Survey of current posters' ideas of the culprit

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:39 pm

I've been away from the forum, and thinking about the case for years. Stumbled back recently and wondered among the people currently active in the forum, what are your thoughts about who the killer was?

I believe that Lizzie killed them, but not 100% certain. I couldn't have convicted her if I was on the jury.
I have suspicions that Emma was at least aware of the plan and knew immediately that Lizzie did it.
I don't believe Bridget did it, she got along with the "adults" in the house.
I don't believe Uncle Morse had anything to do with it. Sometimes coincidence happens, he happened to be visiting during the killings. Once, I sneezed and the electric in the neighborhood went off...spooky? Nah, unlikely but funny coincidence.
An angry man bent on revenge for Mr. Borden's mean practices? Sounds REALLY plausible except for 2 things...He would have had to stick around after killing Mrs. B. for "some extended time" until Mr. B. came home, and why even kill Mrs. B. if it was her mean husband that he had the beef with?

I'd love to hear from the active members!

MaryM · Post by **MaryM** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:45 pm

I simply don’t know who killed Andrew and Abby Borden, and am in the process of reading more about the case to see if I end up forming an opinion. I went from taking the Elizabeth Montgomery movie as fact when I was a teen, to now feeling there is more than reasonable doubt. I certainly couldn’t have voted to convict her.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:01 am

What makes this an enjoyable little hobby is the fact that we aren't limited by the rules of the courtroom. We are free to connect the dots, use common sense and apply a bit of gut instinct to form our opinions. 130 years later, my biggest disappointment with the various testimonies that were excluded from the trial is that we don't know what would have been shared. What did Lizzie say to Annie Borden about her home life? What exactly would the New Bedford pharmacists have told us? Did Cyrus Rounseville have inside knowledge of the Borden family dynamics that fateful summer? There were many summoned witnesses who did not actually testify and most of those insights are missing from the Witness Statements.

All that said, the evidence against Lizzie is enormous. An evolving/iterative alibi, burning of the dress, attempt to purchase prussic acid, fateful premonitions to Alice Russell, the letter to Elizabeth Johnston, home burglary, Charles Cook's statement, Lizzie present at the home during both murders, Lizzie's survival, Abby's missing note, "I think Abby came home" comment, front door triple locked, wearing Bengaline silk dress to the barn loft, sparkling clean hands after rummaging thru barn loft, Bridget's testimony, inability to maintain healthy relationships, multi million $ inheritance and so on......we can try to explain these issues one-off, but they ALL happened. In my mind, the only explanation is that she was an active participant.

Bridget and Morse had no documented motive. Bridget lived modestly for rest of her life and Morse's Will does not suggest a financial windfall happened after the murders. John's remaining life is pretty well documented by community newspapers which held him in relatively high regard. No one slaughters two people because they were told to wash the windows......and then proceed to wash the windows. No one obliterates two people they have known for 20 years because their nieces are unhappy and then have little to no relationship with them for remainder of their lives. Bridget could have quit her job and moved away anytime. John could have stayed in Iowa if he didn't like the Borden's. Two Emery's (mother & daughter) testified Morse was with them when Andrew was killed. Bridget's testimony checks out every time there is a corroborating witness.

That Lizzie or Bridget weren't killed means the murderous intruder was intentional about leaving them alone. Andrew pissed someone off so bad that the person chose to kill Abby, but not Lizzie? Why? There are many flaws to the intruder concept.

Even though I strongly feel Lizzie was the culprit, I continue to enjoy working thru all the complexities of the case to try and understand what lead up to the killings and how the killings were executed, which of course includes the murder weapon. The failure of the prosecution to provide a compelling solution for the missing weapon is likely why Lizzie was acquitted (didn't hurt being female and wealthy).

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:29 am

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:01 am What makes this an enjoyable little hobby is the fact that we aren't limited by the rules of the courtroom. We are free to connect the dots, use common sense and apply a bit of gut instinct to form our opinions. 130 years later, my biggest disappointment with the various testimonies that were excluded from the trial is that we don't know what would have been shared. What did Lizzie say to Annie Borden about her home life? What exactly would the New Bedford pharmacists have told us? Did Cyrus Rounseville have inside knowledge of the Borden family dynamics that fateful summer? There were many summoned witnesses who did not actually testify and most of those insights are missing from the Witness Statements.

All that said, the evidence against Lizzie is enormous. An evolving/iterative alibi, burning of the dress, attempt to purchase prussic acid, fateful premonitions to Alice Russell, the letter to Elizabeth Johnston, home burglary, Charles Cook's statement, Lizzie present at the home during both murders, Lizzie's survival, Abby's missing note, "I think Abby came home" comment, front door triple locked, wearing Bengaline silk dress to the barn loft, sparkling clean hands after rummaging thru barn loft, Bridget's testimony, inability to maintain healthy relationships, multi million $ inheritance and so on......we can try to explain these issues one-off, but they ALL happened. In my mind, the only explanation is that she was an active participant.

Bridget and Morse had no documented motive. Bridget lived modestly for rest of her life and Morse's Will does not suggest a financial windfall happened after the murders. John's remaining life is pretty well documented by community newspapers which held him in relatively high regard. No one slaughters two people because they were told to wash the windows......and then proceed to wash the windows. No one obliterates two people they have known for 20 years because their nieces are unhappy and then have little to no relationship with them for remainder of their lives. Bridget could have quit her job and moved away anytime. John could have stayed in Iowa if he didn't like the Borden's. Two Emery's (mother & daughter) testified Morse was with them when Andrew was killed. Bridget's testimony checks out every time there is a corroborating witness.

That Lizzie or Bridget weren't killed means the murderous intruder was intentional about leaving them alone. Andrew pissed someone off so bad that the person chose to kill Abby, but not Lizzie? Why? There are many flaws to the intruder concept.

Even though I strongly feel Lizzie was the culprit, I continue to enjoy working thru all the complexities of the case to try and understand what lead up to the killings and how the killings were executed, which of course includes the murder weapon. The failure of the prosecution to provide a compelling solution for the missing weapon is likely why Lizzie was acquitted (didn't hurt being female and wealthy).

GREAT post!! I agree that circumstantially, Lizzie seems the best suspect. All of the "Oh, we're afraid someone is going to poison us" talk BEFORE the killings shows an almost child-like attempt to foreshadow the deaths. Before refrigeration became available, food poisoning and vomiting after meals was much more commonplace and very few would have equated it with intentional poisoning.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:36 am

MaryM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:45 pm I simply don’t know who killed Andrew and Abby Borden, and am in the process of reading more about the case to see if I end up forming an opinion. I went from taking the Elizabeth Montgomery movie as fact when I was a teen, to now feeling there is more than reasonable doubt. I certainly couldn’t have voted to convict her.

