Survey of current posters' ideas of the culprit

[Reasonwhy]

Could Lizzie have “saved up” her menstrual cloths so there would be sufficient blood to indicate a period, rather than post-murder wipings, in that pail?

Recall that Bridget says she would have washed the contents had they been in the basement on wash day (this by custom was Monday). But she didn’t say whether or not she had washed any bloody cloths on Monday…hmmm.

If, as agreed by counsel, her period had ended on Wednesday, Aug. 3rd, then by counting backward we see Lizzie would have had towels for days previous to the Thursday morning of the murders. If Bridget didn’t wash some on Monday, Lizzie might have been hoarding them, despite any potential odor. (And remember, Emma wasn’t there to notice or object).

[Reasonwhy]

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...

I had not considered before that Lizzie might have wanted to suggest to Bridget that she’d have plenty of time to nap, Kat: how clever. Okay, I can compromise on a note that skins many cats!

Recall during the inquest, though, when Knowlton needles - I confess I love Knowlton; he seems the voice of a compassionate but Righteous Justice - Lizzie about what the heck she thought Abby was doing that whole morning? It’s as if she is reluctant to mention the note, maybe thinking of abandoning it, when he pries it out of her…(relevant inquest testimony in my next post)…

[camgarsky4]

Ms. Pea --
Really not sure where to start on Fritz's thesis. I applaud him for taking the time to write this lengthy paper...I have started my version and get tired of typing pretty quickly.

That said, for reasons that only he can answer, he has gone way over the top to force Emma and Davis into his conspiracy storyline. Since he offered zero substantive indicators of their involvement, I won't burn calories typing any points.

I have to assume that most active posters know my views pretty clearly on John's alibi. I know I have posted this many times before, but there is no reference to cap, car or badge #'s in the witness statements, testimony transcripts or contemporary newspaper articles. So by definition he did not use that information to create an alibi. Fritz also seems to suggest that John mentioning the 6 priests indicates his guilt even though the conductor and a passing conductor remembered the same thing. On the subject of phones, several published authors (ex. William Spencer) have done extensive research to determine if the Emery's had a phone and the unanimous conclusion is NO. If you search this forum for this topic you can find more details. He also mentioned as a criminal indicator that John looked at his watch a couple times. Good grief.

I believe that Lizzie was the sole murderer, so many components of his paper ring true to me. However, in my opinion he has woven many of the pieces together incorrectly.

[PossumPie]

People like Fritz, and our old friend of the forum "Franz" have entertaining, detailed theories. They are fun to read, but honestly when you involve conspiracies, multiple culpable suspects, unsubstantiated ideas, illegitimate children, etc they just don't hold up. Franz and I used to go around and around about his ideas of Morse hiring thugs to lure Abbey out onto her sidewalk while they snuck behind her back into the house. The culprits hid in wait for hours and viciously axed the Bordens over a vague revenge theme. I like reading the fictional accounts, but when the evidence is absolutely missing, it's not helping in solving the murders. Morse was a "friend" of Mr. Borden in that he popped in once or twice a year, ate their food, visited his nieces/nephews, and left. They were not particularly close, nor was he close with the sisters. After the murders he went his way and they went theirs, more importantly Lizzie went her way and the rest of the family went their way. We hear nothing more from the primary sources about the deaths, but what would cause two sisters who lived their whole lives together separate without a word after the murders? There is more intrigue there than in Morse...

[Reasonwhy]

I had not considered before that Lizzie might have wanted to suggest to Bridget that she’d have plenty of time to nap, Kat: how clever. Okay, I can compromise on a note that skins many cats!

Recall during the inquest, though, when Knowlton needles - I confess I love Knowlton; he seems the voice of a compassionate but Righteous Justice - Lizzie about what the heck she thought Abby was doing that whole morning? It’s as if she is reluctant to mention the note, maybe thinking of abandoning it, when he pries it out of her…(relevant inquest testimony in my next post)…

Er, having some trouble learning how to copy/paste on my Mac from a PDF (the Inquest, on the lizzieandrewborden.com site under "Primary Source Documents," is in this format). In the meantime, the passage I'm referring to begins with Knowlton, on page 21:

"Q. I ask again...," then 14 questions later!, ends w/ Lizzie finally cornered into admitting what she'd previously claimed, on page 22:
"A. She told me she had had a note..."

It's a fascinating exercise in Knowlton pinning her down, and Lizzie's attempts at evasion, if you're interested in cat and mouse.

[camgarsky4]

Possum, did u see that franz activated back in the Spring for a few weeks?

[PossumPie]

Possum, did u see that franz activated back in the Spring for a few weeks?

Heard rumors to that effect. Boy he was entertaining. I used to get so exasperated trying to understand his convoluted theory and he trying to understand the nuances of the English language. He used to think I was making fun of him when it was simple American sarcasm. If you want entertainment, search for his posts and my responses back in 2014... There was real drama back then, some people not very polite. There was a large number of passionate posters back then, it was drama but I learned a lot too.

[Reasonwhy]

Miss Pea, I'm curious to know what you yourself may think.

[swinell]

I'm not sure whether we'll ever get a definitive answer on the subject of who killed the Bordens or why...but having read a good chunk of the primary documents on the subject I can rule out a few of the possibilities that have been put forth by various parties over the years:

1. Outside Intruder - this was fairly obvious even to the people at the time that an outside intruder would a) have a very difficult time of getting into the house without being seen or noticed by anyone, and b) have an even MORE difficult time waiting around in the house in one of the tiny closets for an hour or so waiting for Mr. Borden to come home. Let alone being able to get away afterwards...just totally implausible.

2. Emma Borden or John Morse - Emma was in Fairhaven, John was on the other side of town. I DO however think that both of them knew what was going to happen beforehand and that they sought to protect the culprit after the fact.

3. William S. Borden - again, this goes back to the problems of the outside intruder theory. Furthermore, I've never read any account of this William S. Borden's life that gives any indication whatsoever that he had any relation, legitimate or otherwise, to Andrew J. Borden so I always feel puzzled by the illegitimate son narratives that keep popping up.

4. That Bridget and/or Lizzie had no clue what was going on as it was happening. I've been in that house. I stayed the night. I can tell you as a matter of fact that not a single thing can occur in any part of that house without it being clearly heard in all other parts of it. Go down to the cellar, you can hear people walking in the attic and vice versa.

