1. "The mind of a killer"
Posted by Stefani on Sep-22nd-02 at 12:14 AM

Ray's message in the Privy about serial killers made me start to think again of the time lapse between the killings. I remember Charlie Crowell, the collector and seller of the murder scrapbooks on eBay, once told us on the old message board that there had never been another case in the history of murder where a hatchet killing as brutal as Abby's had occurred and then 90 mintues later another killing by hatchet was committed in the same location.

So we have a double murder and this time lag. You would have to get all worked up to axe somebody, I imagine. You also have to get really close to the victim to kill them this way. You would have to look at what you are doing or you will miss the head when striking, I guess too.

For somebody who was not used to death (as say a butcher) or the killing of animals (as say a hunter) or using hatchets routinely (as say the woodchopper), the use of this particular implement of death in such a brutal fashion is very unLizzielike and seems, in a sense, a very masculine choice.

How do you suppose someone could turn off and on such rage? Get so mad as to hatchet one person to death and then calm down and then rage again an hour and a half later and repeat the process. I would think one killing by hatchet would be one's limit, if you know what I mean. Two hatchet killings seems sociopathic. Like somebody had to relish the act. And since Lizzie is not a serial killer or a spree killer or a mass murderer, then how can we explain this 90 minute rest period in terms of the psychology of the act? How can a person do such a thing? And how could they live with themselves afterwards without reliving the horror?

After listening to some of the professionals talk about killers on television shows, with them trying to get into a murderer's mind, I think the person who did the Borden killings enjoyed it. Anyone who could do something like that with such a weapon isn't thinking or feeling on a balanced beam. Some of the killers they spotlight on true crime shows seem to be able to kill two or three times a night, especially if they get interrupted during the act. With the controversy about life in prison or the death penalty, it makes a person think because giving a person life in prison could mean giving them a chance to go over and over their crimes and relishing it all over again.  It's hard for people to conceive that but murder isn't self-defense and the mind seems to be twisted in ways most of us can't grasp for a person to do it. Motive in the Borden case seems to be very important and tied in with the implement of choice.  Interesting.  

My thoughts exactly, Carol!  How do you get into the twisted mind of a killer?  Something is missing there or there is that something extra that makes it okay for them to do these deeds and not have any remorse after the fact.  If it was in fact Lizzie who did it, look at how cooly she handled herself after killing Abby and then speaking to her father as if nothing really had happened.  Abby was just out, she had a note and left this morning.  And then she chopped his head up too.  Scary! 

Some people say it was a butcher who knew how to handle an axe or hatchet...but then they said that sort of Professional could kill with one blow.  Yet we don't see that with either victim.

Then there are those that say a woman's hand "did it" because the blows (to Abby) were so amaturish;  glancing blows mostly that seem to go in every direction, without a lot of penetration , until the skull caved in.  (See Knowlton Papers for letters as to these theories...)

Then Stef and I used to talk about what Carol seems to imply:  Wouldn't the deed be done with an implement someone was familiar with?  Like a butcher with an axe or cleaver?  A carpenter maybe uses a hammer?  A maid or cook might use poison or a poker?

The biggest thing, in Lizzie's favor (and Emma's for that matter), is that not many, then or now, can picture a lady weilding a hatchet on her Family Members.
It is so unusual, that it may not have really happened before or since.....

I still think it is odd to go from poisoning someone
to smashing their head in. I know killing is killing,
people are dead however you do it. I don't think the violence
implies personal rage, I think it was just the method of
the murder. The 'Night Stalker' was a very brutal killer,
he didn't know who he was killing, I think they said he
gouged peoples eyes out, the Manson Family was the same way.
Most killers take their rage on everybody out on their
victims.

Elizabeth Montgomery's Lizzie was half-daft when she did it. She was not in a rage at all but quite calm the whole way through. Like in a trance almost. That was eerie to see.

I imagine the killer angry. At least that is how I would have to be to do such a deed. And maybe that is where I am going all wrong. Thinking that the killer would think and act like me. Since I am not the type to commit illegal acts, nor kill anyone for any reason, I am not the "right" person to figure the psychology out.

Where is CSI Fall River when you need them?