You are great at keeping biases in check. No rush to judgement is what attorney's look for in a good juror. All of us struggle with biases and after formulating an idea of who we believe the killer was, tend to view all evidence through the filter that justifies our belief. I find myself doing it all of the time. I'll be curious once you read enough about the case who you "lean towards" believing committed the crime.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:10 pm

When I first became an active poster (about year ago), I was determined to prove that Morse was involved....but as I ran down each of the 'oddities' around his behavior, most could be neutralized. That said, I don't think he showed up that week on a random chance. My personal pet theory is that Emma, worried about the escalating tone of Lizzie's letters, asked Morse to drop in on the Borden's to see if he could get a read on the situation.
Emma was in Fairhaven and Morse in South Dartmouth, two communities that are in close proximity. He agreed since he had some other matters that he could also attend to involving the farm. In deference to Emma, Morse continued to be the protective uncle over the following days. He even delivered Lizzie's jail meals that Emma prepared before Lizzie was transferred to Taunton. He would walk to the jail, deliver the meal, wait for it to be eaten and then bring the utensils back home. I think he was readily influenced by Emma, but not to the degree of committing a couple of horribly violent murders.

Marchesk · Post by **Marchesk** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:37 pm

That Abby was whacked 18 times indicates that it was personal rage against her and not a killing for hire, or anger at Andrew. Even the 10 whacks on Andrew was overkill. We know Lizzie and Emma had issues with Abby, and they wanted to live on the hill. Emma wasn't home, but Lizzie was the last known to be around both parents, who died shortly after. We can't be certain of course, but the inference is strong. Only question is whether anyone else knew or was in on it, and how Lizzie disposed of the evidence.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:29 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:10 pm When I first became an active poster (about year ago), I was determined to prove that Morse was involved....but as I ran down each of the 'oddities' around his behavior, most could be neutralized. That said, I don't think he showed up that week on a random chance. My personal pet theory is that Emma, worried about the escalating tone of Lizzie's letters, asked Morse to drop in on the Borden's to see if he could get a read on the situation.
Emma was in Fairhaven and Morse in South Dartmouth, two communities that are in close proximity. He agreed since he had some other matters that he could also attend to involving the farm. In deference to Emma, Morse continued to be the protective uncle over the following days. He even delivered Lizzie's jail meals that Emma prepared before Lizzie was transferred to Taunton. He would walk to the jail, deliver the meal, wait for it to be eaten and then bring the utensils back home. I think he was readily influenced by Emma, but not to the degree of committing a couple of horribly violent murders.

Camgarsky4,
I never thought that Morse could have arrived b/c of concern by Emma over Lizzie's escalating anger. What a compelling thought! I was so busy (years ago) arguing against a previous poster's wild theories of Morse hiring someone to sit in wait and kill them as revenge for sexual abuse, that I never considered the much more plausible idea that he arrived not to aid the killer but to talk her out of it...I'll have to give that some thought!

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:09 pm

I'm inclined to think that Emma and Morse did not think Lizzie was prepared to murder, but that she was at some point of combustion/frustration. John was there as Emma's proxy because I think it was Emma's self-appointed job to chill Lizzie down in that house. Most pronounced example is Emma giving up her larger bedroom to Lizzie after the Europe.

Below is what John said to Lizzie the first time he saw her immediately after the killings. Setting the stage, Morse had entered the house and promptly went to see both Andrew and Abby's bodies. He then came down to the dining room where Lizzie was sitting on the lounge.

Morse Preliminary Hearing:
Q. Did you see Miss Lizzie when you got there?
A. After I had been in the house two or three minutes, I saw her.
Q. Where did you see her then?
A. In the dining room, sitting on the lounge.
Q. Did you have any talk with her then?
A. A very little, just spoke to her, and that was all.
Q. What did you say to her?
A. I cannot tell. I might have said, for God’s sake, how did this happen? Or something like that.
Q. You do not remember of any reply she made?
A. No Sir

John did not say "oh my gosh, are you ok?" or "Lizzie, I am so horrified what happened to your parents", or any of a multitude of more presumably appropriate comments. The way the phrase above is stated, it is more like he is asking for an explanation from someone who might know the answer. Odd.
After this extraordinarily brief interaction, Morse went outside and stayed there for several hours. During that time he seems to have adopted the ''protective uncle' role by asking the police if an intruder might have hidden over night and, of course, his famous mentioning of the cellar door being open. The cellar door being open of course would imply someone bolted from the house that way.....again implying an intruder. Clearly the door was not open and based on the photos I've seen, not sure how he could be confused on that point. I could go on, but you get the point.

He was so in sync with Emma, that he hand delivered daily meals to the city jail where Lizzie was held until being transferred to Taunton. Emma prepared the meals and clearly asked John to deliver them. He did and then wait until the empty plates and utensils were brought back to him to bring back to 2nd St. You may recall, Emma references John as "the dearest of Uncles! during her trial testimony.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:28 am

Still poking on the idea that John went into 'protective uncle' mode after the murders. Below is his statement to the police on August 4th. No mention of eating pears or seeing the cellar door open.

Add to this Bridget's testimony that Friday morning, August 5th, Lizzie came down to breakfast and asked Bridget if she was sure the cellar door was not open after the murders.

Not a stretch to wonder if John, Emma and Lizzie discussed the situation Thursday night and decided it would be best to drop some red herrings, raising the possibility of an outside intruder. You have to think that Emma and John, at a minimum, had a remarkably strong suspicion that Lizzie was involved.

Assuming John fabricated his pear eating and cell door part of his story would sure explain what has been an often discussed odd behavior on his part. He had to have some reason to "see the cellar door open" and getting some of those pears was his best choice for an excuse.

John Fleet police report August 4th
Conversed with John V. Morse at the A. J. Borden house. Said that he was A. J. Borden’s brother in-
law, his sister was Mr. Borden’s first wife. Had always been on friendly terms with the family, and
had frequently made visits to his house. “Last night I stopped here, and slept in the room where Mrs.
Borden was found dead. I arrived here yesterday afternoon from New Bedford. Called upon Mr. Borden.
Afterward got a carriage from Kirby’s stable, and went to Mr. Borden’s farm, arriving at the house
again about 8.30 P. M. We sat up I think until about ten o’clock. Went to bed in the room, as before
stated. Got up about six o’clock this morning, got breakfast about seven o’clock, stopped in the house
till about 8.40 A. M. Leaving Mr. Borden at the door, went to the Post Office, wrote a letter from there,
went as far as Third street on Bedford, from Third to Pleasant street, through Pleasant street to No. 4
Weybosset. Street, arriving there about 9.30 A. M. Saw relatives from the West. Remained at the house
from 9.30 to 11:20 A. M., or thereabouts. Left, taking horse car, and stopped at the corner of Pleasant
and Second streets, and got to Mr. Borden’s house about or near twelve o’clock. Saw a number of
persons around the house, and was told that Mr. and Mrs. Borden was killed. That was the first I knew
of their deaths.”

eddylzb59 · Post by **eddylzb59** » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:31 pm

I disagree -I like everyone else,Thought Lizzie to be guilty at first. But i now think she is innocent.After reading book after book,Including "Parallel Lives" & "Lizzie Didn't Do It"-Her Kindness to Animals and to close friends etc. Also Her comment that she would give up everything and live as a begger if she could prove her innocence before she died.These are not the words of a cold blooded killer! Also there is no way to prove when a person was killed exactly-that theory that abby was killed an hour and a half before andrew is bull. Lizzie Borden did not kill them!!!

Marchesk · Post by **Marchesk** » Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:20 pm

eddylzb59 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:31 pm I disagree -I like everyone else,Thought Lizzie to be guilty at first. But i now think she is innocent.After reading book after book,Including "Parallel Lives" & "Lizzie Didn't Do It"-Her Kindness to Animals and to close friends etc. Also Her comment that she would give up everything and live as a begger if she could prove her innocence before she died.These are not the words of a cold blooded killer!