5. That Lizzie was so morphined out of her mind at the Inquest Testimony that her conflicting timelines can be explained away. I think that was planned by Dr. Bowen in case the testimony went bad and it could be thrown out on that basis. If you read the surviving transcript, she's clearly lucid and capable of answering the questions. Someone all doped out wouldn't have the clarity of mind to answer the questions as clearly as she did when it wasn't directly incriminating. As soon as Knowlton starts to try to pin down her location when Mr. Borden was let in the house that's when the stories start to get changed around "I was upstairs sewing some tape on a garment" to "Oh no no I was in the kitchen waiting for my flats, I didn't go upstairs at all." Her version of events is the only one that regularly changes and changes in ways that rather transparently cover her tracks. Reading the Witness statements and their testimonies, she first was out in the barn looking to fix a screen, then to find led for a sinker. Knowlton's inquiries into that sinker story are pretty damning - especially when he says "So your first action in preparing for your trip to Marion was to go out into the barn looking for led for a sinker for a line you thought might be there but that you weren't going to use anyway because it was in poor condition?" Then he tries to ask her approximately how much time it would have taken her to find this led, then she comes up with the pears and all that business...it just reads so transparently to me that at the absolute least one must conclude she knew far more about the murders than she said at and/or before the Inquest. Compare it with the testimony of Bridget Sullivan, her story remains the same from the first witness who testified that she'd told them so to her own testimony. It's only when she's asked to pin down Lizzie's whereabouts at key moments that she starts waffling and saying "Nope, I don't know." That said, her testimony of Lizzie being on the stairs when Mr. Borden was let in a) matches with Lizzie's first recounting of the events at the Inquest (which was immediately changed after she realized what that meant) and b) is the most damning evidence that the Commonwealth had against Lizzie.

That said - what do I think happened?
I think Lizzie murdered Abby and Andrew with a hatchet, I think Emma, Bridget, and John Morse knew it was going to happen beforehand. I think that all of them and Dr. Bowen knew after the fact who the culprit was and sought to protect her. If we go back to the fundamental questions in a homicide of motive, means, and opportunity, I think all signs point to Lizzie A. Borden. I'm still largely unconvinced that the motive was solely monetary/class based, I think something was going on in that house between Andrew and the sisters that we don't now and likely will never have the full picture on. Clearly there was animosity between Abby and the sisters which I'm sure put a strain on the, by all accounts, practical (loveless) marriage, and likely inflamed previous tensions between Andrew and the sisters if not caused new ones. Means? Well, there's all those axes and hatchets in the cellar. Opportunity? Bridget outside, talking to the Kelly's girl, washing windows - Lizzie's Inquest Testimony corroborating Bridget's except at that key moment when Mr. Borden was let in. The only other person with means and opportunity is Bridget, but that then begs the question of motive, and begs even further the question of why not just kill Lizzie too? If we are to believe the accounts of all the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Borden called Bridget by her real name, and treated her rather well. It was the sisters who called her "Maggie", the name of their previous maid...rather disrespectful if you ask me. If it was Bridget who was really responsible, what would Lizzie gain from taking the fall? What would Emma, Lizzie, Morse, and Dr. Bowen gain from rallying around an Irish maid and placing the blame on this upstanding upper-crust gal? Guaranteed acquittal? Maybe that would make sense if Bridget had moved to Maplecroft with the sisters but she didn't, she got the hell outta 92 Second St after the murders. It just doesn't make much sense for Bridget to have been responsible (not that murder is a sensible affair anyhow but you get what I mean). Now, here I would go into this $5k rumor that keeps popping up but despite it being posted on a plaque outside the house of the governor or Montana bigwig for whom Bridget worked after returning from Ireland (she went back after the trial, hated it, and came back through New York and from there to Montana) and being alluded to in more than a few books/essays on the subject, I cannot find a shred of evidence for it or a source to back it up so...I'll leave that there.

That said, let's examine Bridget just a tad - we know that before she worked at 92 Second Street, she worked up on the Hill at a much larger house and that she took the job with the Bordens because they were paying her the same rate as her previous employer and lived in a much smaller house - so it was a step up. We also know that about year into working there, she'd tried to leave. Why? We don't know. But we know that it must have been bad enough for her to want to leave a very cushy job. We also know that, after that point, Abby Borden began paying Bridget a few more dollars out of her own allowance from Andrew to help keep her on, so whatever happened that caused Bridget to want to leave wasn't bad enough to not be able to be bought off with a few extra bucks. That colors why I think she, at the very least, knew what was going to happen and knew what had happened after the fact.

With Morse, I think at the very least he knew what had happened after the fact. Before going back to the primary documents, I'd have mentioned his "detailed alibi" and his "weird behavior" in going straight to the backyard to eat some pears, but there seems to be a good deal of misinformation when it comes to both data. First, the only strange detail in Morse's actual alibi from the time was that there were six priests on the trolley with him. I can't trace where this next bit comes from but it's not anywhere in the primary sources, that he remembered the # of the conductor's cap and the license plate of the trolley car...that would certainly be odd and would indicate that he was seeking to construct an alibi, but again it's unsourced and doesn't appear in any of the primary documents. The behavior with the pear tree still strikes me as odd but apparently by that time there wasn't the whole crowd of people outside that were gathering previously, had there been such a crowd, his behavior would be quite strange. If anyone has more insight into this matter, I'd love to read it!

Anyway that's my two cents

[PossumPie]

Great post Swinell
I agree...despite non-medical people trying to twist medical facts, Abbey was killed a significant amount of time before Andrew. I'll concede that forensics isn't exact but given ALL of the facts, 1.5hours or 1 hours is possible, but the digestion, coagulation, and last seen times shows beyond doubt that she was killed first. If he were downstairs and she were upstairs and anyone tried killing one then the other, it would have been heard. Andrew HAD to have been out while Abbey was killed and it would take some big coconuts to kill her then sit back and wait casually for him to arrive.

The strange illegitimate son angle doesn't warrant an explanation As I once told another poster, I could make a plausible case that the Pope did it, doesn't mean that he did...

Lizzie being doped, yes...Morphine sulfate causes drowsiness and mental cloudiness. I re-read the inquest this afternoon and the rapid-fire questions to Lizzie the trying to catch her in an inconsistency merely made me feel sorry for her. I DO believe that she did it, but small inconsistencies as to when she went up/down/out/in can be explained by the crazy week she had more than deliberate deceit. A suspect with a memorized alibi that never changes is more suspicious than one who says "I don't know, maybe I didn't go upstairs before the doorbell rang. This doesn't mean that she didn't do the murders, just that she didn't memorize an alibi. I think her "perfect plan" would have been kill Abbey, talk Bridget into going for the Yard goods sale, killing Daddy, then catching up with Bridget at the sale, hanging out with her until Morse came home to find the murders. More solid of an alibi if she wasn't home!

I also think Lizzie murdered them with a (new) hatchet (hence the flecks of metal in Abbey's skull) I think The rest of the principle players were not told of the murders ahead of time, but all thought to themselves "Well, she went and did it! I knew she would eventually"

I think Bridget on one hand loved the pay for less work than other places, but hated the drama, back-stabbing, and locking of every freaking door. I think that caused her to give notice, then Abbey offered more money...