That is what I've been thinking these past few days,
if I were to do it
how would I go about it? There is really no way to
comprehend it. If I were to have wanted to kill my parents,
there is no way I'd do it like that, it
seems like the way someone would do it if they didn't
care about them. Is there a caring way to kill? The poison
being internal maybe makes it seem less---I keep thinking
violent, but I do know it would hurt also, I'm NOT
kidding myself that it doesn't really count & isn't cruel.

And you would think that somebody who could kill 2 people with a hatchet would also think nothing of killing animals. Yet Lizzie is remembered for her love of animals. We know she had patience, as evidenced by her love of fishing. We know that she had three dogs in later years and left money to the Animal Rescue League.

Can a person be so viscious with humans and so kind to animals at the same time? Can a person kill two people and never speak of it again? Can a person commit patricide, be indicted for the crimes, stand trial, and not feel the need to speak out for themselves? That is truly amazing to me. Keeping one's mouth shut. Even at the risk of being sent to the gallows.

People who are mean to animals are SCARY, have you seen
turtles in the middle of road & you know full well someone
went out of their way to squash them? Would anyone trust
somebody like that with their life? I'm a wuss anyway,
but animal cruelty shows a profound lack of compassion & I
think that it doesn't re-surface in their dealings with people.
I also try not to date men who hunt, I can deal with hamburger,
but I cant deal with seeing the entire animal. I love finding
a man who is kind to animals, but none of them ever like cats.
 

Animals don't generally disappoint.  They have unconditional love, they don't yell at you for spending too much money or being lazy.  When you tell them to do something (dogs at least) they usually will and won't question you.  But, people, on the other hand, cannot be controled in that way.  Dealing with a person is dealing with the unknown, they may react differently to certain situations or to you.  They can stop loving you, they can get mad at you, or, they can be controling you, telling you what to do and when and how. 

Most girls who want their parents killed do just that--HAVE them killed...usually by a boyfriend or a group of friends, maybe drugs involved.

I really used to think drugs or alcohol were a factor in these killings.  I still have a fondness in me for that theory because it takes into account, or at least somewhat explains the Violence, the Rage, the OVERKILL.
A person on some drug would not have to sustain the rage for an hour and a half, they need only kill Abby while high, then wander around the house or lay low and then get high AGAIN and get that homicidal urge up to boiling point AGAIN.

I agree that someone is not going to switch methods in mid-stream, but evidence of attempts to buy poison by Lizzie was not only found inadmissable to a court, but has some reasonable sounding explantions for why it WASN'T Lizzie trying to buy poison.  So we are not 100% sure that poison was ever adopted as an option, merely mentioned by Lizzie to Alice as to what she described Abby as thinking...

I always had to wonder about Bence and possible motives there. He piped up after the reward was offerd and nobody else ever mentioned seeing a well dressed woman carrying a seal skin cape around downtown in the midst of a heat wave. Think someone else MUST have seen her, remembered her, in the pharmacy or on the street? Especially considering the scrutiny of Lizzie's actions fell under once she became a suspect?

I've heard it mentioned that Lizzie had to do it because
if she wasn't the killer then she would have been killed also.
That she was pilfering around the house and would have crossed
paths with whoever was there.

I think it is still possible for it to have been an outsider,
Lizzie could have been watched by this person, peeped at,
she might have been followed thru
the house being watched & enjoyed, she wasn't old, she was an
attractive woman, perhaps she was followed downstairs & then
Andrew came home. Just the time span between the killing
doesn't make it her 100%. Perhaps it would have ended in
a sexual assault if she hadn't went to the barn. I'm just
making this up, I have no proof of any of it, but I've
never read of that theory before, has anyone else?

When you put it that way, Kimberly, I get cold chills!!!  And not only Lizzie, but, Bridget too!  I can just imagine Lizzie walking blindly through the house, unaware that Abby lies dead upstairs and the killer is watching Lizzie, chuckling to themselves over what they've done and now can possibly do.  That is an interesting point, if Lizzie didn't do it, why was she not a target also? 

