Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:12 am**

As a solution possibility, Sally- I thought your theory was pretty darned good, So many undiagnosed people were walking around in those days, who today would be medicated, in therapy, in analysis, or a sanitarium or rehab center.

With psychiatry in its infancy- the maladies of the mind were passed off as spells, moodiness, oddness, disturbed, anti-social, peculiar, head-strong, temperamental, weak constitution, "softness of the brain", high-strung, nervousness, bileous, congested, dissipated, and other descriptions when in fact it was a case for a real disorder, chemical imbalance, or something neurological or pathological. All of those terms I got from patent medicine bottles of the era.

The stigma of being sent to an institution was so great, no wonder prominent families wanted to keep it quiet. And then again, they were not very nice places to be, unless the family could afford one of the high-priced sanitariums .

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:05 pm**

Yooper @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:26 am wrote:The entire focus of the Borden murders might well be that Abby was the odd one out. She was related only by marriage, she had no blood relation within the Borden family. Those she was related to (her family) were kept at arm's length by the Bordens. The fact that she and her family, the outsiders, might someday inherit the Borden family's wealth to whatever extent, was a reality which was unacceptable. The turning point was Andrew purchasing an interest in the Whitehead residence and thereby favoring Abby and her family. Major changes seemed to occur from that point on. While Andrew may have tried to appease his daughters with a similar gift, that didn't address the fact that the daughters might someday have to share Andrew's wealth with Abby. If it wasn't thought of before, that fact was made abundantly clear to Emma and Lizzie with the Whitehead residence.

Andrew seemed to keep private matters very private. This also included Abby and whatever affected her life. Ultimately, she was not a member of the group, she had no blood relation to them, only marriage. She had no claim other than a legal one to the Borden fortune, she was only a pretender. While a legal claim is sufficient, perhaps the Borden daughters thought otherwise. Andrew's marriage to Abby may have been one of convenience and they may have behaved accordingly. While only a guess, if that is true, it only adds fuel to idea of Abby having only limited acceptance within the Borden family.

I can see your point of LIzzie wanting Abby dead, because she was the outsider, no blood relation. So it would be good to get her out of the way. But what about Andrew? What would be the motive for killing him? Maybe the thought of changing a will in favor of Abby?

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:18 pm**

Even with Abby out of the way, Andrew could still write a will which disfavored his daughters. He could leave everything to charity and perhaps just a token sum to Lizzie and Emma. I think Andrew would have known who was behind Abby's murder, especially if Lizzie hadn't left the house the morning of the 4th. Outside of Emma, who knew Lizzie better?

If Lizzie had been able to leave and establish an alibi before Andrew arrived, he still might have suspected her, but he wouldn't be able to prove it. This might still have provided incentive to disfavor Lizzie in his will.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:20 pm**

I think that would have been a good motive to get rid on Andrew. He would have known Lizzie did it. I think he was well aware that the girls didn't like Abby.

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:23 pm**

Hi, Just want to check on the rules of the forum. I've been reading back on some of the messages and wondered is there a time limit on answering any of them. Do you just keep it current within a few days or can anyone reference a message and give an opinion?

Posted: **Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:12 pm**

There's no set time limit on responding to posts. Although it hasn't been done often, some have even resurrected posts going back a year or two.

You can also start a new thread with the subject you are interested in and refer back to the old discussion.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:11 am**

Shelley @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:12 am wrote:As a solution possibility, Sally- I thought your theory was pretty darned good, So many undiagnosed people were walking around in those days, who today would be medicated, in therapy, in analysis, or a sanitarium or rehab center.

With psychiatry in its infancy- the maladies of the mind were passed off as spells, moodiness, oddness, disturbed, anti-social, peculiar, head-strong, temperamental, weak constitution, "softness of the brain", high-strung, nervousness, bileous, congested, dissipated, and other descriptions when in fact it was a case for a real disorder, chemical imbalance, or something neurological or pathological. All of those terms I got from patent medicine bottles of the era.

The stigma of being sent to an institution was so great, no wonder prominent families wanted to keep it quiet. And then again, they were not very nice places to be, unless the family could afford one of the high-priced sanitariums .