Kindness to animals, having friends and proclaiming innocence do not mean that someone is incapable of murder. The troubling suspicion that haunts us from that time until now is that Lizzie could have been an otherwise normal person of good standing who committed a terrible crime. Which means that any of us could be capable under the wrong circumstances. I don't think Lizzie was a deranged psychopath. The crimes seem rather hot blooded and personal. Once she got what she wanted, there was no reason to be homicidal.

And Lizzie would hardly be unique. The shocking crimes of Chris Watt and Xavier Dupont were related to financial concerns and a desire to live another life free of their families. Difference being that both men had more options than Lizzie. They could have just divorced. Lizzie was stuck in that house as long as her parents lived. Lizzie can say she would give everything up and live as a beggar, but she didn't do that while stuck at 230 2nd Street, and she sure seemed to enjoy life on the hill afterwards.

eddylzb59 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:31 pmAlso there is no way to prove when a person was killed exactly-that theory that abby was killed an hour and a half before andrew is bull. Lizzie Borden did not kill them!!!

If she didn't kill them, then Lizzie most likely knew who did. Or the killer was a ninja assassin who could sneak around killing people (with more whacks than necessary) without Lizzie or Bridget noticing anything, and without targeting them. Most unlikely. At any rate, there is zero evidence for anyone else on the property during those murders, so that leaves Bridget and Lizzie, if we're going by available evidence. Everything else is pure speculation.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:24 am

eddylzb59 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:31 pm I disagree -I like everyone else,Thought Lizzie to be guilty at first. But i now think she is innocent.After reading book after book,Including "Parallel Lives" & "Lizzie Didn't Do It"-Her Kindness to Animals and to close friends etc. Also Her comment that she would give up everything and live as a begger if she could prove her innocence before she died.These are not the words of a cold blooded killer! Also there is no way to prove when a person was killed exactly-that theory that abby was killed an hour and a half before andrew is bull. Lizzie Borden did not kill them!!!

Kindness to animals, friends, and emotional statements about innocence only shows charm and cunning, NOT innocence. Jeffery Epstein was very charming yet he was a serial rapist of underaged girls. Prince Andrew and former president Bill Clinton were friends with him. Growing up we had a neighbor who we played with. He was funny, kind to his dog and our cats, and used to give us things. Come to find out the things he gave us he was stealing. A few years later when we had grown, he killed his father. Apparently he didn't like to work, and decided that his father had a nice trailer that was paid off, so if he killed him, he could live there and not have to work. Good detective work caught him, but he was still charming as ever. Ted Bundy had many friends, including Ann Rule whom he met volunteering at a suicide prevention hotline..."He was charming" was the common descriptor of Ted when people who met him described him.
It's a great trait to believe that being nice is "default" for people, but living in a family of police officers, detectives, nurses, and paramedics, I see MANY people's default is being nice until something doesn't go their way, then they try to kill.
You say "These are not the words of a cold blooded killer" ABSOLUTELY they are the words of a sociopath (psychopath) who is charming, well liked, and good at getting what they want. If Lizzie were mean, killed animals, violent to her friends, we would not be having this discussion. Everyone would have said, "Yep, I knew she would do something like this!"
I've said before that I also am not 100% sure of her guilt, there simply isn't enough evidence. People contradicted each other, times were only rough estimates, but given what we know, she could have done it and to this day is the most likely suspect.
You are also correct that we can't prove EXACT time of death. We can say that based on how digested the food was in her stomach, the last time anyone saw her alive, and the advanced state of blood coagulation, she PROBABLY was killed at least an hour before Mr. Either way, even if they were both killed within minutes doesn't let Lizzie off of the hook. "Proving" something is only as good as the logic-ability of the person who is skeptical...Why else are there so many people online who actually believe that the earth if flat? They are not morons, they simply don't have the logical ability to take the facts and decide that they are incorrect to believe the earth is actually a pancake.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:31 am

Charles Manson was a confirmed vegetarian and he was also very vocal about animal rights. Hitler also famously loved dogs.

"Her comment that she would give up everything and live as a begger if she could prove her innocence before she died.These are not the words of a cold blooded killer"!

Ted Bundy once famously (and amusingly) said, "More and more I'm convinced of my innocence".

I read somewhere that someone who knew Lizzie said her personality was contentious and mean spirited. I will look for that but have to go out just now.

The killer, BTK, "bind, torture, kill" killed ten people. His name was Dennis Rader and was said to help ones in need and often did. This obviously fooled people because he was a member of Christ Lutheran Church that had been elected president of the church council.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:43 pm

Beowulf wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:31 am Charles Manson was a confirmed vegetarian and he was also very vocal about animal rights. Hitler also famously loved dogs.

"Her comment that she would give up everything and live as a begger if she could prove her innocence before she died.These are not the words of a cold blooded killer"!

Ted Bundy once famously (and amusingly) said, "More and more I'm convinced of my innocence".

I read somewhere that someone who knew Lizzie said her personality was contentious and mean spirited. I will look for that but have to go out just now.

The killer, BTK, "bind, torture, kill" killed ten people. His name was Dennis Rader and was said to help ones in need and often did. This obviously fooled people because he was a member of Christ Lutheran Church that had been elected president of the church council.

Great post Beowulf. When I was working on my Master's degree in psychology, I did a paper on "successful" serial killers. The people who are adapted to be charming and look "safe" were effective while the crazy impulsive disheveled ones barely got started before they were caught. You can be an effective serial killer and not be charming, but it takes much more luck and an angle such as killing prostitutes' who don't care what you look like.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:07 pm

Every time a serial killer is caught everyone who ever met them says something to the effect of, 'they were so nice, I can't believe it' or 'he was always smiling and helpful, friendly'.

It's called hypocrisy. Every time I read someone says that I think they're the one who would be suddenly getting murdered because they didn't see it coming based on 'he was so nice'.

There is a book called 'Mask of sanity' and it's all about sociopaths. The whole thing is, it IS a mask. They do not respond or act the way people with normal minds are. They imitate what looks normal, on purpose, in order to be able to do the things they do. They have abnormal impulses, thoughts, desires. Many people do not even know that Ted Bundy also had sex with the dead bodies and likely ate parts of them. The Green River Killer had a wife who suspected nothing. Brought his young son, maybe ? 5 year old on the trips to pick up victims so he would look like someone they could trust. His son and even his brother knew he was under suspicion and thought there was nothing to it. He murdered 48 young women. Years later even his son said "you know, he's my dad; he didn't do it." Gary Ridgway's second wife told investigators that he once crept up behind her and choked her, leaving bruises on her neck.

Interviewed more recently, she said he did that nearly every day, though much less violently, as foreplay.

Nobody that knows these guys seem to ever figure it out.

We had a killer here in Phoenix. Called the Baseline killer, left girls dead all around and actually lived not far from me and one night likely went down our alley behind our house. A police helicopter followed around the time with a searchlight and from the helicopter told my husband who was sitting in the back yard to go inside. Few min later 5 policemen walking in a horizontal line across the alley and a police dog went down the alley canvasing it.

The killer was caught a few weeks later. He lived with his sister who said, basically, 'my brother would never do that'. He did. Proved and he's doing a sentence now.