When I was a teenager I was 'peeped at' and whoever it was tore the
handle off the storm door trying to break in the same night.
I always wondered what they would have done if they got
inside & found out I wasn't alone. People always say it couldn't
have been anyone besides Lizzie because of the time span, but they
never seemed to realize that Lizzie & Bridget could have been
alluring/amusing enough to have distracted a killer.

Perhaps it could have been someone Bridget had met & he was
stalking her & entered the house someway, and found the very
spiffy Lizzie more to his liking. Abby found him & he had all
the time in the world to watch the 'girls'. Isn't that what
peeping toms like to do, watch people going about their boring
lives? You can keep out of someones sight in a house that size,
stranger things have happened. 

I can imagine Andrew being shocked at seeing a stranger
blundering into the sitting room, not knowing there was
no other way thru the house.

I'd like to throw in here that, since we're supposing, maybe the theory that Lizzie WAS in a white-hot rage when she killed Abby, and that killing Abby was the main focus of the crime, might be correct.  Then, the killing of Andrew became a necessity when he returned home before Lizzie was able to go out and establish an alibi - and after Lizzie lied to him about Abby's going out.  As Victoria Lincoln thought, Andrew would know exactly who it was who had done this horrible thing, who had been alone in the house with her hated stepmother.

I'll add that we'll never know what words passed between Lizzie and Andrew downstairs after Bridget went up for her little rest.  I don't believe, based on what we've learned about the blood spots over the last couple of years, that Andrew was napping at all.

The thing is, I don't think both slayings were committed in a fury.  Perhaps the first one was, and the second was done out of desperation, out of the knowledge that this, unlike the daytime robbery, would not be something Andrew would be able (or willing) to cover up. 

Good Point!!! "Only after a reward was offered" MAY seem a reasonable answer. But didn't a reporter first find this out? (I could be wrong.) Note that the three eyewitnesses had different reasons for selecting Lizzie: "her tremulous voice", or, "her loud harsh voice". As I remember it.

I think its always a good idea to consider how people react nowadays to as a guide for reactions then. Less jaded, of course.

Curt Gentry wrote a book 30+ years ago on the Trial of Tom Mooney. He was framed for a murder he never committed only because he was trying to organize the Frisco trolley workers. The witnesses were eventually revealed as seekers after the reward, or those who could be maniplated by the prosecution (Massage Parlor owner).

(Message last edited Sep-23rd-02  12:55 PM.)

IF Lizzie did try to buy that prussic acid (which is one of the quickest acting poisons known), I think she wanted it for self defense. "Dear cousin Willy, try a nice cup of tea to settle your nerves." I read that this is rarely used by poisoners because of its instant effect: you can't create an alibi by being mile away at time of death. They use a slow poison like arsenic or strychnine; but I only read a few True Crime books.

E Porter says "it was the crime of a madman", not a young lady. The reason why she couldn't have done it, even if we knew of no other person around.

I have a few comments to several of the posts above:

The Evening Standard printed the story from the Fall River Globe, on August 5th, claiming in headline:  "ASKED FOR POISON".

The same newspaper (Standard) printed the "REWARD:  $5,000" on the 5th. 

This may seem as if the two events were more closely related than they were.
It seems that Eli Bence was discovered as a "witness" Thursday evening of the Fourth, by those police officers Harrington & Doherty.  He was taken to the house where Lizzie was and without a line-up, was stationed at the door and asked to identify her, which he did.
The reward was offered the next day.


Porter was probably mimicking the defense's closing arguments in his book (supposedly) quoted here above in prior post.
Jennings, Trial, pg. 1306, said "...makes this the act, as it would seem to most men, of an insane person or a fiend."
Robinson, closing for defense, Trial, 1612, also says:  "...a maniac or a fiend, we say...".
They were the defense...they were supposed to say that.  I believe Knowlton also harped on the fact that this crime didn't look like the work of a "Lady"...to his detriment...


I can see Abby as the originally intended victim.  Understanding Andrew's murder is more complicated.  BUT...if he was killed for expediences sake, why the many wounds?  The facial obliberation?  Why not stop at 5 blows instead of 10?  I could see momentum carrying one foreward into 5 blows, but something More to keep it up until 10...