That's a good point, Shelley, not much was understood at the time about psychiatry. Nowadays we look at mental disorders as a medical condition, back then it was passed off as one extreme of an overall norm. It was probably stigmatized because it wasn't always recognized as involuntary behavior, some may have considered it voluntary which demonstrated a weakness of some kind. Perhaps this is why the Victorians seemed "stiff" by today's standards, it demonstrated strength to them.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:25 am**

I don't think many people had a grasp on psychiatric conditions years ago. Even lately- when I was growing up there was a lady living next door to our family who was living a normal life for many years. But about the time I became a teenager she started behaving oddly. She grew reclusive, paranoid and stopped talking to my mother and dad. She would put a light on outside her house which would shine on our driveway at night when she saw one of us there. She put a dummy in the upstairs window to make it look like someone was watching us all the time. This was certainly crazy behavior, but my mother would never believe it when I told her that. She had it in her head that, in order to be thought of as nuts, one had to be totally wacko, swinging from the chandeliers or whatever. Since she saw this woman still functioning in her home, doing chores, gardening, etc., she couldn't believe this woman could be labeled as psychotic. So when people back in 1892 saw Lizzie acting only slightly odd they just wrote it off as being peculiar and didn't look more deeply into the possibility that she could have a real thought disorder.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:00 pm**

pre menstrual syndrome is a possibility. Females are far more likely to kill during the week before their period. Lizzie may have menstruated closely after the murders. Another possiblity is malnutrition. One cannot survive on pears! The combination of the PMS, low blood sugar and malnutrition could affect judgment.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:11 pm**

Harry @ Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:12 am wrote:There's no set time limit on responding to posts. Although it hasn't been done often, some have even resurrected posts going back a year or two.

You can also start a new thread with the subject you are interested in and refer back to the old discussion.

It is better to search by topic name to see if it has been covered.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:16 pm**

Angel @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:25 am wrote:I don't think many people had a grasp on psychiatric conditions years ago. Even lately- when I was growing up there was a lady living next door to our family who was living a normal life for many years. But about the time I became a teenager she started behaving oddly. She grew reclusive, paranoid and stopped talking to my mother and dad. She would put a light on outside her house which would shine on our driveway at night when she saw one of us there. She put a dummy in the upstairs window to make it look like someone was watching us all the time. This was certainly crazy behavior, but my mother would never believe it when I told her that. She had it in her head that, in order to be thought of as nuts, one had to be totally wacko, swinging from the chandeliers or whatever. Since she saw this woman still functioning in her home, doing chores, gardening, etc., she couldn't believe this woman could be labeled as psychotic. So when people back in 1892 saw Lizzie acting only slightly odd they just wrote it off as being peculiar and didn't look more deeply into the possibility that she could have a real thought disorder.

"Psychiatry"??? Don't make me laugh too much.
Hardening of the arteries affects the brain, and other parts of the body. This can explain the crankiness of the aged. [Certainly not me!]
There are other physical things that can affect behavior. Putting up a dummy was used in a Sherlock Holmes story, a rational response to a problem. An outside light to scare away prowlers? SOP, an elderly female neighbor on the nest block does that.

Can a child really diagnose a neighbor??? That's what you are claiming!!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:10 pm**

Instead of reacting to bad manners and insults made on this forum, I find it a lot more satisfying to click on the "report" button. Nothing may be done with this, but it gives me some satisfaction that the powers that be will see how offensive things can get and how destructive it is to the forum. Others may want to follow suit.

Click

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:09 pm**

Angel @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:10 pm wrote:Instead of reacting to bad manners and insults made on this forum, I find it a lot more satisfying to click on the "report" button. Nothing may be done with this, but it gives me some satisfaction that the powers that be will see how offensive things can get and how destructive it is to the forum. Others may want to follow suit.

Click

DITTO

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:56 pm**

Sorry, I don't know how to put in the quote or message I'm answering but it was listed on Jan 8th. I wasn't going to post a reply but it's really bothering me. Ray, your answer to that story about the incest survivor who shot her parents---it is apparent you have no knowledge not to mention compassion for people who have survived this act. You were curious about her friends, church relations & others who could have helped her out of this mess!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. This type of abuse even now the victim feels totally helpless and depending on the age feels it's their own fault. Never mind being threatened if they tell anyone. Today people are more open and it is maybe easier to get help even though the first step is extremly difficult. I can't imagine what would have happened in 1892 is a story like this became common knowledge. If I offended anyone by posting this you have my apologies. Also want to say thank you for letting me vent for a minute.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:24 pm**

Nadzieja...when you want to quote a post...just click on the "quote" button in the upper right hand corner of that post.

A new window will open...you will see the message you want to quote with quote brackets around it...just add your comments after the last quote bracket and submit and voila !...you have quoted and commented on the post you wanted to.

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:27 pm**

Nadzieja @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:23 pm wrote:Hi, Just want to check on the rules of the forum. I've been reading back on some of the messages and wondered is there a time limit on answering any of them. Do you just keep it current within a few days or can anyone reference a message and give an opinion?