The weirdness about Morse's OCD alibi giving train/conductor number, listing 6 priests, etc. does seem to show he may need an alibi. I'm not sure about this one. He wasn't particularly close with ANY of the Bordens, seemed to use them as a free Bed and Breakfast a few times a year. I don't find the pear tree behavior odd, he came home and despite common thought, stated that he saw nobody around, went into the back to grab a pear or two, then when walking up to the side door saw someone sitting on the step and found out about the homicides.

Lastly, Emma. Her leaving Lizzie "for good" is intriguing, but let's face it it was 12 years AFTER the murders so I doubt that was the precipitating event. I think she got tired of the parties and rowdiness.

My guess is Colonel Mustard did it in the library....wait sorry I mean Lizzie did it in the house with the ax. I believe that despite our progressive ideas that women and men are equals, certain things such as gruesome murders are/were still believed to be a man thing. Anyone thinking this should Google "Papin sisters" a couple of Victorian sisters who a few years after Lizzie did some gruesome things to their employers...

[swinell]

Lizzie being doped, yes...Morphine sulfate causes drowsiness and mental cloudiness. I re-read the inquest this afternoon and the rapid-fire questions to Lizzie the trying to catch her in an inconsistency merely made me feel sorry for her. I DO believe that she did it, but small inconsistencies as to when she went up/down/out/in can be explained by the crazy week she had more than deliberate deceit. A suspect with a memorized alibi that never changes is more suspicious than one who says "I don't know, maybe I didn't go upstairs before the doorbell rang. This doesn't mean that she didn't do the murders, just that she didn't memorize an alibi. I think her "perfect plan" would have been kill Abbey, talk Bridget into going for the Yard goods sale, killing Daddy, then catching up with Bridget at the sale, hanging out with her until Morse came home to find the murders. More solid of an alibi if she wasn't home!

I think Bridget on one hand loved the pay for less work than other places, but hated the drama, back-stabbing, and locking of every freaking door. I think that caused her to give notice, then Abbey offered more money...

The weirdness about Morse's OCD alibi giving train/conductor number, listing 6 priests, etc. does seem to show he may need an alibi. I'm not sure about this one. He wasn't particularly close with ANY of the Bordens, seemed to use them as a free Bed and Breakfast a few times a year. I don't find the pear tree behavior odd, he came home and despite common thought, stated that he saw nobody around, went into the back to grab a pear or two, then when walking up to the side door saw someone sitting on the step and found out about the homicides.

Lastly, Emma. Her leaving Lizzie "for good" is intriguing, but let's face it it was 12 years AFTER the murders so I doubt that was the precipitating event. I think she got tired of the parties and rowdiness.

My guess is Colonel Mustard did it in the library....wait sorry I mean Lizzie did it in the house with the ax. I believe that despite our progressive ideas that women and men are equals, certain things such as gruesome murders are/were still believed to be a man thing. Anyone thinking this should Google "Papin sisters" a couple of Victorian sisters who a few years after Lizzie did some gruesome things to their employers...

Thanks for the reply, PossumPie! (that rhymed)

One thing about Morse is that he was rather close with both Emma and Andrew. We know that, for example, Emma and Morse regularly wrote to one another. I recall reading someone else on here posit that perhaps Morse showed up the previous night because Emma sent him a letter asking him to check on them because of increasingly violent letters from Lizzie...though I do not recall seeing a source listed for that claim so likely just speculation

I do think that your outline of Lizzie's potential plan - having Bridget go down to the sale, kill Andrew, and meet her down there to leave Morse to discover the murders - makes quite a bit of sense. But of course, there's an old adage about plans making God chuckle...

A correction about the train/conductor number - it's not in the original documents anywhere. The first source I can find of it is Victoria Lincoln's A Private Disgrace and we all know about that one lol... he did mention the six priests, the conductor remembered the priests but not Morse, which doesn't strike me as odd just because priests still wear pretty recognizable garbs and that would be memorable and Morse would probably have blended in with the general public being a general public kinda guy.

I also agree about the reason for Emma's departure being the parties Lizzie was throwing with/for Nance O'Neil and the acting troupe, though Martins & Binette posit it was because of a potential affair with the driver. If she knew anything about the murders (and I suspect she did), she would've known either before they happened or immediately afterwards. Also interesting to check out that 1914 interview she did, very strange that she gave it at all, such that its veracity has been questioned but from the articles I've read from Kat it seems to be genuine.

Also yes - the Papin sisters are quite strange. Their relationship strikes me as oddly similar to that of June & Jennifer Gibbons and Poto & Cabengo if you're familiar with those cases, except they weren't twins and neither of those pairs were homicidal.

[PossumPie]

I stand corrected. The badge number/cart number seems apocryphal as it doesn't appear in any of the primary sources. I did a complete search of trial transcripts and nowhere in them did Morse mention the conductor, number, or even the 6 priests for that matter. I'll have to dig further for the first mention of this. Victoria Lincoln wasn't the first to repeat the Morse memorization tidbit. This is a quote from the newspaper which was reproduced in Lizzie Borden Past & Present. Note the year of the paper - long after the murders so how accurate is it? This first quote below was from a paper almost 40 years later so I question it's accuracy:

" Attorney Arthur Phillips, who assisted the Lizzie's defense team, recalled the following information about John V. Morse's alibi. 'Although Morse was first suspected of the crime, he presented a complete alibi and was almost immediately eliminated from police inquiry. After leaving the Borden home early in the morning Morse had taken a street car to Weybosset Street from the center of the city and was there till both murders had been discovered. He furnished the police with the number on the street car which he had taken, the number on the conductor's cap and the names of persons he had seen or met. To a certainty, he was not in the Borden house when the murders were committed, but nevertheless, he had to have a police guard to protect him from infuriated mobs." New Bedford Sunday Standard Tunes, May 13, 1934.

The 6 priest angle is more documented but it doesn't show up in the trial records either:

"Returning, he [Morse] took a street car on which six priests were passengers, three of whom sat on the seat with him. He left the car at the corner of Pleasant and Second streets, and walked direct to Mr. Borden's residence." Evening Standard, Sat., Aug. 6th, 1892:

"The conductor of the car yesterday was a "spare," named Whittaker, and the News has been unable to find him to-day, as he would probably remember the circumstance of the six priests and Mr. Morse's riding with him. Mr. Morse's story has, however, been confirmed, so far as the priests being on a car is concerned, by Conductor Kennedy of the car going east, who says he passed the car with the priests on the hill by the Pocasset engine house, about where Mr. Morse took the car, and that he took its time and it was just 22 minutes after 11 o'clock. " Sat., Aug. 6th, 1892:

As a side note, it's fascinating to unravel the evolution of "facts" in the case. There are many things that people post as unquestionable facts which are inaccurate or unverified. While there are verifiable things said in the inquest documents, interviews, and trial transcripts, even the newspapers at the time got things wrong and these took on a life of their own. Even this forum contains "facts" that once we dig back for the primary source, fail to be substantiated. I try VERY hard to differentiate when I'm speculating (or repeating someone else's speculation, but sometimes things like the badge number slip by me. Problem is months/years later people are quoting PossumPie's badge number post not realizing it wasn't substantiated. For my doctorate program, we can't write anything without scholarly journal references, even these must be vetted to be "peer-reviewed" and respected. It's a nightmare for writing papers, but does cut down on disseminating false data.

