bob:  So you and I agree for the most part.  Am glad you qualified your comment of "pure speculation" to be more of a broad and general term because your following remarks indicate you are aware that most if the Lizzie authors used elements of the case (facts) as a base, however, some of them twisted or interpreted those facts to suit their own motivations or beliefs about Lizzie, etc. 

I always like to give an author credit for their efforts, unless their motivations were purely vile, that they have thought a situation out and want to put forward THEIR take as they see it. It is up to the reader to beware and I give people credit for being aware. There was one book that a woman wrote on the Lizzie case which was THE MOST ODDLY SPECULATIVE of any, in my opinion.  She used the fact of Bridget's window washing episode to say that Bridget really didn't wash any windows that day. A little far out.

Carol: that is way I say that "speculation" is so general/broad in nature.  Each author with good intentions will write his/her story based on the "facts" as they are written in text from the Inquest, Prelim., Trial and Witness Statements.

It is what the writer reads into or in between the lines as so to speak that will give them their theory on how or who committed the murders.  Since there was no "surprize" witness or "confessed killer" one can only speculate as to who did the deed and how they did it.

The only books I refuse to read are those works of fiction.  I cannot read a story about a true episode that is conjecture and falsehood.  I have a serious mental block about fiction stories.

That's just the way I am...a Virgo.

BC

sc??s, I agree, if your premise is correct, then your logic does follow, accordingly.
Lizzie being *clueless* as you maintain would make some sense of these disturbing questions.
But I'm glad I asked, and I'm glad you followed up on your explanation.

BTW:  Stef and I were just discussing* that book* last night, Muriel Arnold's THe HANDS OF TIME.
I think Masterton's LIZZIE DIDN"T DO IT! is also extremely speculative.  There area LOT of assumptions made to get his theory off the ground.

(Message last edited Apr-9th-02  12:27 AM.)

Since Lizzie didn't say where to look for Abby, why then did they go up to the guest room in the front of the house, since Abby's room was located in the back of the house?  Unless that is where the Borden's stored the coats and hats etc. 

Also can anyone tell me about the pigeon killing incident?  Why did Andrew kill Lizzie's birds?

thanks,

T

The answer to the first question is, they had already been up to the Borden's bedroom to get sheets to cover Mr. Borden at Dr. Bowen's request.

Thanks Harry, I've read that over and over again and totally forgot up the sheet!!!

T

The supposed reason why Andrew offed the pigeons was that someone had broken into the Borden barn, and he thought the culprits were boys trying to steal pigeons.  If he'd been as much of a villain as he's painted, he probably would have offed the boys and let the pigeons be.  Incidentally, I've never been at all sure those were Lizzie's pigeons.  Does anyone have any evidence that they were?  I know the "Legend" movie makes them Lizzie's, but I've always wondered if they were another of Andrew's money-making ventures.  Yummm!  Squab!

I looked at various authors re the pigeons.

Lincoln:  "In May, a minor incident took place that must have disturbed Lizzie at a fairly deep level, for she was passionately fond of birds and animals. She kept pigeons in the barn loft, and after the horse was sold boys twice broke into the barn to steal a few. Andrew decided to put temptation out of their way, which he did by decapitating them with a hatchet."

Brown:  "Uncle John's next recorded visit to the Bordens occurred some time after Andrew announced there was no longer a reason for his household to keep a horse. The barn's sole occupants became Lizzie's pigeons. No one ever questioned Lizzie's love of animals, and as far as we know, these pigeons were her pets and the only pets she had, allowed by Andrew for the simple reason that, on occasion, they graced the dinner table."

Spiering: " Father got so mad that he ordered him out of the house. And the barn has been broken into twice...... But there's nothing for them to go after in there but the pigeons."

Neither Kent nor Radin mention them. It's funny that in Spiering she says "the pigeons" not "my" pigeons.
 

Lizzie's testimony at the Inquest (page 82) is also interesting:

Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir, he killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.
Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.
Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.
Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.
Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.
Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.
Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.
Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

Then Emma testified on page 111:

Q.  You dont know of anything being done with an ax or a hatchet that would cause blood to come on it, do you?
A.  Not unless father killed pigeons with them; I dont know whether he did or not.
Q.  You did not see him kill the pigeons?
A.  No Sir

Again,  Lizzie does not say they were hers. Her reactions certainly don't sound like they were pets.


(Message last edited Apr-9th-02  2:44 PM.)

Yes, Harry, I've had similar feelings.  She seemed oddly detached from the whole incident.  Of course, that could have been her way of dealing with the tragedy of losing her pets, but it seems to me somebody (such as Emma) might have mentioned it if Lizzie had been devastated by their killing.  Then again, maybe not, since that might have given her an additional reason for feeling bitter toward Father.

For those interested in Bertha Manchester case I found the following:
LBQ, Vol. VI, No. 4 (October 1999) has two articles on it, one by Denise Noe and the other by Neilson Caplain.