Feel free to dig up an old post that you are interested in, Lorraine. I do it now and then. There is a wealth of knowledge in the archives that some of us have not seen yet. So grab a shovel and dig away. And don't hesitate to start your own threads. A simple search can uncover some real juicy tid-bits. Have fun.

By the way, don't let RayS get under your skin. He is the local hornet's nest, a major pain. I usually skip over his posts. We really shouldn't feed the animals, it just encourages them. Get it?

-1bigsteve (o:

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:27 am**

Thanks for the instructions theebmonique, I wrote them down so I wouldn' forget!! Sometimes a senior moment clicks in. And thanks bigsteve for the support. I've found that reading back on the archives of the posts so fascinating that sometimes I lose track of time. I just love them. Got to get to work, so have a good day everybody.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:44 am**

Nadzieja @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:56 pm wrote:Sorry, I don't know how to put in the quote or message I'm answering but it was listed on Jan 8th. I wasn't going to post a reply but it's really bothering me. Ray, your answer to that story about the incest survivor who shot her parents---it is apparent you have no knowledge not to mention compassion for people who have survived this act. You were curious about her friends, church relations & others who could have helped her out of this mess!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. This type of abuse even now the victim feels totally helpless and depending on the age feels it's their own fault. Never mind being threatened if they tell anyone. Today people are more open and it is maybe easier to get help even though the first step is extremly difficult. I can't imagine what would have happened in 1892 is a story like this became common knowledge. If I offended anyone by posting this you have my apologies. Also want to say thank you for letting me vent for a minute.

Actually, that was my story, about a friend of mine in High School. When I read Ray's response, I was infuriated by his attitude and wanted to post a scathing reply, but then I figured it would just fan the flames. Better to just ignore him. Ray is so....well, I don't have to say it...we all know.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:14 pm**

Nadzieja @ Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:56 pm wrote:Sorry, I don't know how to put in the quote or message I'm answering but it was listed on Jan 8th. I wasn't going to post a reply but it's really bothering me. Ray, your answer to that story about the incest survivor who shot her parents---it is apparent you have no knowledge not to mention compassion for people who have survived this act. You were curious about her friends, church relations & others who could have helped her out of this mess!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. This type of abuse even now the victim feels totally helpless and depending on the age feels it's their own fault. Never mind being threatened if they tell anyone. Today people are more open and it is maybe easier to get help even though the first step is extremly difficult. I can't imagine what would have happened in 1892 is a story like this became common knowledge. If I offended anyone by posting this you have my apologies. Also want to say thank you for letting me vent for a minute.

Thank you for your honest comments on incest. I know of no such cases.

But they have school counselors, etc. I once heard of this on a TV show. The family lived in a remote area, few friends, etc. It all came out when the Dad was killed. (Or was this just smart tactics by a slick defense lawyer?)

Arnold Brown has a page where he says parents then could do just about anything to their children w/o any interference. But then neighbors and relations were much closer in those days too. So who knows?

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:23 pm**

Nothing. Nothing made Lizzie kill, because Lizzie killed noone. What made her half brother Bill kill? Thats a question worth examining. But of course thats not the sexy answer,like child abuse or lesbians or gay uncles or barnyard animals, its just the truth.
By the way, what was it that made Lizbeth install bars on the lower windows at Maplecroft? Fear of lesbian pear trees having incestuous sex with Irish maids?

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:13 pm**

Steveads2004 @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:23 pm wrote:Nothing. Nothing made Lizzie kill, because Lizzie killed noone. What made her half brother Bill kill? Thats a question worth examining. But of course thats not the sexy answer,like child abuse or lesbians or gay uncles or barnyard animals, its just the truth.
By the way, what was it that made Lizbeth install bars on the lower windows at Maplecroft? Fear of lesbian pear trees having incestuous sex with Irish maids?

Wow Steve...I am sorry you are so angry, but gay-bashing has no place in this forum. I hope you will refrain these types of comments in the future.

Tracy...

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:19 pm**

Bashing? How do you find my observations to be bashing? I would say insinuating or claiming that long dead people led a deviant lifestyle with no hint of proof would qualify as Dead-Bashing. Of course thats not all hip and stylish like gayness...Deviance leads to hell.

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:22 pm**

Steveads2004 @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:19 pm wrote:Bashing? How do you find my observations to be bashing? I would say insinuating or claiming that long dead people led a deviant lifestyle with no hint of proof would qualify as Dead-Bashing. Of course thats not all hip and stylish like gayness...Deviance leads to hell.