[PossumPie]

As for the reference that Emma was close to Morse, within Emma's inquest testimony she stated that she and Andrew wrote to Morse, but not regularly, then clarified it by saying that when he was living in the west he was a "dear uncle" and she corresponded regularly with him then. (inquest testimony pp. 112-113)

[BevCapeCod]

I just toured the house for the first time two days ago. I've read numerous articles about it. I have mixed feelings. I really don't think Lizzie did it and I'm not convinced her uncle did it. Emma seems a more likely suspect. Did Lizzie take the initial blame knowing they had no way to prove it was her? Emma, as the older sister, may have felt more strongly about her stepmother's family getting their inheritance. Morse's entire alibi is so obvious, one has to wonder if he didn't create it on purpose to throw the police for a loop. They couldn't really pin down anyone.

[PossumPie]

I just toured the house for the first time two days ago. I've read numerous articles about it. I have mixed feelings. I really don't think Lizzie did it and I'm not convinced her uncle did it. Emma seems a more likely suspect. Did Lizzie take the initial blame knowing they had no way to prove it was her? Emma, as the older sister, may have felt more strongly about her stepmother's family getting their inheritance. Morse's entire alibi is so obvious, one has to wonder if he didn't create it on purpose to throw the police for a loop. They couldn't really pin down anyone.

Welcome to the Forum. There are great threads over the years discussing these very things. Emma and Morse both had airtight alibis. Hypothetically either of them could have hired someone to do it while they were away, but it seems far-fetched given the locked up doors, people in the home at the time, etc. Morse's alibi seems far-fetched only if you believe the story about memorizing the number of the conductor and horse cart, but he never said that as far as the evidence shows, it was hearsay of someone interviewed by a newspaper. He did say that there were 6 priests on the cart with him and another conductor who passed them verified that there were 6 priests on the cart. Same with Morse walking past crowds of people to eat a pear, that sounds strange, but his testimony states that he saw nobody when he arrived, walked back to get a pear then went directly to the side door where Sawyer greeted him with the news of the murders. There is no evidence that he shouted Lizzie's name, or any other strange thing. He may have guessed that Lizzie did it when he heard, she had been hinting around about people out to kill her father, poison the family, etc. Be careful with listening to stories about the case, even the "non-fiction" books have facts that are incorrect. Here is a link to the Lizzie Borden virtual library where you can read the inquest documents and trial documents, and witness testimony. I'm not saying that it is all gospel truth, but it is first hand information rather than passed-along-legends and mistruths. https://lizzieandrewborden.com/primary- ... n-case.htm
If you are using a Windows operating system, open a document, hit CTRL and F key, and a search box will pop up. you can put a word like Morse in and it will show you everyplace in the document that the word occurs.

[Reasonwhy]

I just toured the house for the first time two days ago. I've read numerous articles about it. I have mixed feelings. I really don't think Lizzie did it and I'm not convinced her uncle did it. Emma seems a more likely suspect. Did Lizzie take the initial blame knowing they had no way to prove it was her? Emma, as the older sister, may have felt more strongly about her stepmother's family getting their inheritance. Morse's entire alibi is so obvious, one has to wonder if he didn't create it on purpose to throw the police for a loop. They couldn't really pin down anyone.

Hi BevCapeCod, and welcome to the forum!

Ooh, I am so jealous you got to tour the house. I’ve read others’ impressions on this forum, but would enjoy reading yours, too. Did you have any new insights or questions about the case after standing in the actual physical setting?

[Kat]

As a side note, it's fascinating to unravel the evolution of "facts" in the case. There are manythings that people post as unquestionable facts which are inaccurate or unverified. While there are verifiable things said in the inquest documents, interviews, and trial transcripts, even the newspapers at the time got things wrong and these took on a life of their own. Even this forum contains "facts" that once we dig back for the primary source, fail to be substantiated. I try VERY hard to differentiate when I'm speculating (or repeating someone else's speculation, but sometimes things like the badge number slip by me. Problem is months/years later people are quoting PossumPie's badge number post not realizing it wasn't substantiated. For my doctorate program, we can't write anything without scholarly journal references, even these must be vetted to be "peer-reviewed" and respected. It's a nightmare for writing papers, but does cut down on disseminating false data.
--partial quote PossumPie

This is very good advice, and I hope you don't mind my using this partial quote to introduce a fact that is concerning to me about all the posts about Bridget by several here. I had not ever seen this type of material posted - it seemed suspect to me and I wondered where it was coming from - what was the source that seems to have convinced everyone of fact?

I figured maybe it came from the one book I had not yet read on the case: Parallel Lives.
So I looked up Bridget Sullivan in there and looked at the original news items Fall River Daily Herald, Aug 10, 1892. That was a very prolific date for "news" because of the Inquest.
There were also citations from Witness Statements, that were Bridget related, and I had experience with these as well, which of course are not necessarily facts.

What was being talked about here seemed like gossip, and sure enough in that tome starting page 37 is the sub-heading "village gossip"!
So I ran that down to Knowlton Papers, pgs 34-35 and there was the source: the unreliable and specious remarks submitted by Mrs. Nellie S. McHenry!

She is part of the Trickey-McHenry group...she and her Mr. McHenry having a "detective agency" in Providence. They would say anything, and for money! And have lead more seasoned authors than us into the maze of untruth.

I would caution anyone, please, to forget the stories of Bridget. She wasn't allowed to talk of the Borden household during the period of the judicial inquiries.
Also, we have never used newspaper sources here unless cited as such, as in "reader beware"- and plz try to verify the news item if possible. And plz remember this case, in this time and place, was the inception of "yellow journalism"- sort of like quoting the National Enquirer.

Thank you for allowing me to interrupt this dialogue. I personally, me, Kat, appreciate all of your sincere efforts to try to solve all of the complicated issues involved in this case with avid concern and real respect for the victims.

[Kat]

Here is the partial quote from The Knowlton Papers:


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
vs. Lizzie A. Borden

The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893
----PARTIAL

....Bridget spoke of where she had worked in Fall River at Mrs. Reads &
Remington.
She said she came from Newport about three years ago" was there to
visit three weeks before and stayed all night that when she got out of this
she was going back to Newport.
Bridget further stated that Mrs. Borden was always very kind and good
to her & would talk to her tell her what she was going to do, the girls partic-
ularly Miss Lizzie was very different always keeping to themselves, and no
one ever was allowed to go to Miss Lizzies room she took care of it herself.