Well,from re-reading the autopsy report for Andrew on the LABVM&L site, there seems to be only one cut from the hatchet that went directly into the brain bringing bone with it.  It is numbered by Dr. Draper as #9, but, doesn't necessarily mean it was the ninth cut made by the hatchet.  So, my supposition here, Andrew may have been alive and struggling through the assault, shallow cuts in your bone won't kill you, nor will cutting your eye in half.  Yes, bleeding to death will eventually kill you, but, until that point in time Andrew may have been very much alive and kicking!  So, until that death blow was delivered, he may have been moaning, groaning, struggling to get up off the sofa, etc.  The killer had to make sure he was dead, if it was Lizzie, I think that she loved her father to the point where she wouldn't have wanted him to suffer, she would have wanted him dead as quick as possible.  Just my opinion. 

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAndrewBorden.htm

Susan, if I have to get murdered in my lifetime I
want you to do it!

But there are no defensive wounds on Andrew. His hands do not indicate a struggle, nor are his hands bloody, as if he covered his face or wiped his face, or had them anywhere near his head. Of course they could have been wiped clean, I suppose.

I like Bob's idea a lot. Killing Abby in rage, but killing Andrew for coverup. But still, there is that nagging problem of the note. It was Lizzie who told of it to the people coming into the house. You would think if she used it to satisfy Andrew, and he was dead, there would be no more need of that fake tale. But she retells it, over and over.

If I were a moneygrubber, and I would think that must be Lizzie's motive, right?, but if I wanted to kill for money then I wouldn't use a hatchet. I would make it all look like an accident. She could have pushed her down the stairs instead, if she really wanted to do her and only her in.

I think the person who killed the couple wanted them BOTH dead. Hence the wait for the opportunity to finish the job. And if it is just a job for someone to accomplish, that leads me to hired gun.

Could someone have convinced Lizzie to kill? Like Emma? Told her to do it for the sake of the family's fortune? I think Emma hated Abby much more than Lizzie. And she equally profited from the crimes.

Do you suppose our Emma was into hypnosis and Lizzie was in a trance the whole time? I realize this is way out there, but hell, I figure I might as well try anything at this point.

So follow this weak attempt a bit further. If Emma had hypnotized Lizzie and Morse was in on it, knowing the words to say to get Lizzie to do her bidding, and he starts the ball rolling before he leaves and Lizzie does each killing while in a trance-like state and only awakes when Morse comes back and says the secret words to her? And she has this foggy memory of it all and doesn't make sense and can't remember and changes her story and does not feel remorse or guilt because she was "under the spell" as it were of Emma, then well, there you have it.

Dumb idea, I know.

Kimberly, why on earth would you want me to be your murderer? 

Stefani, perhaps after all, Andrew was dozing as an older person might?  But, dozing sitting up, after the first strike of the hatchet, he gets knocked over on the sofa.  Remember, this is a man who is almost 70, just getting over vomiting all night and may have just been rudely awakened by a hatchet blow.  He may have began to make noises, wave his hands in the air in the direction of the killer, I place them at the foot of the sofa.  The killer can't get to his head, in a panic they rush to the head of the sofa and give him a few chops from that direction, which would account for the 3 left to right slices in his skull.  At this point he may have been knocked unconscious, I don't know, I've never been whacked on the head with a hatchet.  Outside of cutting, would it be enough to knock you out?  Then the killer can move back to the foot of the sofa to finsh the job and make sure Andrew is truly dead.  As I had said, this is just supposition on my part and not even necessarily the only way that I can see Andrew being killed, just one of my many scenarios.

And, your idea isn't dumb!  Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!   

Andrew's clothes are not even disarranged!
His watch chain is even straight to his vest pocket.
I can see no sign of struggle to the man, his clothes, his hands (defensively), or the room.

I do believe in the "GROAN", tho...Lizzie mentions That!

Does that sound reasonable to you, Kat?  That Andrew may have been alive for awhile under the hatchet assault? 

Oh yea, that's reasonable.
When Dr. Dolan lists all the wounds there is a littany of  questioning:
"Was THAT wound necessarily fatal?"--"NO"
"Was that wound a fatal wound?"--"NO"
and on & on until the skull collapses.  THAT is fatal.
[my quotes-paraphrased]

It might also be so for Abby.