But if the law went by friends, neighbors, relatives or ones who read about them, they didn't do it. They were nice people and smiled a lot.

Lizzie, though cut off from everyone as a pariah, so obviously the town felt she was guilty, never lived as a beggar to prove her innocence. She bought a very nice mansion and filled it with beautiful stuff and parties. She didn't seem to be too upset she was not considered innocent outside of the courtroom where her freedom was at stake and a hangman's noose cast a long shadow.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:23 pm

General over-all personality and reputation can't be indicators of sociopathic tendencies, look at all of the Catholic priests who were loved by their parishioners on Sunday, and molested the alter boys on Mondays...Anyone who thinks criminals can be identified by their personalities is naïve.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:11 am

When I begin (again) to ponder Lizzie's possible contribution to the murders, I always remember Judge Blaisdel's summation at the end of his sitting, hearing witnesses at the Preliminary:

Prelim
Final Comments by Judge Blaisdell:
Judge Blaisdell: “The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say ‘Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.’ But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden; was the first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers; then he was out in the yard; then he was out for something else; would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man?”
“So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be—the judgment of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court.”
End of Day 7 and the Preliminary Hearing.

Personally, I think he ruined her reputation for all time with just those weighty words.

Last night I re-read Knowlton's closing argument at her trial. Whew!
Always worth a look- it brings one back into the mindset of the times, the special way a judicial system investigates and evaluates a crime, the time and money spent- and I can't help remembering how serious the process is, and these learned men believed in what they were doing when they prosecuted a woman for parricide.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:10 am

Thanks for the insight Kat. It's nice to hear from you again after all of these years. So much was botched, mishandled, and overlooked from the moment the crime was discovered to the moment of her acquittal. The house full of people trampling evidence, the lack of preserving the crime scene instead trying to comfort Lizzie, coming back on a separate day to hunt for a weapon, etc. How much did Victorian culture truly effect the law not at first suspecting Lizzie, then in acquitting her? Women couldn't possibly be monster enough to kill! They were too frail, swooned at the sight of blood... and neither polite men nor women EVER discussed menstrual blood even if one's guilt or innocence was at stake.

I'm reminded about JonBenet Ramsey and the hordes of friends and neighbors trooping through her house right after her disappearance. Heck, her father actually found the body 7 hours after she was reported missing in their own basement while the police bumbled about upstairs. The handling of a suspect, crime scene, and victim in the moments after the police arrives can make or break a case.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted and a huge factor in that was the horrific mistake the prosecution made in having O.J. put on a pair of latex gloves, then try on the crime scene gloves. He fumbled, tugged, and said they don't fit. The whole world could see that they didn't fit (he had latex gloves on as well) yet that picture stuck in everyone's minds.

I think that there are defining moments in prosecution of crimes where the scales of justice tip to "not guilty". Not guilty doesn't mean "innocent" but evidence doesn't support prosecution. After all, O.J. later admitted "hypothetically" that he did kill them, but it was "self defense".

Miss Pea · Post by **Miss Pea** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:13 am

Sometimes I wonder if a thorough (I mean thorough!) job of searching for pear pits had been done. And of course it would have had to have been done the day of the murders. As others have said, so much was botched. I have been captivated by the Borden case for almost fifty years! I take years off from my mental wonderings, and then I spot a book in the library and go back at it. Today, I am 90% sure it was Lizzie. Tomorrow, who knows.

Her laughing at the top of the stairs when Bridget was trying to undo the door lock.
The note delivered to Mrs. Borden; her going to attend a sick friend. No evidence of any of this ever found. That is WEIRD.
Lizzie saying she thinks she heard Mrs. Borden come in. (Am I 100% correct on that? Did Lizzie say that?)

I don't lean so much on her changing her story about where she was in the house when this or that happened because I can't remember my own details much better. But, I don't discount the discrepancies, either.

Lizzie was treated "special" at a critical time and place for a search.

Recently I read that Bridget Sullivan went and slept somewhere else the night of the 4th. I cannot imagine sleeping in the house where my parents' (okay, father's and stepmother's) brutalized bodies were lying out one floor below. Different times, different times. Still....

Marchesk · Post by **Marchesk** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:29 pm

Miss Pea wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:13 amThe note delivered to Mrs. Borden; her going to attend a sick friend. No evidence of any of this ever found. That is WEIRD.
Lizzie saying she thinks she heard Mrs. Borden come in. (Am I 100% correct on that? Did Lizzie say that?)

During the inquest, Lizzie denied ever saying that she heard Mrs. Borden coming in or told anyone to go look for her when questioned by Knowlton. However, Mrs. Churchill did say during her part of the inquest that Lizzie had done so. There was some reason Mrs. Churchland and Bridget went up the front stairs and found Abby, even if Mrs. Churchill only went up far enough to see under the bed.

I believe Mrs. Churchill also claimed Lizzie initially said that whoever killed Andrew may have also killed Abby, and that she would have to go alone to the cemetery. Which is very odd if she did say that, since she claims to not have known where Abby was, presuming she had gone out to visit a sick friend and to the market, shopping for dinner.

Edit: Churchill not Churchland (thanks camgarsky4 for pointing out my mistake).

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:59 pm

You make note another of the dozens of 'mini-riddles' in this case.

When Lizzie said to look upstairs for Abby, why did they go up the front stairs instead of the back stairs which would have made more sense. At the inquest, Lizzie states she meant up the stairs to mean Abby's bedroom (which would mean she was referencing the backstairs). That Bridget chose the front stairs is one of the issues the "Bridget did it" folks surface.

It is likely that since Bridget had already gone up the backstairs to Abby's dressing room to get the sheets to cover Andrew, and she didn't see Abby in her bedroom, then the next logical option for Bridget was to check upstairs via the front stairs.

That seems like a pretty straight forward explanation, but any opposing thoughts on this?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:09 pm

Miss Pea wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:13 amDifferent times, different times. Still....

Exactly.
Also, some of your remarks sound like Knowlton's closing...

This will sound terrible, but I admit that each time I have gone for jury duty, and during voire dire, I see the defendant as a suspect, think about what the state went thru to find, arrest, house and feed in detention, appoint a lawyer, chaperone in custody moving the suspect around, loan appropriate clothing for court if they don't have any, all the court officials involved, everyone getting up at dawn, convening of court, how serious everyone is...and I think..."this guy is probably guilty or we wouldn't have gotten this far in the process..."

(Then the person pleas out and we take a break and then they march the next person in wearing the same borrowed clothes as the last defendant....)

-----Edit here- sorry camgarsky, we passed each other- posting at the same time. Did not see you...

Marchesk · Post by **Marchesk** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:17 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:59 pmIt is likely that since Bridget had already gone up the backstairs to Abby's dressing room to get the sheets to cover Andrew, and she didn't see Abby in her bedroom, then the next logical option for Bridget was to check upstairs via the front stairs.

That makes sense. What doesn't is that Abby would have come home and gone up to the guest bedroom while Bridget was trying to fetch a doctor, and then be murdered there. It would mean the murderer was still in the house. Of course we can wonder why Lizzie was so sure it was okay to call Bridget down from her nap upon finding Andrew. It would mean that Lizzie believed the following to be true:

1. Bridget was still alive.
2. Bridget was not the murderer.
3. Abby wasn't available (either dead or out).
4. The murderer was gone.