Like I said in another thread, you have a right to your opinion, but remember, it is an opinion. Suggesting that being gay is being deviant is JUST an opinion, no matter the source from which you get it.

If you believe Billy Borden was Lizzie's half-brother, what and where is your provenance for that idea ?

Tracy...

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:27 pm**

Dictionary definition

de·vi·ant /ˈdiviənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-vee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

Therefore, unless we are having an enormouse decline in the human population rate, homosexuality IS deviant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL déviant- (s. of déviāns, prp.

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:42 pm**

Steveads2004 @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:27 pm wrote:Dictionary definition

de·vi·ant /ˈdiviənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-vee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

Therefore, unless we are having an enormouse decline in the human population rate, homosexuality IS deviant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < LL déviant- (s. of déviāns, prp.

Doesn't this describe your two previous posts?

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:02 pm**

One word of advise for several in this forum and others - IGNORE. It's becoming SO tedious to have to read the replies to certain posts, it just keeps the ongoing "off-topic" going.

I learned long ago that the best way to combat annoying posts, comments, people etc is to SIMPLY IGNORE THEM. Instead, some in this forum have decided to become the "post-police" and make an issue of EVERY comment that they find offensive, going on and on about the post, and in some cases responding -rather hypocritically - in the SAME manner OR WORSE the so-called original "offensive post"!?! Give it (and us) a break!! Really the apparent sensitivity of some posters is ridiculous, to the point that it would almost appear that they "lie in wait" for the next post from a specific individual. Go ahead and Report the "offensive" posts to the administrator if you must, but otherwise please stop wasting time and board space with your own come-backs and personal attacks. Jeese!!!

Posted: **Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:41 pm**

sguthmann @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:02 pm wrote:One word of advise for several in this forum and others - IGNORE. It's becoming SO tedious to have to read the replies to certain posts, it just keeps the ongoing "off-topic" going.

I learned long ago that the best way to combat annoying posts, comments, people etc is to SIMPLY IGNORE THEM. Instead, some in this forum have decided to become the "post-police" and make an issue of EVERY comment that they find offensive, going on and on about the post, and in some cases responding -rather hypocritically - in the SAME manner OR WORSE the so-called original "offensive post"!?! Give it (and us) a break!! Really the apparent sensitivity of some posters is ridiculous, to the point that it would almost appear that they "lie in wait" for the next post from a specific individual. Go ahead and Report the "offensive" posts to the administrator if you must, but otherwise please stop wasting time and board space with your own come-backs and personal attacks. Jeese!!!

sguthmann, I apologize if my remarks about Steve's posts bothered you. I just felt that his comments regarding gays and lesbians were not what this forum is about.

You are right about going off topic. Maybe we both/all should ignore posts that bother us ? Sometimes it works...sometimes not.

Again, I apologize if you found my remarks offensive and for my going off topic.

Tracy...

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:11 pm**

If one accuses Brother Billy is that considered "straight bashing"?

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:02 pm**

rgreen4411 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:11 am wrote:If one accuses Brother Billy is that considered "straight bashing"?

Was he straight ? Does his preference affect the case ?

Tracy...

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:03 pm**

theebmonique @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:02 pm wrote:
rgreen4411 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:11 am wrote:If one accuses Brother Billy is that considered "straight bashing"?
Was he straight ? Does his preference affect the case ?

Tracy...

And...do we even know for sure he is 'brother' Billy ? I haven't yet seen proof, ie; a birth certificate.

Tracy...

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:17 pm**

You are correct. It would not be an issue unless it contribuited to motive.

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:37 pm**

rgreen4411 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:11 pm wrote:If one accuses Brother Billy is that considered "straight bashing"?

No, the personal habits of Billy were never mentioned by Brown.
But you can certainly do research if there was a love relationship there. That could explain a murder, as in other cases.

I don't know how often this is mentioned in True Crime, as in the Ann Rule books.
One book in the True Crime section is about the Winnie Ruth Judd Trunk Murder Case. (I didn't know that!)

Posted: **Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:30 pm**

theebmonique, your comments did not offend me and no apology is needed.

i just wanted to comment on "the state of things" in general, and suggest that we try to ignore posts that annoy us and/or just report them to admin. i am just tired of reading the back and forth posts that really aren't constructive to the topics at hand. my post was not meant to single you out, or anyone else for that matter, but just to express my feelings in general that i think we all have much more interesting and constructive things to post to the group.

i still think that this is an extraordinary group of minds and perspectives, and i really enjoy the diversity as long as it's expressed in a respectful manner. you have great insight and i look forward to your postings.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:10 pm**

We would all do well if we confined ourselves to the subject matter: What made Lizzie kill? I can understand rage, but I can't understand two incidents of rage on the same day with a time span in between. i can also understand pre-meditated murder, but wonder why a female would choose an ax for a planned crime. Then again, how else would a female kill two adults larger than herself?