I don't think either died immediately, although some think Andrew did due to "lack of blood". 
("Lack of BLOOD"?  HUH?)

(Message last edited Sep-24th-02  4:41 AM.)

If Abby was killed (by Lizzie) in a fit of rage resulting in the many horrible wounds,perhaps the succession of blows to Andrew's face was an attempt to make both crimes appear to be of the same ferocity and method? And hence, by the same deranged murderer?(Certainly not a lady's handiwork!)If so, she succeeded.

Regarding the note.  It served a double, if not triple purpose.

For Bridget and Andrew it puts Abby out of the house so that they don't expect to see her.

For the police and everyone else who asks her, it's the reason she and Bridget didn't see Abby between 9:30 and 11 o'clock.

It also raises the shadow of some outside involvement.

The danger is that it is a piece of physical evidence that must be accounted for. She seemed to have been unprepared for that accounting. It is Alice Russell who inadvertently comes to her rescue.

From Alice's Trial testimony (page 393): "...And I think I said, "Well, then she must have put it in the fire." And Lizzie said, "Yes, she must have put it in the fire."

Because you sound like me, you wouldn't want your victim
to suffer, we ain't exactly Thelma & Louise. We are goody
two-shoes, that is why we scored so high on the annoying test.

I still cant believe how Abby's dress isn't even hitched
up any, it is not disturbed at all. You would think she would
have at least had it bunched up some. I've always thought
the doctor or police pulled her skirt back down for
modesty, she was the wife of a very rich businessman.
They both look so posed, overly natural, does it really look
like Abby has someone squatting over her hitting her?

Well, this is true, but, I don't know if I have it in me to kill though!  I cooked some live lobsters once and besides being grossed out, I started crying, it really tore me apart inside to have to do that.

As for you thought on Abby's clothing, I have thought the same thing!  Her skirt seems to be a little too perfectly placed to cover her legs.  I tried experimenting with falling down wearing a couple of long cotton skirts (you know, a dress and a petticoat) and more often then not, the skirts lifted on one side or the other so that one of my legs was exposed.  The only other explanation I can think of is the killer caught Abby before she fell and lowered her to the floor.  No crash!  But, that person would have to have been strong!  200 lbs to attend to and possibly dead weight! 

I have faith in your abilities!  There is a profiler on many of the true crime television shows, I believe the man who first started the profession of profiling murderers, Dressler, or Bressler (sorry I can't remember his name accurately), but he is a fascinating man to listen to. He isn't a killer or psycho, yet he has been able to get into a killer's mind and psyche and has aided police in their quest to capture these perverts. Sure, he is trained, but there is a lot to credit about the insights of non-professionals. Harder if you are dealing with a case so distant as the Borden murders.  No one knows when something someone just even casually mentions triggers another thought that leads to new break-throughs regardless of the restrictions of time. 

I'm disappointed to admit that I don't look to the crime scene photos for any evidence as to how the bodies were actually found any more.  There were doctors, cops, and various important citizens in and out of the guest and sitting rooms, "taking a peek" before those photos were taken and, as has been suggested, skirts may have been pulled down for propriety's sake.  Don't also forget that at least one of the doctors testified that Andrew's body had slumped considerably as compared to how it looked earlier that day.  There's also the matter of the bloody folding camp chair that was leaning against the wall near Abby's head, moved, before the pix were taken, to the other side of the room.  So, the photos give us an idea, but they are not shots of uncontaminated crime scenes.     

(Message last edited Sep-24th-02  3:15 PM.)

Your questions remind of the the List case.  He is the man who killed his entire family, wife, children and mother, and left them in a row in sleeping bags on the floor in his house, wrote his minister a letter of admission, then went to Colorado for 18 years and never spoke of the crimes, started a new life with a new wife, rejoined the church, etc. He was only caught when a sculpting specialist made up a model of what he would have looked like in old age and they profiled it on the Most Wanted show and a neighbor recognized him. The profiler had it right even down to the very glasses the man had chosen to wear in old age.