Since Lizzie claims to have seen nothing take place, how did she known any of those four things were true? Furthermore, if Abby had come home:

5. Abby was somewhere upstairs dead, since she would have come down during the commotion.
6. The murderer was still in the house.

Since Lizzie denied having said that Abby came home or to look for her, Knowlton could not press Lizzie about the implications (#5 and #6).

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:09 pm

You are spot on.....if you follow the logic of her actions, then her actions made no sense.

Somewhat related, but somewhat not.....if I had been Lizzie, found not guilty, choosing to remain living in Fall River and knew that everyone knew what I had said at the inquest.....I would have tried to clear things up a bit upon acquittal. Since she chose not to, then I don't think she had a rational right to think she could live normal in Fall River ever again.

Right or wrong, silence signals hiding something to most people. With double jeopardy protecting her, I just don't see the downside of attempting to explain what really happened. So my simple takeaway is that the truth was really ugly and she couldn't dream up a plausible explanation for what happened at that house that day.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:36 am

Years ago I read Fall River Tragedy. So many things in that book seemed to me to make it obvious Lizzy did it. That laugh at the top of the stairs gave me chills when I first read it. Years went by and I have read other books and the trial. I still believe Lizzy did it. I don't know if Bridget was in on it or not. I tend to think differently on different days but overall I think not. She had nothing to gain from it and the idea she and Lizzie had an affair just does not seem likely to me. I do wonder how Lizzie, if she were the culprit did not think far ahead enough to come up with an explanation as to her own whereabouts during the murders. It seems strangely left out of a plan that included waiting around for Mr. Borden to come home and finish him off. How on earth would she explain the death of Mrs. Borden laying there on the floor upstairs to Bridget had she come upon her before she finished her job, or what if Mr. Borden demanded to see Mrs. Borden and did not believe the 'she went out to see a sick friend' story. Was that note story preplanned? Did she think I'll get her first and wait around for him when he gets home? What if HE went up and found Mrs. Borden? Or what if Bridget came IN during the interval prior to the murder and Mr. Borden was looking for Mrs. Borden, arguing with Lizzie that he did not believe she went out or any other number of things that might have happened? How could she so coolly sit and wait an hour and a half to do a murder believing all would go off without a hitch and then have no explanation for where she was for that time? Did she really think of saying ahead of time that she was in the barn and never consider what the barn looked like during a summer where many times she had lived through same summers with dust always collecting on the floor? So many other things could have happened in that hour and a half, unexpected visitors, Bridget in and out of the house would be a witness, she had never murdered before how could she know it would not bother her enough to stop right there, not go on to the next one? Then what would she say? Did she plan to go on to the next one in the first place or was her father to be let off? Where to store the weapon so as not be caught with it on her? How to hide the blood splatters on her clothing. How did she prevent that, plan that out but not plan out an explanation as to where she was during the murders that she alone was home for other than the maid who was conveniently that morning sent out to do the windows. What if Mrs. Borden did NOT send Bridget out to do the windows? Maybe she did not expect to murder them that day but it just fell into place when Bridget was out doing the windows? A lot here puzzles me.

Btw; when I watched O.J. put on the gloves I felt he put on an act as well, trying to convince everyone they did not fit. Even his lawyer obstructed the view of the camera when he put on the first glove. Opening and then closing his briefcase in the path of the camera shot, deliberately moving about as one tried to see O.J. putting on that glove to distract the viewer till the judge had to ask O.J. to come up to the stand so people could see. In the end, though they were tight the gloves fit his hand well enough.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:53 am

Beowulf, I’ve stupidly spent countless hours thinking thru the same questions (I’m on the road a lot). I’ve shared several possible ‘solutions’ on previous postings. I think lizzies original plan was to kill Abby in morning, while Andrew was on his daily sojourn downtown and to deal with Andrew after lunch and when Bridget left to go shopping. Lizzies alibi would be shopping. What she didn’t anticipate was Morse coming back for lunch. This blew up her plan because Morse could very well stay all afternoon and at some point Andrew would stop buying the story that abby went to take care of anonymous sick person. She had to strike Andrew the minute Bridget went upstairs and before Morse arrived. She literally invented the barn alibi on the spot and that is why she iterated on it until the final version she told Hiram Harrington late afternoon on the 4th. After thinking this possibility thru, reask yourself your questions above. It helps some of the pieces come together.

Marchesk · Post by **Marchesk** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:30 am

Beowulf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:36 amHow on earth would she explain the death of Mrs. Borden laying there on the floor upstairs to Bridget had she come upon her before she finished her job, or what if Mr. Borden demanded to see Mrs. Borden and did not believe the 'she went out to see a sick friend' story. Was that note story preplanned? Did she think I'll get her first and wait around for him when he gets home? What if HE went up and found Mrs. Borden? Or what if Bridget came IN during the interval prior to the murder and Mr. Borden was looking for Mrs. Borden, arguing with Lizzie that he did not believe she went out or any other number of things that might have happened?

I don't think Bridget had any reason to go up the front stairs to the guest bedroom. It wasn't part of her duties and was kind of off limits. And Mrs. Borden being out to go shopping or visit a sick friend was reasonable enough. Lizzie knew here father and could bank on him not demanding Abby's whereabouts, at least prior to dinner. Would have been interesting if he had taken a nap in his bedroom, and she ended up waiting until the afternoon. At any rate, why would Andrew suppose Abby was up in the guest bedroom? If she was, wouldn't he think she would come down shortly? I don't see a reason why either Andrew or Bridget would go up there to look. It really was the safest place in the house for Lizzie to kill Abby.

I agree it was still risky, and Lizzie had to to evolve her story for each asking. But she must have been confident enough she could act cooly. Was she lucky or good? A bit of both, perhaps? It certainly helps that people had a hard time believing a woman like Lizzie was capable of such a crime. I'm sure she counted on that. People would immediately suspect an intruder, possibly an immigrant or lunatic. Or they would think a business deal had gone sour. Easy enough for Lizzie to point in that direction.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:59 am

My 'highly unqualified' personality description of Lizzie would be......bull-headed, focused, deliberate, relentless, impatient, self-centered and stoic. I don't think she hit her step-mom 19 times due to some fanatical/psychotic hatred, I think she held Abby in disdain and disregard, so much so that she wasn't worthy of the emotion pure hatred required. In my humble opinion, many forum posters and the Knowlton team spent too much effort trying to sell folks that Lizzie had a psychotic hatred of Lizzie. I don't think she did and it wasn't a necessary emotion when you don't view someone as an equal human and there are $millions at stake.

But Abby was the first and 'next to last' person Lizzie ever slaughtered. I can envision Lizzie calling out Abby's name, Abby turning to face Lizzie and lizzie just going at it....all the pent up focus of what needed to be done and the relentless aspects of her personality taking over spurred on by extreme levels of adrenaline. I think she stopped only when she was exhausted and spent.

Andrew was a slightly different target. She may not have viewed him with disdain, but I think she certainly had become emotionally detached from him over the years, accelerating after her return from the Europe journey and she saw what life could offer and he was blocking from her.. Since she had already experienced killing once, she wasn't quite as 'dialed up' for Andrew, but still had to be intensely focused to obliterate her father. Thus he was struck fewer times, but still what seems like excessive to kill someone.