Page 35

Bridget often said it was too bad Mrs. Borden was their stepmother
she was too good for them and they did not like her.
I asked Bridget if they quarelled she said she would not want to say
anthing about that of course they would not quarel in front of me. I
pressed her upon this subject but she evidently did not want to talk about it.
She further stated that she made up her mind three times to leave
their and gave in her notice but Mrs. Borden coaxed her to stay and once
raised her wages Mrs. Borden was so good that Bridget stayed but was intend-
ing to leave? she gave as her reason that while the work was not hard the
place was not pleasant for any girl on account of the odd habits of the family
she said things were not very pleasant in the house, I asked how it was, well
the girls kept so much to themselves their was no love for their stepmother.
The above report is in substance the result of the two hours of conver-
sation.

Mrs. Nellie S. Mc'Henry
Provo Aug. 25/92

(Note: "Statement of Bridget Sullivan to Nellie S. McHenry" handwritten in ink on reverse side of document.)

[camgarsky4]

Kat - I like the idea of 'requiring' noting the source for our commentary. To avoid making this tedious, we could use a similar 'naming' convention as used for Parallel Lives. WS (witness statement), PH (preliminary hearing), FRDH8/25 (Fall River Daily Herald Aug 25) and so on. If we are speculating or trying to connect the dots, clearly state "In my opinion, or 'my theory', or something equally clear.

New posters keep this forum alive and fun, but it might help to somehow communicate these friendly and well intended 'rules'. They will learn the basics to the case so much quicker by being aware of what is fiction, speculation, deductions or facts.

Could we write up a clearer set of "posting suggestions' that a new poster receives via private message when they activate?

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky4, we (all) get so caught up in the back and forth that often hunting down a reference just doesn't always happen. I'm guilty of that also. One thing that has helped (some) it that I have all of the primary documents on my laptop and can do a quick search for a fact. This is only partially helpful though when the "fact" I'm looking for ends up being a rumor from one of the books written about the case.
There are exact witness statements. These are most factual but still can be wrong. Look at the contradictions within the primary player's statements. I don't believe that they prove guilt, it's just if you ask someone for the exact order in which they performed a mundane task, nobody can be consistent. FAR too much emphasis is given to some small inconsistency in testimony of someone's pet suspect when in reality virtually everyone who give witness statements or testified under oath had inconsistencies.
Next, newspapers from the time of the murders. These are much less factual as Kat pointed out, rather than being "scooped" by another paper, many journalists never verified what they were told and some actually made things up out of whole cloth.
Next, we have rumor "A neighbor of mine knew the cousin of a neighbor of the Borden's who said....There is so much opportunity to exaggerate or add to the story that this holds virtually no weight. I like Kat's technique of asking "I've never heard that, could you point me to the document where you read it?"
The LEAST reliable "fact" is a post someone read quoting a post that quoted a post...This is urban legend, no source can ever be found.
Sort of like "Pull tabs for dialysis" Years ago everyone saved pull tabs off of soda cans for some poor soul to get free dialysis. I'm a nurse and I can assure you beyond ALL doubt that nobody ever received free dialysis with a bag of tabs...How did it get started? Unknown, but pure urban legend which was believed as fact by many.

[Reasonwhy]

….I like Kat's technique of asking "I've never heard that, could you point me to the document where you read it?"….

Me, too, Possum.

[Kat]

Good idea to give sources, or at least to double check them before posting. I think new posters (and all of us) can develope good habits, no problem.

I did not intend to grind this topic to a halt: I would like to continue about that note...
In the Privy (those enticing words that get Reasonwhy interested ) I had typed a small section from the "Proceedings" book, where some of Jennings notes were recorded. There was a thought-provoking partial letter he saved that I will copy-paste here. I looked through my newspaper files and sorry, could not find it, so I cannot confirm the attribution of the item, nor the transcription of it as accurate.

"PROCEEDINGS"

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211+

...”d.  (30h)  Boston Herald  Tuesday morning  'That Decoy Letter

Special dispatch to the Boston Herald, Fall River, August 8, 1892.  Did Mrs. Borden receive a letter or a note on the morning of the murder?  This clipping ends '...if no one comes forward, it will tend to make officials believe that Lizzie was mistaken about the note and none was delivered.  With that assumption comes the question:  Why did not Lizzie call her mother when she found her father's body?'”

[PossumPie]

Lizzie trial:
A. [Mrs. Borden] asked me how I felt. I told her. She asked me what I wanted for dinner. I told her not anything, what kind of meat I wanted for dinner. I told her not any. She said she had been up and made the spare bed, and was going to take up some linen pillow cases for the small pillows at the foot, and then the room was done. She says: "I have had a note from somebody that is sick, and I am going out, and I will get the din- [sic] at the same time."

She sticks to the note story. The state-wide publicity for the writer of the note turned up nobody so either there was no note or the person and all of their friends and family conspired to not come forward, this would include the messenger also. Over such a notorious crime, with such publicity NOT ONE person involved with the sick person, the messenger, an eyewitness, etc. EVER spoke of it. Unlikely that everyone kept silent all these years. Not even a "My grandmother told us in confidence that she was the sick person..." Nothing corroborates a note.

Next: A note implies a messenger bringing it down the street, to the front door, knocking/ringing the bell, someone letting them in, some conversation even if it was only "A message for you madam" "Thank you boy" YET neither Lizzie nor Bridget heard or saw a messenger, a knock, or the bell. Neither answered the door implying that Mrs. Borden must have gotten the key unlocked and answered the door. If either Bridget or Lizzie were inside they would have HAD to have heard the knock/bell/locks being unlocked. The house is such that those things can be heard anywhere even the third floor.
Neither Bridget nor Lizzie saw or heard Mrs. Borden leave. Neither Bridget nor Lizzie heard or saw Mrs. Borden return. YET according to testimony by Mrs. Churchill at the witness inquest :

"[Churchill stated that she asked Lizzie] Where is you mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I don't know but they killed her too."

Lizzie neither heard Mrs. Borden leave or return, but her first assumption when finding her father dead is that her step-mother is also dead. Puttering around the house with Mrs. Borden upstairs dead not hearing anyone else walking, talking, coughing in the house she must have assumed that Mrs. Borden was still out at the sick friends. YET her utterance to Mrs. Churchill (and the rest) is that she probably is somewhere in the house dead. As Kat mentions above her first thought was NOT to call to her step-mother that something had happened, yet she admits to believing that her step-mother must have already returned from the sick friend.

For me personally, the logical chain surrounding the note is some of the most damning evidence that at the very least Lizzie is outright lying to cover up something.