Now that would be a new twist, how about a television show trying to capture those who committed crimes, like the Borden murders, from another age, when all the suspects were already dead.  Or someone could do a documentary on the Borden murders not from the Lizzie parricide aspect but from going on to try and catch the real killer.  

I think his name is Robert Ressler. He has written many great books on serial killer profiling, among them, Whoever Fights Monsters, Sexual Homocide: Patterns and Motives, I Have Lived in the Monster: Inside the Minds of the World's Most Notorious Serial Killers.

He worked with John E. Douglas, also an FBI profiler. His books include: Obsession, The Anatomy of Motive, Journey into Darkness, Mindhunter, and The Cases That Haunt Us.

Why so many whacks? "It was the crime of a madman."
Have you ever heard of a local murder where the male victim was stabbed more than a dozen times? What were the circumstances?

Maybe a young lady filled with hatred would whack Abby so many times, but not have the cunning to repeat that for Dear Old Dad as a disguise. But you are free to disagree.

Some would say so many wounds indicate a ritual murder or a rejected homosexual lover.

I've been re-reading the testimony and the photographer didn't get there to take photos until about 3:45.  Before that there were several people who tampered with Abby's body, Dr. Dolan, the police, etc. And we don't know who else who wasn't asked. I paraphrase here but one man removed the bed to the side so he could get into observe Abby's body better. The bedclothes, sheets, pillows, etc., were all removed and then put back on and the bed slid back in position all BEFORE the photos were taken. One man said when pressed that he didn't move her much, just some, etc. to view the face.  I think one man said he didn't consider what he did moving the body, her arm position just sort of changed when he lifted her up. Ha. 

Thanks, yes, Robert Ressler, that is the very man of which I spoke. I am not sure about a little local murder where a male victim was stabbed more than a dozen times but perhaps the Manson killings contained one, at least one woman there was completely punctured. I still think there is more to the coincidence of the Manchester murder occuring just prior to Lizzie's trial and have never been convinced they got the right person for that one. But I have not access to that material. Does anyone know how long prior to the Borden and Manchester murders it was that there was an axe murder in Fall River,and how long after before another one? Ill go away now.

Weren't the Manson Gang high on drugs at the time? It was not a cold-blooded murder due to personal ambition. It could've been ANYONE!!! And the next week's murders were of a couple picked at random. Which is why everyone was so alarmed. Most people (?) live simple lives so as to not create enemies, so its scary to know "it could happen to you"!

I'm not an MD, but I would think the first blow would have to pierce th skull to render Any immobile for the remaining whacks. Or at least knocked unconscious (any heavy blunt instrument could do this).

Has anyone ever read something on the Sam Shepard case? Was this similar, except that Dr. Sam survived to chase the killer? No adult present to blame.

A good knock on the head with a hatchet could certainly stun the victim until another blow is delivered.  Maybe that's when Lizzie heard that groan from Andrew that she later mentioned at least once when issuing her alibis. 

Recent developments in the Shepard case having to do with DNA material found at the crime scene suggest that Sam Shepard was unjustly blamed for his wife's murder, even if he was not exactly the world's most faithful husband.  It'a another very strange case, like that of the Bordens. 

(Message last edited Sep-24th-02  3:17 PM.)

I agree, even a minor hit can cause a person to become
disoriented. He could have been hit & pushed down, he was
an old man, it wouldn't take much to cause him to lose
his footing & stumble backwards. I wonder about his relaxed
non-defensive posture, could it have been from twitching?
I think it could have changed the look of his last living moments.

I don't think I'd want you to boil me, I'd cry too.
Do they still make prussic acid?

Cyanide aka prussic acid was the ingredient of L-pills which were given to British (?) agents or spies sent into occupied Europe. In most cases. When you had to be sure you wouldn't talk?

In 1960 that U-2 plane had a "timed explosion" to destroy the evidence. Garry Powers didn't use it because he didn't trust the Govt. word; he believed the delay was non-existent.

It is not a poison for murder. "Who was the last person to see him alive?" is the formula to find the killer. My opinion, of course.

Cyanide! I had never heard of anything called
prussic acid except in relation to the Borden murders,
I just assumed it was a Victorian thing. I guess anyone
who never knew there was a difference in an axe & a hatchet
isn't going to know that either.