I have zero qualifications to analyze Lizzie, so these are just my layman, common sense thoughts.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:06 pm

My point was that whenever I read about someone murdering I see a lot of the same behavior repeated. They think they can anticipate the way things are going to play out based on what has happened before but they never recognize that even in their own lives things that often follow a routine still vary from the routine with unexpected events. "...why would Andrew suppose Abby was up in the guest bedroom? It's their house, I'm sure she had gone up there many times over the years. She WAS up there. If he looked for her that was a location if not in other places. It's not a vast domain.

But if Lizzie planned on killing her in the first place then did she sit and think 'I'll wait for her to go to the guest bedroom. It's the safest place to do it. Father will never look there, Bridget doesn't go there..' because what if she didn't go there? Then she'd have to get her somewhere else where both Bridget and Mr. Borden WOULD find her. Did she really think this out in advance knowing she'd go there? What WAS her plan? It seems to be a bit half baked to me and I think it WAS fueled by emotion. Those blows fell out of emotion. She couldn't control herself any longer. That will was impending, the poison didn't work. Time was running out and her emotions ran her and not her head.

Btw; I have always felt the barn story was made up on the spot being how it was changed in several conversations with the law enforcement arching their eyebrows knowingly to this usual behavior by the guilty. It is why they all thought she did it. They'd seen this stuff before.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:52 pm

Your 2nd paragraph is sort of what I'm asking in the opening post....1) did she somehow choreograph Abby going to the guest room, 2) did she anticipate it due to Morse spending the night or 3) was it blind luck & opportunity?

Since I'm convinced she had decided to act on August 4th before she went to bed on the 3rd, I don't think it likely that blind luck happened. To me it is clear that she decided to act with violence sometime between noon and 6pm on the 3rd. This is the time gap between striking out at the pharmacy and leaving to tell Alice Russell all about her horrible premonitions. Besides having no luck with the deadly poison acquisition, the other 'change' that day was Morse arriving at the house. What popped in my head recently is whether Morse had slept in the guest room in the relatively recent past and Abby took on the duty of cleaning the room when Morse slept up there. Speculation I know, but it would provide an explanation of how Lizzie could anticipate Abby visiting the guest room that morning (#2 above). Who knows, Abby might have knocked on Lizzie's door that morning and asked if she was going to clean the guest room and Lizzie said no, knowing that Abby would then take that task.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:06 pm

Good point. Certainly seemed the best room to do it in.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:15 pm

PossumPie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:39 pm I've been away from the forum, and thinking about the case for years. Stumbled back recently and wondered among the people currently active in the forum, what are your thoughts about who the killer was?

I believe that Lizzie killed them, but not 100% certain. I couldn't have convicted her if I was on the jury.
I have suspicions that Emma was at least aware of the plan and knew immediately that Lizzie did it.
I don't believe Bridget did it, she got along with the "adults" in the house.
I don't believe Uncle Morse had anything to do with it. Sometimes coincidence happens, he happened to be visiting during the killings. Once, I sneezed and the electric in the neighborhood went off...spooky? Nah, unlikely but funny coincidence.
An angry man bent on revenge for Mr. Borden's mean practices? Sounds REALLY plausible except for 2 things...He would have had to stick around after killing Mrs. B. for "some extended time" until Mr. B. came home, and why even kill Mrs. B. if it was her mean husband that he had the beef with?

I'd love to hear from the active members!

I'm pretty certain Lizzie did it alone. Others guessed this afterward: First Bridget, then Mrs. Churchill, then JVMorse, then Emma, then Alice. I don't think think any of these others knew of the hatchet plan beforehand (yes, I believe it was premeditated, if only as of that morning; I believe a poison plan was in place well before that). The brightest police officers guessed the day of the murders, certainly by the next day. (Potential future topics for us? How each one guessed!)

Strongest evidence of Lizzie's guilt:

1. Contradiction in Lizzie's account offirst, having heard either a groan or scraping noise before she entered the house from the barn, then finally, to saying she heard nothing at all.
One made curious or alarmed by noises before finding a dead father cannot believably later claim to have heard nothing before finding a dead father. The timing and cause - noise versus sight of bludgeoning - of the alarm is too different.

2. Contradiction between Bridget and Mrs. Churchill's repeated testimonies that Lizzie said she thought she had heard Mrs. Borden come in, and Lizzie's testimony that, no way, she had not said that!
Problem here is timing: Logically, Lizzie could only have heard Abby enter after Lizzie had told Andrew about "the note," or else why not tell Dad instead that Abby's in?
or, while Lizzie was in the barn (and remember, Lizzie'd said she was looking straight out that west loft window toward the side door much of the time, so would have seen Abby)
or, after Lizzie had found Andrew murdered (BUT she would have seen Abby walk right by her at the side door, or Abby would had to have teleported through what police found was a once-again triple-locked front door.

Contributing evidence of Lizzie's guilt:

3. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill's repeated testimonies that Lizzie said 'she didn't know but what they'd killed Abby, too.' What?? See specious testimony of Lizzie's in #2, above.

4. Testimony of Eli Bence, other staff at his drugstore, and prosecution's notes about other staff in several drugstores in nearby towns, saying Lizzie had tried to buy prussic acid poison.

5. Mrs. Churchill's testimony that the dress Lizzie presented to the court was NOT the one she'd been wearing on the murder morning.

6. Lizzie's statement to Officer Medley that she'd placed the pail of bloody cloths there 2-3 days before; Bridget's statements to police that if the bloody cloths in the basement pail had been there by Monday or Tuesday, she'd have washed them.

7. After her acquittal, Lizzie never lifted a finger to find "the real murderer."

8. Emma's 1913 interview wherein she says Lizzie was constantly reaffirming her innocence to Emma. Methinks she doth protest(ed) too much.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:37 pm

Since Abbie did not let Andrew in when he returned home (door still locked, whereas Lizzie was supposed to open the front door in the morning) and the key to his room was on the shelf/mantle, Andrew would pretty much know Abbie was not home, so the note story was a mistake by Lizzie. It also may have been known within the workaday family unit that Abbie would often go out to get the food to supplement the dinner. I don't think any special inquiry would have been made about 'where is Abbie?' for a while.

The only person who might want to know that detail would be Bridget, so maybe the note was invented just for her...to give her more leisure time to do her work slowly and also get a quick lie-down before she would have to account for her time to her mistress. If Bridget was not involved...if she was, would a note be needed?

Remember, Lizzie was "in charge" of when Andrew's body was found. Bridget upstairs resting etc would mean to me that whatever happened or was supposed to happen, by the time Lizzie raised any alarm she was completely ready for it. She was also "in charge" of when Abbie was found.

And I also try to remember that all the testimony about Bridget and by Bridget: where she was, when she was, what was she doing...does not mean gospel Fact. She could have been doing anything at all, except for the 2 times she was seen, once by The Kelly girl at the fence and the other time by Mrs Churchill. The rest can be lies, or a concocted story.