Noe says that
1.  Bertha was 22 and worked on her father's dairy farm and was in the kitchen when killed.
2.  She was struck with an axe from the back (neck and head) 23 times, her clothing ripped leading investigators to believe she had put up a struggle
3.  Dolan did the autopsy
4.  Nothing was stolen
5.  killer spent a long time at the crime scene after the killing
6.  Bertha was killed at 9:30
7.  correira's sentence was commuted after 26 years on the stipulation he return to the Azores
8.  Correira only spoke Portuguese, no english
9.  He had quarreled with Mr. Manchester over wages and had been struck by Manchester

Caplain says:
1.  that the "in numbers and location, the wounds on Bertha Manchester's head closely matched those found on the skull of Abby Borden."  ??? [23 whacks is more than abby but close I guess]
2.  Stephen Manchester (father) was tempermentally like Andrew and even peddled eggs downtown, also he "hoarded wealth"
3.  Correira was only 18
4.  he confessed, saying it was self defense -- that bertha had come after him with the axe and he wrestled it from her
5.  Bertha was a large woman and said to be as strong as any man
6.  he went to steal what was owed him
7.  the crime occurred on May 1, 1893 but was not caught and charged until June 4th


He also cites Sullivan's book (goodbye lizzie borden) as having 4 pages on the case.

Now I just finished reading Sullivan and he says that the headlines blasted the murder of Bertha on May 31, the day before the jury was selected for the Borden trial.  Which means that everyone knew of the murder and everyone was in a frenzy that another similar murder had occurred in the same town.  The newspapers discussed the parallelisms (?) of both murders, same town, same weapon, same style of hacking, in bertha's home in broad daylight (same as bordens).  So the 100 or so potential jurors to be selected knew of this and thought, how could Lizzie commit while in jail.  Sheer luck for Lizzie?

Thanks for the Manchester details Stefani.  I have problems with the Correiro "confession" seeing as he only spoke Portugese. 

While reading through what you said an idea came to mind regarding gender and these two cases which interets me.

It has been said by psychologists who study wartime atrocities on women by men (expanded since the Balkan wars) that part of the psychology of killers in wartime is that they have a desire to inflict harm on the wives, daughters, etc., of their adversaries as a method of humiliation and control over the men they are fighting against.

Taking this idea and applying it to the Manchester case and Borden case, under the proposition that the murderer in each case was NOT involved in a family conspiracy nor was Lizzie, and taking into consideration that the murderer was a man that Andrew and Manchester knew from business who had felt wronged by Andrew and Manchester, then perhaps the murderer killed the two women first as a way to doubly humiliate his victim, the men involved, Mr. B. and Mr. M.  That would account for killing the innocent women. Perhaps Lizzie wasn't in a place where the murderer could get at her while he was at the Borden house and that is why he didn't kill her too.

It wouldn't matter if he then killed Mr. B. and almost killed Mr. M. without them knowing he had killed their women, because it wasn't necessary for those victims to actually know that, it was enough that the murderer had humiliated the men in that way in his own mind.

Just a gendered thought.

Well, I've pondered this and of course came up with a question:

If Abby died at 9:00 a.m., and the killer waited around for almost 2 hours before killing Andrew, then he would have had complete access to the house & grounds and Lizzie and Bridget, to slaughter EVERYONE.  (Includes the rest of Andrew's *women*)

Kat, I was thinking that maybe, if the murderer was really really thinking ahead (no pun intended), that he could have taken into consideration the fact that if he killed Lizzie too (that is if he did have access to her) then Lizzie could not have been accused of the crime, which she most likely would be being the only other person in the house when Abby died. 

In that way he could also humiliate Mr. B. by setting up a situation where not only did he kill Mr. and Mrs. B. but their daughter would be accused and put on trial (and been convicted he hoped, in any case her reputation would be zero after that). Therefore leaving Lizzie alive could have had that scenario as a motive. 

I don't think he could have gotten to Bridget, her being outside most of the time, and as she was just a maid and not a relation perhaps he discounted her. But if Bridget had been upstairs helping Abby with fixing up the guest room that a.m., he would have killed her too.  He just didn't know that Bridget never went upstairs because chances are he didn't know the inner workings and duties of the household staff in any detail. Perhaps, perhaps.

A very interesting idea or speculation. But it implies a different social setting than 1892 Fall River.

I once read that the difference between a serial killer and a madman is the latter is too disorganized to plot his crime, and escape.
The recent tragedy here in Dover Township NJ says somebody who snaps and goes crazy is not likely to plot a cover-up.

I don't think that the murder was either a serial killer nor a madman though.

Also, the fact that psychologically men have throughout history taken their "vengence" toward other men on the other men's women and families isn't something that corresponds to any narrow window of time.  It could be considered a universal aspect of masculilne aggression, which solidifies into mass hysteria when educated into a man who becomes a fighter in a particular war.  At other times it remains unconscious yet real motivation for killing innocents.

Any of you certified psychologists out there want to wade in on this?