Cyanide is more a suicide device, as it acts so quickly, as has been mentioned here.
It's not exactly a good choice for Murder, because you'd be left with dead bodies at your feet, instantly.

There has been a theory, if one likes the poison idea, of chloroform, administered as a sophoric, knocking someone asleep, so that they would not stuggle...and there also you would have your humane killing.  (Morse supposedly mentions this as his method, if he had done it...He would have chloroformed the couple in their bed...)

Another theory has been that the Borden's were becoming sick and eventually overcome by fumes from the flues backing up, or from the closing off of the fireplaces not being done properly.  (I suppose those would be sealed when the radiators were installed, whenever That was?)

Being "elderly" (for the times), Abby & Andrew may have been more susceptible to the fumes, then Bridget because that stuff tends to "rise" and she lived on the higher floor (?)--may account for HER throwing up Thursday, and sick headache.

These suggestions are interesting, I think, and are not original to me, though I have thought about them a lot and may have made embellishments here and there...

Homosexual rejectee? Where does that enter into the scheme of viciousness in attacks? Bundy, Kenneth Bianchi, Arthur Shawcross, Richard Ramirez, Henry Lee Lucas, Charles Ng and Louis Lake, Jack the Ripper and the other 95-odd per cent of serial rapist/killers who are heterosexual men preying on women? (Aside from Gacy and Dahmer I know and a few others-few in the comparison)Speaking as a rejected homosexual lover myself, I can honestly say that the urge to whack my exes into pulp fiction never lasted more than ten years.


(Message last edited Sep-25th-02  6:56 AM.)

Another gay guy/true crime fan speaking!

Technically, neither Gacy nor Dahmer killed because they were rejected; Gacy was a conflicted, grandiose torture-killer who needed to hide the evidence (he's been called the "worst closet-case in history"), and Dahmer had some off-the-track ideas (besides cannibalism) about creating slaves out of some of the men he'd brought home for sex - his case is somewhat similar to that of Dennis Neilsen (sp?), in the UK, who killed his tricks so they wouldn't leave him.  Excellent, if macabre and sad, book on that case: KILLING FOR COMPANY.      

I've met men on occasion that I would love to jump
up & down on them. And I've known a few of their
ex-girlfriend`s/wives that I would love to have taken an axe to.
I never did either one, not out of compassion either,
even a big old sissy girl like myself can get really pissed
sometimes.

(Message last edited Sep-25th-02  11:04 AM.)

Oooooo, and don't forget Andrew Cunanan!  I drive past his old apartment building going to work everyday!  He was gay and he killed because he wanted to be famous.  I've spoken to a few people here in San Diego that had met him before, pretty creepy! 

Cunanan Cunanan-but he  shot his victims dead didn't he? And took his own life (no great loss)as opposed to the torture/mutilation killers who never seem to off themselves (unfortunately)...Thanks Bob G for the info on the Dahmer and Gacy id. I'm glad not to have to claim them...

(Message last edited Sep-25th-02  12:19 PM.)

Am not sure that the groan Lizzie said she heard was Andrew's response to the first blow, because the killer than had to deliver 9 more blows and get out of the house.  The timing is not there. If she was within hearing distance to perceive the groan, how did the killer finish the job and get out through the screen door (which was left wide open) with her approaching the steps unless she lied and saw the intruder??

The testimony of Dr. Dolan in the Preliminary Hearing says that the actual "cause of death" for both victims was from "shock."  He also said that all of the blows to either victim weren't mortal, many of them would not have killed either person but certain ones could extinquish life because they crushed the skull. (I am paraphrasing)

It is interesting in light of this that Lizzie's indictment says that "20" blows were inflicted on Mrs. B.  The testimony from the doctors indicate there were 19 (l8 to the head and one in the back).  The indictment also says the 20 blows for Abby were all "mortal" and the 10 for Andrew were all "mortal."  If the doctor's testimony is counter that, how could an indictment have two big mistakes in it like that which the defense didn't challenge??

Lizzie could also be lying that she found the screen door open.