Also, Lizzie could lure Abbie to the guest room any time - it was the sewing room.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:41 pm

Kat, if Lizzie planned killing Andrew in the afternoon after Bridget left the house to go shopping, she needed to provide a reason to Andrew of why Abby wouldn’t be back to help prepare the meal. A note asking to help a sick friend provided that excuse. I speculate that after Lizzie explained to Andrew that Abby wouldn’t be back for the meal, Andrew was surprised with this and shared with Lizzie that Morse was coming to dinner. That was news to Lizzie and forced an acceleration of the killing to before Morse arriving.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:57 pm

About that “note”:

I still think Lizzie needed it, though it later cost her dear. Andrew could have shouted up the front steps (though as it was Lizzie and Emma’s territory he might not have gone up) to her if he thought there was still possibly work she might be doing in the guest room…

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:33 am

Felt I should add the exact information in regard to my comments about those bloody cloths in the basement pail…

The Witness Statements from the notes of William H. Medley August 4, 1892:

I inquired about some cloths with blood, and in a pail half filled with water, and in the wash cellar. She (Lizzie) said that was all right; she had told the Doctor all about that. I then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there; and she said three or four days. I asked the Doctor about it, and he said it had been explained to him, and it was all right.

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and its contents. She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there for two days before, or she would've seen it, and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:32 am

Reason, how do you think the pail may have factored into the killings? If a repository of towels used to wipe off murder blood, why didn’t she toss towels in fire and pour water down drain? Not challenging you, just curious on a possible back story for the pail to be left in a easy to find location after she had done a nice job of hiding blood on clothes and murder weapon.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:22 am

Reasonwhy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:33 am Felt I should add the exact information in regard to my comments about those bloody cloths in the basement pail…

The Witness Statements from the notes of William H. Medley August 4, 1892:

I inquired about some cloths with blood, and in a pail half filled with water, and in the wash cellar. She (Lizzie) said that was all right; she had told the Doctor all about that. I then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there; and she said three or four days. I asked the Doctor about it, and he said it had been explained to him, and it was all right.

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and its contents. She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there for two days before, or she would've seen it, and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing.

The frustrating avoidance of any discussion about menstruation in that time worked to Lizzies advantage. One mention of "monthly illness" and no more was asked. Putting my medical cap on here no women would throw bloody rags in a bucket of water and leave them for any length of time. While menstrual blood isn't necessarily odiferous AT FIRST, it quickly begins smelling if allowed to "age". Coming through the cervix it is simply blood and endothelial tissue with a classic metallic blood smell but passing through the vagina and vulva it picks up bacteria that colonize there. After time, the bacteria multiply and the menses will begin to smell bad. In the days of reusable "rags" that caught the blood, woman knew that you soaked them for a short time, then quickly washed them out and dried them so they didn't smell. Lizzie certainly wouldn't leave a bucket of water and menstrual pads sitting for 3-4 days. Modern pads are super absorbent and are constructed such that the blood is dried into the fibers quickly enough that they can remain in a trash can for a time without smelling bad.
I tend to think that the tiny spot of blood found on Lizzie's underskirt was incidental, perhaps menstrual. There were a lot more "accidents" in days before pads with adhesive and wings. The blood was found to have struck the outside of the garment and soaked part-way in, not from the inside-out. Lizzie stubbornly refused to speculate on it's origin during trial, except to allude to having fleas and therefore possibly a fleabite. (Author Victoria Lincoln seems to have misinterpreted the literal "flea" to mean menses. I can find no other instance of calling a period a "flea" )
They could have found blood anywhere in the house or on Lizzie and one mention of "monthly illness" or as they put it in the trial "fleas" and it would have been dropped. Perhaps she knew that she could use that as an explanation of any blood, it was the last day of her period and Alice Russell testified that they were both in the cellar Thursday night because Lizzie was washing menstrual rags (Trial: 387-388, 404)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:09 pm

Thank you for citing the Trial and Alice Russel: however, in reference to the statement that Lizzie "was washing menstural rags" Thursday night in the cellar that is unfortunately not accurate as to what Alice saw and did with Lizzie. Alice says Lizzie rinsed the pail at the sink after emptying the contents into the "closet." It was referred to as the slop pail, and Alice agreed to that term. Alice held the light.
You guys are really fast

I'm still pondering the note!

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:13 pm

1. Flea bites making blood? I’ve had flea bites and there was no blood and enough to soak through a garment? Seems ludicrous to even discuss.

2. Menstral blood when fresh is odiferous.

3. The excuse the bloody rags soaking in the pail were from her monthly seems cagey and a bit immodest for a woman of that time to even consider, making me think she might be able to do things they would not suspect her of. Maybe that seems odd to say but I do.

4. When Bridget picked up on the story the rags were there for days I wonder if it did not make her suspect lizzie, if she already hasn’t that is.wonder if it was one of the first things that sent her packing.

5. Why did the doctor say she spoke to him about it and it was alright? Did he just believe her? Was he willing to make her excuse worthy being he knew her, just couldn’t believe such horror of her?

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:15 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:32 am Reason, how do you think the pail may have factored into the killings? If a repository of towels used to wipe off murder blood, why didn’t she toss towels in fire and pour water down drain? Not challenging you, just curious on a possible back story for the pail to be left in a easy to find location after she had done a nice job of hiding blood on clothes and murder weapon.

Camgarsky, your posts show the ability to consider ideas for their own sake, with no disrespect, that I have noticed, to others. I like having my thinking on this case debated. The give and take sharpens the saw. So, challenge away!

Now to bloody napkins. My short answer to why she didn't burn them is because they were wet. Were they wet enough to take longer to burn than she may have had the window for? I don't know; but, it takes a fair bit of water to remove even small spots of blood from clothes fabric, if she needed to do that. Moreover, wet towels burning may have created noticeable steam.

If she had enough time to burn something wet, and a good roaring fire to burn it in, then why didn't she use that same opportunity to burn the New Bedford cord dress instead of waiting until Sunday?

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:11 am

Kat wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:09 pm Thank you for citing the Trial and Alice Russel: however, in reference to the statement that Lizzie "was washing menstural rags" Thursday night in the cellar that is unfortunately not accurate as to what Alice saw and did with Lizzie. Alice says Lizzie rinsed the pail at the sink after emptying the contents into the "closet." It was referred to as the slop pail, and Alice agreed to that term. Alice held the light.
You guys are really fast I'm still pondering the note!

I'm still pondering the note, too. I have always wondered at Andrew's passive reaction to Lizzie telling him about the note. If Abbey was so friendless, it must have concerned him as unusual, at least...I think Lizzie needed that note to forestall him searching for Abby.

I can imagine a conversation like this:
Andrew: Where's Abby?
Lizzie: She had a note this morning. Someone must be sick in town.
Andrew: Well, John is coming for dinner...seems like she'd be back in time to get ready for that? Perhaps I will just check--
Lizzie (now talking 'low and slow' as Bridget had said, and as Bridget admitted, there was some talk between them she couldn't understand):
Father, don't worry, I have been listening for her arrival, too, as I wanted to ask her something, and there's been not a sound of her return. I'm sure she'll be here soon. Why not rest yourself?

[Could there be any truth to the theory that a note really did come which was a pretext for Abby to leave the house to sign a deed putting the farm/s in her name? If so, Andrew would truly have been alarmed and might have sent Bridget to search for her, or searched himself, inside the house and out, wondering why she had not made it to the bank. If this theory is correct, Lizzie might have needed to say something to calm him down, to stop him from such an immediate search.]