[Kat]

If I found my father dead, I would call a family member's name out first, not my servant, whether I thought my family had gone out or not. I would check the body and then run out the front door screaming for help. Even the Judge asked the question! But I am also frustrated about what Lizzie would have said, if able to finish her sentence when she said "...I was so-....."

Lizzie
Inquest
(Judge Blaisdell)—Was there any effort made by the witness to notify Mrs. Borden of the fact that Mr. Borden was found?
Q. Did you make any effort to notify Mrs. Borden of your father being killed?
A. No sir, when I found him I rushed right to the foot of the stairs for Maggie. I supposed Mrs. Borden was out. I did not think anything about her at the time, I was so—
Q. At any time did you say anything about her to anybody?
A. No sir.
Q. To the effect that she was out?
A. I told father when he came in.
Q. After your father was killed?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you say you thought she was up stairs?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you ask them to look up stairs?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you suggest to anybody to search up stairs?
A. I said, "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is;" that is all I said.
Q. You did not suggest that any search be made for her?
A. No sir.
Q. You did not make any yourself?
A. No sir.
Q. I want you to give me all that you did, by way of word or deed, to see whether your mother was dead or not, when you found your father was dead.
A. I did not do anything, except what I said to Mrs. Churchill. I said to her: "I don't know where Mrs. Borden is. I think she is out, but I wish you would look."
Q. You did ask her to look?
A. I said that to Mrs. Churchill.
Q. Where did you intend for her to look?
A. In Mrs. Borden's room.

-I do still think the note story was a mistake.

[PossumPie]

Kat, several thoughts. Lizzie didn't especially like Abbey, so It could be argued that Bridget should be the one to help came to her mind first.

I've mentioned at various times that with the pandemonium downstairs of police, neighbors coming in and out, talking, yelling, etc. that no logical person would assume that their stepmother was somewhere upstairs basting a seam or taking a nap. Lizzie in the middle of this chaos happens to say "I wish you would look" for Mrs. Borden would imply that she (Lizzie) believed that Abbey was already dead upstairs and that's why she didn't come down to see what the noise was. Even if Lizzie were innocent, If she suddenly realized that Abbey was nowhere around and the possibility that she was also dead occurred to her, asking someone to look makes sense. I don't find any of that behavior suspicious in the midst of a crisis.

Believing Lizzie did it, I don't think that Lizzie thought Abbey was "out" she knew exactly were Abbey was.
I think sitting in that jail cell, Lizzie regretted mentioning a note more than anything else that day.

[camgarsky4]

I believe Kat is referencing immediately upon discovery of Andrew's body that Lizzie's knee jerk reaction is to walk back thru the dining room to avoid walking past her severely injured father (seems odd not to check if he was dead or not regardless of visual indication), and go to bottom of stairway and yell upstairs to summon Bridget with "Someone has killed father!".

That is just so unnatural, I believe the vast majority of folks would have gone to the bottom of the stairs and yelled up "Bridget, oh my god a violent killer is here right now, are you up there and ok? Please rush down and let's get out of the house! Check to see if Abby is in her room." and upon Bridget getting to bottom of stairs, following up with "Did you see or hear anything, did you notice if Abby was in her bedroom? Let's go get the police, neighbor or anyone not currently in the house to protect us."

Lizzie's strength was one of focus and composure....however, this limited her ability to 'role play' and show emotion when she really needed to sell her story. That is another reason the police found her behavior so odd. It wasn't that didn't she show much emotion....its that she didn't show ANY. Shock may dampen sorrowful emotions, but I don't believe it would overcome natural survival instincts.

That Lizzie knew that Bridget was upstairs tells me that she saw Bridget go upstairs which then would be an indication that Bridget's testimony about Lizzie discussing afternoon shopping with her as she started going upstairs is true. Another likely example of collaboration of Bridget's statements.

[Reasonwhy]

"....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...."

Above is that quote of Camgarsky4's I just (9/29, 2021)posted about under the topic, "Lizzie Borden Quarterly." Please see that topic for Kat's neat picture of her holding the handle-less hatchet head, and some discussion about the size of the hatchet and possible implications.

[Reasonwhy]

-I do still think the note story was a mistake.

Okay. So why did she claim there was a note?

Trying to consider Lizzie's planning prior to the killings. She might indeed have been hoping to do in Andrew in the afternoon, when Bridget would likely be out, since she had Thursday afternoons off.

It's true she could say nothing about a note. Andrew and Bridget could just assume Abby was shopping for additional menu items for dinner.
Problem with this: Bridget would have doubted that, given Bridget said Abby had told her of dinner plans that did not include new fixins'.
However, maybe Bridget would merely conclude that Abby had changed her plans. And maybe Lizzie thought this would be a minor point of contradiction, because, hey, people do change their minds, right?

Next: What if John might arrive before she had time to dispatch Andrew, if she did consider murdering him in the a.m.? Or, what if Bridget didn't nap or duck out to the shops before dinner? Okay, they can all just have dinner, still waiting for Abby's return.
Problem with this:Time might tick on, past dinner, with them still awaiting Abby, Lizzie might have worried. If supposed to be grocery shopping, why hasn't Abby returned yet to serve her purchases?

Next: Maybe Lizzie can come up with a story (no note) that Abbey just mentioned she'd heard flu was going around and she thought she'd pop in on her sister to see how her gang was doing (or to go anywhere around town, for any reason). Andrew and Bridget might think it was weird Abby had not mentioned it to either of them that morning, but hey, people can be spontaneous and thoughtless, right?

Problem with this: It's not like Abby. Bridget said Abby usually told Bridget if she was going out. And wouldn't have Abby mentioned knowledge of potential sickness to Andrew, Bridget, or even Lizzie, seeing as they all had been sick and therefore had sickness very much on their minds? Or, mentioned an alternative destination? Again, Lizzie might not think that would present much of a problem. Except if, as the afternoon wears on, John lingers, or Bridget continues to neither nap nor shop.

Without the excuse of a formal summons of Abby to leave the house for a potentially prolonged interval of time - the "note - " I think Lizzie feared: Eventually a search for Abby would commence, with no opportunity to murder Andrew first.

As it happened, Lizzie is lucky, and the note wasn't needed to prevent a search for Abby. By then, though, she's stuck with it, having so informed Bridget.

Just my thinking, Kat.

[PossumPie]

Reasonwhy,
My theory is that we give Lizzie too much credit for planning out every aspect weeks ahead. I think she considered murder off-and-on for months, something occurred and it happened, and she winged much of the details "on-the-fly". The note was probably concocted on the spot. The testimonies from the inquest and the trial show contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. Partly explained by the chaos of the moment, partly explained by Lizzie making it up as she went along.

[camgarsky4]

I think there was a designed kill plan and the timing fell apart when she learned Morse was coming to lunch. I speculate that Andrew told her about Morse's upcoming lunch visit upon his return from his downtown rounds.