I'm beginning to think it possible that the front door is the key, not the screen door.
She could be in the yard, in the barn, in the window of the barn, and maybe really Not see someone leave by the front.
Also, Bridget would also not see someone leave by the front if she were in her room as she says.

As to the indictments...that's interesting that you noticed that.  I wonder if that would be grounds for appeal, and it was built in to the indictment for that purpose...but Harry says on conviction there is automatic appeal...?  Is it just a mistake?

There is an automatic appeal in most, if not all, states today. Whether that was true in 1893 I could not say.

You could appeal at anytime provided you had "new evidence" and that the courts thought it sufficient to rehear the case.  Today capital murder case convictions are automatically appealed.

An appeal does not mean a new trial. The case is reviewed by a higher court and if sufficient evidence is provided a new trial may result. No guarantees.

Yes, Kashesan, as far as I know Cunanan shot his victims, or at least Versace.  I was just backing up Bob G's theory. 

Ci, I got it. At least he had the good grace to off himself (Cunanen that is-not Bob!)

Yes, one last twisted individual on the planet!  But, sadly there are others.  We have had a rash of hate crimes in the gay quarters of town out here, they have apprehended one teenager in relation to one of the incidents.  I hope they try him as an adult, this brand of illness needs to stop! 

Thanks!  I don't intend to go ANYWHERE for a while!

Carol, since I believe Lizzie was the culprit, I have no problem suuposing that Andrew's "groan" haunted her - maybe it was loud enough that she thought it might've been overheard by her neighbors to the south, and so she thought she'd mention it in one of her ill-conceived alibis (taking your reasoning into account, "ill-conceived" because, as you say, if it was someone else with the hatchet and Lizzie really was in the yard and heard the groan and entered, why did she not meet the murderer, who'd likely just have finished the task?).  

I believe Lizzie innocent of the murders before the fact. I also believe she was not present (or she may have been the 3rd body).
But she obviously saw something for her to say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". Her Dad must have told her "NEVER tell anyone about cousin Willy", and she did so. Especially after Uncle John returned and said "Great God, how did this happen?".

I definitely know that no one can disprove the above; her jury heard the charges and said "not guilty". That is what makes this puzzle.

That always seemed curious to me, the "groan" she heard from the yard-she heard that, but not Abby falling and being murdered?

Ray, it's not that no can DISPROVE the above; it's that no one can reliably PROVE it.

(We all know you favor Brown's theory, to the exclusion of all others - that's your privilege, of course.) 

As I said before, that "groan" sounds like the spring on the screen door when it is fully opened. Or something to explain why she went back in, rather than seeing "nemesis" leaving and knowing the meeting was over.

Didn't everyone say that Second St. was a noisy thoroughfare w/ horses and wagons passing by, a stone mason in the back yard, etc?
It would be unusual for her to hear a thump if she was down in the WC in the back of the cellar.

(Message last edited Sep-26th-02  12:52 PM.)

Though it's quite a piece of good luck for Abby's killer if Lizzie had to "go" right then - and if Lizzie was in on it (and not the killer herself), it wouldn't matter WHERE she was, since she'd say she didn't hear anything.  I forget - does Brown's theory have it that Lizzie knew Willy was in the house already, and/or was shielding him? 

I was just thinking the sam ting.

I could make a statement  say..   oh...  *Lizzie liked strawberry sodas but they made her face break out*  and then challenge someone to DisProve it!  Not too scientific or logical if I did that...

Carol:
Here is a link to my transcription of the Bertha Manchester case in the newspaper on her anniversary, around Labor Day , May 30th, a Tuesday:

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=1&topid=512

(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  1:57 AM.)

OF COURSE I know that my question about "disproving" won't be answered; I asked it for rhetorical effect. Has this same standard been applied to all others? Please don't assume my motives.

I don't know about the type of soda, or if that flavor was available at the time. But if I were to say she loved "pear flavored soda", would that just be a total invention on my part? What else tastes like pears?

[Or pear flavored candy? Using logical conclusions.]

(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  11:07 AM.)

Notice the thousand rose petals falling on your head now. Thanks much Kat for the Manchester reference, I will spend some time going over that. You posted it just after I left for Wyoming this summer.