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:26 am

Kat wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:09 pm Thank you for citing the Trial and Alice Russel: however, in reference to the statement that Lizzie "was washing menstural rags" Thursday night in the cellar that is unfortunately not accurate as to what Alice saw and did with Lizzie. Alice says Lizzie rinsed the pail at the sink after emptying the contents into the "closet." It was referred to as the slop pail, and Alice agreed to that term. Alice held the light.
You guys are really fast I'm still pondering the note!

All testimony regarding rags or menses is frustratingly vague or misleading. While the ACTUAL trial testimony speaks only of Alice Russell and Lizzie going down cellar to rinse out a slop bucket, even this rather gross euphemism could be a euphemism to cleaning menstrual rags. Mr. Fleet's Trial testimony regarding anyone seeing the menstrual pads is:
Q. You spoke of finding a pail near the foot of the stairs---I think you did, as you went down,---didn't you?
A. I did not. There was one there; I did not testify to that, I think.

Q. There was one there?
A. There was in the wash cellar.

Q. There was one there?
A. In the wash cellar.

Q. There were clothes in it?
A. There were.

MR. ROBINSON. It is agreed that that pail contained the napkins which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,---the ordinary monthly sickness---and as to that fact that is all we propose to put in. We do not care to go into the details. It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night.

Whether planned or not, having her period around the time of the murder gives Lizzie a trump card whenever blood comes up. Mention delicately the monthly sickness, and everyone blushes and stops asking questions. Living in the 21st century, perhaps I'm over-reacting, but I just can't see a woman dropping a bloody rag or two into a bucket of water and leaving it for days. Even Bridget stated that if she had seen a bucket of bloody rags she would have cleaned them forthwith.
Admittedly I'm "no expert" as I'm a man, but being a nurse for 30 years I've cleaned my share of menses from women who couldn't do it themselves. Maybe I'm immune to unpleasant smells, but fresh menstrual blood isn't very offensive, yet I wouldn't leave it in a bucket for "a day or two"

As for why she didn't dump the water and get rid of the rags, perhaps she WANTED obviously innocent blood to be found so that any "slip ups" during the murders could be easily explained away.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:13 am

These are the best conversations we’ve had on this forum since I joined august 2020. Thanks so much! When I have to type my ideas, it forces me to organize my thoughts which makes things clearer to me. Reasonwhy, couple of quick notes.....1) on the note, Abby didn’t need an excuse to leave house and Lizzie testified at inquest that Abby usually didn’t tell her where she was going. 2) if these towels were used to wipe blood splatters off her face and hands, the towels would not have been wet enough to deter burning. 3) the various testimonies of Andrews morning walk demonstrate that he was feeling VERY poorly and likely accepting of what Lizzie told him due to lack of mental energy.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:52 pm

Good job you guys....

This topic of Lizzie's menstrual cycle I've always considered to be very important.
More reading to do, if you like : Here's the link, if you have the time and inclination to view previous research. The topic is designed to gather together as many references to the menstrual cloths and pail from as many primary source documents as possible. It can be used to copy-paste testimony in your posts, or just to refresh memory as to the subject matter.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... fprivy.htm

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:34 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:13 am These are the best conversations we’ve had on this forum since I joined august 2020. Thanks so much! When I have to type my ideas, it forces me to organize my thoughts which makes things clearer to me. Reasonwhy, couple of quick notes.....1) on the note, Abby didn’t need an excuse to leave house and Lizzie testified at inquest that Abby usually didn’t tell her where she was going. 2) if these towels were used to wipe blood splatters off her face and hands, the towels would not have been wet enough to deter burning. 3) the various testimonies of Andrews morning walk demonstrate that he was feeling VERY poorly and likely accepting of what Lizzie told him due to lack of mental energy.

1) No excuse needed, true; but if note was to get Abby to the bank, it may have had needed instructions, i.e., which bank to go to, at what time, and even the news that today is to be signing day. (Andrew might have needed to prepare by lining up certain peoples’ presence in order to draw the deed up properly).

2) True, IF that was the only blood to wipe off. It’s Lizzie’s first murder; she may have hiked her skirts or otherwise gotten blood on her legs/more of herself when she probably straddled - the experts at trial hypothesized - Abby. Those trial experts also said the perpetrator during that killing would have likely incurred more splattering below the waist.

Also to 2): Even if few or mostly dry towels, Lizzie may just not have felt she had enough of a time window before JVMorse might show up.

Also to 2) I have wondered about the paper(s), noticed by Officer Harrington, seen when he looked into the stove grate to try to see the scraps Bowen had just dropped in. They retained - paraphrase here - the shape of pages, about 12 inches in length. Seems someone had time to burn something!

3) Andrew did still feel ill. Ill enough to acquiesce to Lizzie? He’d felt well enough to do business around town for approximately an hour and forty minutes. I’m still thinking his radar would be up enough to require that note to stop a further search, and that he’d still have been concerned/anxious about Abbey.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:51 pm

PossumPie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:22 am
….I tend to think that the tiny spot of blood found on Lizzie's underskirt was incidental, perhaps menstrual. There were a lot more "accidents" in days before pads with adhesive and wings. The blood was found to have struck the outside of the garment and soaked part-way in, not from the inside-out….

Lots of good experience-based observations on this topic, Possum. I can speak to only my single experience as a woman.

I have never seen a pin-head stain caused by this. For this reason, I hold with those theorizing the stain may have struck, as blood spray, the outside of the skirt while it was folded into the pile of her laundry Lizzie could have carried into the guest room (hiding the hatchet within?).

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:27 am

Reasonwhy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:51 pm
PossumPie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:22 am
….I tend to think that the tiny spot of blood found on Lizzie's underskirt was incidental, perhaps menstrual. There were a lot more "accidents" in days before pads with adhesive and wings. The blood was found to have struck the outside of the garment and soaked part-way in, not from the inside-out….
Lots of good experience-based observations on this topic, Possum. I can speak to only my single experience as a woman.

I have never seen a pin-head stain caused by this. For this reason, I hold with those theorizing the stain may have struck, as blood spray, the outside of the skirt while it was folded into the pile of her laundry Lizzie could have carried into the guest room (hiding the hatchet within?).

Good observation. Pin-head size blood droplets generally mean high velocity like gunshot or blunt force trauma. The blood on Lizzie's skirt was on the OUTSIDE and tiny making menses much less likely. I've always wondered about Lizzie killing them in her underclothes so as not to ruin a dress, I don't agree at all with the dramatic claim some people have that she was nude when she killed them. Even a psychopath doesn't want the last thing her father sees is her naked body...The only hesitation I have with it being from the actual killings is that even though axing someone's head is not going to get you covered in blood, there would be more than one pin-head.

Miss Pea · Post by **Miss Pea** » Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:21 am

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:10 pm When I first became an active poster (about year ago), I was determined to prove that Morse was involved....but as I ran down each of the 'oddities' around his behavior, most could be neutralized. That said, I don't think he showed up that week on a random chance.

Camgarsky4 (or others), I imagine you've seen this article in The Hatchet: A Journal of Lizzie Borden and Victorian Studies, "The Solution to the Borden Mystery," https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... stery.html, which details a conspiracy amongst Morse, Emma, Lizzie and William Davis.

If you've commented on this elsewhere, save your wrists and point me to it. I'm curious what you think!!