In my version of that conversation, Andrews reaction to Lizzie telling him about the note was "who is taking care of lunch w/ John coming!" Bridget may have been the cook, but Abby was the lady of the house in a 'social rules' driven Victorian society.

So why did Lizzie use the note as the excuse as to why Abby would not be home for lunch? Simply, it made sense to her at the time as a legit explanation and she didn't anticipate for a split second how it would take on a life of its own. Her actual mistake was telling Bridget about the note a little later as she tried to convince Bridget to go shopping that afternoon. Again, I think she was in panic mode at that point. The original Plan was for Bridget to leave to go shopping, but she had just learned that Morse was coming to lunch and she would likely lose control of the situation. So her mind was actively trying to solve for mixed outcomes.....still trying to set the stage for the original plan (hints about shopping), but likely already realizing that she had to deal with Andrew immediately. Can you imagine how much energy and adrenaline was flowing thru her.....she was in hyper problem solving mode and I don't think that was Lizzie's strong suit.

[Reasonwhy]

Reasonwhy,
My theory is that we give Lizzie too much credit for planning out every aspect weeks ahead. I think she considered murder off-and-on for months, something occurred and it happened, and she winged much of the details "on-the-fly". The note was probably concocted on the spot. The testimonies from the inquest and the trial show contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. Partly explained by the chaos of the moment, partly explained by Lizzie making it up as she went along.

Possum, I agree with all you say in this post, except:
Lizzie could have done all the note planning I speculate about in my post above yours pretty quickly. I think it most likely she did so between Wednesday afternoon’s final failure to secure the Prussic acid and the time she walked downstairs murder morning.

That’s the time I believe the “hatchet” plan was formed.

[Kat]

Please keep in mind this news item was saved in the files of the defense attny Jennings. For what reason?

"PROCEEDINGS"

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211+

...”d.  (30h)  Boston Herald  Tuesday morning  'That Decoy Letter

Special dispatch to the Boston Herald, Fall River, August 8, 1892.  Did Mrs. Borden receive a letter or a note on the morning of the murder?  This clipping ends '...if no one comes forward, it will tend to make officials believe that Lizzie was mistaken about the note and none was delivered.  With that assumption comes the question:  Why did not Lizzie call her mother when she found her father's body?'”

--made bold by me

[Reasonwhy]

I think there was a designed kill plan and the timing fell apart when she learned Morse was coming to lunch. I speculate that Andrew told her about Morse's upcoming lunch visit upon his return from his downtown rounds.

....Can you imagine how much energy and adrenaline was flowing thru her.....she was in hyper problem solving mode and I don't think that was Lizzie's strong suit.

Camgarsky, you have me just about sold me on Lizzie not knowing about Morse coming to dinner until Andrew may have told her. And, I do like your description of a panic-stricken Lizzie. Some justice in picturing her at least having to sweat.

[Kat]

If we think she did it, I would have to be content to know at least someone (principal, or accomplice) sat in jail for 10 months.

[PossumPie]

Reasonwhy,
My theory is that we give Lizzie too much credit for planning out every aspect weeks ahead. I think she considered murder off-and-on for months, something occurred and it happened, and she winged much of the details "on-the-fly". The note was probably concocted on the spot. The testimonies from the inquest and the trial show contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. Partly explained by the chaos of the moment, partly explained by Lizzie making it up as she went along.

Possum, I agree with all you say in this post, except:
Lizzie could have done all the note planning I speculate about in my post above yours pretty quickly. I think it most likely she did so between Wednesday afternoon’s final failure to secure the Prussic acid and the time she walked downstairs murder morning.

That’s the time I believe the “hatchet” plan was formed.

Problem with your postulate is that any pre-planning consideration at all by Lizzie would show her quite clearly that:
1. A note is physical evidence better to say a verbal message.
2. Sick friend can be traced, better to say Abbey told her she had to "go out for a bit" Nice and vague.
3. She concocted the angle for Bridget of the Yard-goods sale, why not just tell her and Andrew the same thing. Mrs. Borden heard about this astounding sale and couldn't resist.
It's easy to "Monday morning quarterback" the perfect things for her to say or do. I think she had a decent plan, which started to unravel with Bridget not feeling well enough to go out and Morse's unknown return time. She made a huge error in mentioning the note, but recovered nicely when it didn't make a difference in the verdict. I sometimes wonder why she didn't wait until closer to Andrew's return to kill Abbey, no need to clean up between murders, Abbey lying dead upstairs gives anyone a chance to stumble across her. Was it because she absolutely needed Bridget to be outside so as not to hear the thump? That sounds right. What was her backup plan if Andrew arrived home right before lunch, followed by Morse while Bridget was in the kitchen preparing the noon meal? Now we have a real problem. "Ok, where's Abbey?" If Morse had wanted to go to his room for any reason, the jig would be up.

[Reasonwhy]

Please keep in mind this news item was saved in the files of the defense attny Jennings. For what reason?

"PROCEEDINGS"

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, p211+

...”d.  (30h)  Boston Herald  Tuesday morning  'That Decoy Letter
At it does beg for
Special dispatch to the Boston Herald, Fall River, August 8, 1892.  Did Mrs. Borden receive a letter or a note on the morning of the murder?  This clipping ends '...if no one comes forward, it will tend to make officials believe that Lizzie was mistaken about the note and none was delivered.  With that assumption comes the question:  Why did not Lizzie call her mother when she found her father's body?'”

--made bold by me

Perhaps Jennings kept it because it opened doubt for him about Lizzie’s possible role, at least as an accomplice. We know he became concerned to protect her from the possibility of being charged in future for that.

Not calling for Abby, if Lizzie was innocent, seems to strike many people as so unnatural that it begs for explanation. One could simply follow Lizzie’s logic that she thought Abby was out (because of the note).That logic becomes hard to reconcile with Lizzie’s soon-after claim that she thought she had heard Abbey come in.

I think Lizzie forgot, when she didn’t call Abby, that she needed to keep acting like Abby was alive. The real Lizzie’s feelings - not those of the actress - overtook her: In her mind, Abby was done, dusted, forgotten. I think Lizzie put her totally out of her mind. She did not seem to recall her until others began to ask where she was.

To me this is part of the horror of Lizzie: that she had such total contempt for Abby, even after Abby was dead. Discounted and dismissed: to Lizzie, Abby had no human worth.

[camgarsky4]

Zero empathy or emotional intelligence.

[Kat]

So is Jennings keeping this to remind himself of a hurdle he may have to overcome? This speculation has the date of Aug 8, 1892, pretty early in the case.

When I am in a Lizzie-did-it mindset, your assessment of Lizzie's character, Reasonwhy, seems valid, real, and insightful.

Personally, I had always thought Jennngs felt he was defending an innocent client.

[Reasonwhy]

Kat, What do you think when you are in a Lizzie-didn’t-do-it mindset? I don’t mean what are all of the possible arguments. I mean, which are the most compelling to you, please?

[Kat]

If Lizzie didn't do it, then she knows who did.
And to hang around the place while the murders are happening, to me means she wanted or needed some control over the events. Picture her gazing out the second story barn window facing the street eating pears! She has quite a vantage point from there. Why not arrange a better alibi- to actually leave the property and be seen?
Lizzie-didn't-do-it really means she was not hands on, just the catalyst. Which makes her guilty under the law, minimum as accessory. (But to not kill, herself, leaves her at a distance, with no catharsis, no satisfaction...it's a different mindset...but still, I think, close in character, to your assessment.)
She told us who did not do it: Morse, Bridget, the men from the farm- how could she know that?

[camgarsky4]

Kat, I think you hit the nail on the head. A sense of control was essential to Lizzies personality. Her ‘make up’ could not leave discovery and subsequent events to chance. She had a bit of ‘stage director’ in her. Also agree that if she had an accomplice, she was the driving force.

[Reasonwhy]

If Lizzie didn't do it, then she knows who did.
And to hang around the place while the murders are happening, to me means she wanted or needed some control over the events. Picture her gazing out the second story barn window facing the street eating pears! She has quite a vantage point from there. Why not arrange a better alibi- to actually leave the property and be seen?
Lizzie-didn't-do-it really means she was not hands on, just the catalyst. Which makes her guilty under the law, minimum as accessory. (But to not kill, herself, leaves her at a distance, with no catharsis, no satisfaction...it's a different mindset...but still, I think, close in character, to your assessment.)
She told us who did not do it: Morse, Bridget, the men from the farm- how could she know that?

I see—and agree. That is a fine perception, that Lizzie may have more of a compulsion to control even than to need the catharsis of personally murdering them.

Fittingly, we see Lizzie afterward as quite a “hire-it-done” sort of person: lawyers, financial managers, chauffeurs, cooks, housekeepers, groundskeepers, traveling companions, etc. Even those who said she was generous have cited giving, mainly financially, from a distance.

We don’t see evidence of Lizzie involving herself personally after those church volunteer years. No mentions of visiting those sick, of making anything as gifts, of any hands-on caring for/relations with others. Could it be she saw those years as her grand experiment in putting herself out for others/directly participating in the social climb? And then giving it up as a failure?

Anyway, you have helped me to imagine how Lizzie accomplishing her parents’ removal indirectly could fit in with her personality.

[PossumPie]

I never gave any thought to Lizzie hiring someone to kill her parents and then being present to make sure it went off without a hitch. It answers the question why didn't she have blood on her? And also the question where did the hatchet go? BUT being there ruins an alibi. She could have been out of town and not suspected.
I think I never gave it thought because I can't get past the idea that two people knowing who did it increases the odds of someone slipping and telling exponentially. All that time both the hired killer and Lizzie sitting alone wondering if the other was going to screw up and the truth would come out.
It would answer a lot of questions, including the elusive strange man seen in the vicinity of the house around the time of the murders...

[Kat]

Just a little thing she said, that sounded so true to me, reinforced the idea:
Lizzie
Inquest
Q. When you got through looking for lead did you come down?
A. No, sir. I went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down.

That sounded to me like a signal. She's out of the house, there is time to kill Andrew, she is notifying the accomplice by moving the curtain.

[Reasonwhy]

Just a little thing she said, that sounded so true to me, reinforced the idea:
Lizzie
Inquest
Q. When you got through looking for lead did you come down?
A. No, sir. I went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down.

That sounded to me like a signal. She's out of the house, there is time to kill Andrew, she is notifying the accomplice by moving the curtain.

It certainly stands out. Could be truth, and meant as you suggest. She does slip out of “acting character” from time to time…

I tend to see it as Lizzie following her habit of “gilding the lily.” That is, she overly embellishes falsehoods with details. I see her doing this after the house break-in, eagerly showing police a nail she said she found in a lock. She piles up such detail in her account of how she’d made her father comfortable on the couch, and in recounting all the friendly chit chat she and Abby had shared murder morning. Similarly, she recounts too many items found in the barn basket and box. Good job! Except she got basket and box locations reversed. Too much detail can be one sign of a lie; she just sounds rehearsed so often to me. But then the mask unpredictably seems to slip.

[Kat]

I can see what you mean, about embellishing.
I looked at it as kind of like a "tease"- knowing it was an important clue that they would never catch onto- a mundane sort of thing, but meaningful to her.

Actually, both ways of looking at it reminds me of Rhoda, in The Bad Seed, that was just on TCM.

[Reasonwhy]

“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" )….”
—partial post, PossumPie

Possum, nor had I, nor any previous members of the forum, that I could find.

But, look what I found in “Parallel Lives,” page 333:

“Interestingly, in Fall River, the idiom “fleas” was commonly used, although it is unknown from whence the term derived, or if it is unique to that city. When questioned on the subject, several Fall River women, born during the closing years of the Victorian period, stated that they were familiar with the term as it was used there by those of their mothers’ generation; of its origin, they knew naught….”

AHA! So apparently Lizzie did use her menstruation as an excuse for that pin-sized spot on the outside of her petticoat! (And that sounds like a lie to me, as menses do not create that type of stain, in my experience—apologies for indelicacy here).

[PossumPie]

“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" )….”
—partial post, PossumPie

Possum, nor had I, nor any previous members of the forum, that I could find.

But, look what I found in “Parallel Lives,” page 333:

“Interestingly, in Fall River, the idiom “fleas” was commonly used, although it is unknown from whence the term derived, or if it is unique to that city. When questioned on the subject, several Fall River women, born during the closing years of the Victorian period, stated that they were familiar with the term as it was used there by those of their mothers’ generation; of its origin, they knew naught….”

AHA! So apparently Lizzie did use her menstruation as an excuse for that pin-sized spot on the outside of her petticoat! (And that sounds like a lie to me, as menses do not create that type of stain, in my experience—apologies for indelicacy here).

thank you for the research. Menstrual "accidents as someone else once pointed out would have the blood spot on the INSIDE of the undergarment not the outside as the evidence showed. such a small blood spot must have come from high velocity as a normal "drop" of blood under no force is about the size of a BB or a small pea.

[mbhenty]

Growing up in Fall River I hung around with a group of fellows, all with nick names. My last name was uncommon so I was referred to by it. But every one had a nickname, and I suppose most of them described the character to some degree.

There was Tony. We called him Scabs.
John was called ducky.
Tony was accident prone and always marred with injury, thus always picking at and peeling at a scab. Johnny of course walked like a duck.

Then there was Cuvy, Sparkes, Ma'nna, Kid Ray, and of course Flea.

Flea's Christian name was Alimpio. But we all called him Flea. Don't know why?

[Reasonwhy]

Add an “s” to that nickname and go back about 100 years and he probably woulda decked ya.