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:48 pm**

She could have stepped out of her room and gave Abby a little nudge down the stairs......it would have, more then likely, been looked at as an accident. Then she wouldn't have had to kill her father. Swinging a hatchet at someones head, is too up close and personal, not to mention messy. I can't comprehend a woman doing it either, if it was rage that drove her to do Abby, you'd think that when it was over she'd have been just sick to her very soul, not repeating it again, to her father an hour later..............just makes no sense.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:58 pm**

shakiboo @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:48 pm wrote:She could have stepped out of her room and gave Abby a little nudge down the stairs......it would have, more then likely, been looked at as an accident. Then she wouldn't have had to kill her father. Swinging a hatchet at someones head, is too up close and personal, not to mention messy. I can't comprehend a woman doing it either, if it was rage that drove her to do Abby, you'd think that when it was over she'd have been just sick to her very soul, not repeating it again, to her father an hour later..............just makes no sense.

The lack of evidence against Lizzie or Bridget says neither did it. It was out of character for either.
So WHY do some persist in this accusation? Because of some internal daemons?

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:59 pm**

rgreen4411 @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:10 pm wrote:We would all do well if we confined ourselves to the subject matter: What made Lizzie kill? I can understand rage, but I can't understand two incidents of rage on the same day with a time span in between. i can also understand pre-meditated murder, but wonder why a female would choose an ax for a planned crime. Then again, how else would a female kill two adults larger than herself?

The lack of evidence against Lizzie or Bridget says neither did it. It was out of character for either.
So WHY do some persist in this accusation? Because of some internal daemons?

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:07 pm**

The time frame casts suspicion on Lizzie. Andrew came home at 10:30 am. Lizzie left him alone at 10:45 am. By 11 AM lizzie was hollering murder!
Unless the clocks were inaccurate which is a possiblility.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:11 pm**

rgreen4411 @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:07 pm wrote:The time frame casts suspicion on Lizzie. Andrew came home at 10:30 am. Lizzie left him alone at 10:45 am. By 11 AM lizzie was hollering murder!
Unless the clocks were inaccurate which is a possiblility.

So, you do know quite a lot about this subject. From your first post I thought you just stumbled onto this site.

Assuming the accuracy of the timing, there is plenty of time for an intruder or Unknown Subject to commit the second murder.
Bridget was up in her room, or was she? Two possible known suspects.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:56 pm**

Yes- many , many people have wondered why a good shove down those killer front stairs was not the way to go. Of course, one could not be sure your victim would die. Then you could get stuck with a bedridden Abby for 20 years!

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:11 pm**

That's true, but I bet our lizzie wouldn't have been stuck for long! lol

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:22 pm**

The choice of a hatchet for the crime has a couple of advantages. It has been pointed out that it would kill quickly and would overcome a disparity in physical size. It would also tend to indicate a male perpetrator. Lizzie was aware of the gender prejudices at the time.

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:08 am**

Lizzie's period ended Wednesday, Aug. 3. It was stipulated at the trial. PMS would have been the week prior to the beginning of her period- say around July 21st thru July 27, approx. If she was prone to that.

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:41 pm**

As usual, Ray sums it all up...Lizzie was an involved bystander...Bridget was an ignorant background piece. The only main players in the house that day were Abby, Andrew and Billy.

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:13 pm**

Steveads2004 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:41 pm wrote:As usual, Ray sums it all up...Lizzie was an involved bystander...Bridget was an ignorant background piece. The only main players in the house that day were Abby, Andrew and Billy.

I agree that Lizzie was involved. Whether or not she was a bystander is debatable. And I agree that Bridget was pretty clueless. However, the problem that I have with Brown's theory is that there is no evidence that William Borden was Andrew's son. None whatsoever. Fall River had an abundance of Bordens. Why pick William Borden and claim that he was Andrew's illegitimate son? Brown's theory is based on a set of memoirs that no one else has ever seen. What happened to them?

Lizzie was acquitted because there was not enough evidence to convict her. The only evidence they had was circumstantial; she was the only person in the house that morning other than Bridget, who had been outside when Abby was killed. It's hard to convict on circumstantial evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean she was innocent. It just means they didn't catch her standing over the body with a weapon in her hand, or find blood on her clothing. Even if they had found blood on her clothes, a good defense attorney would have been able to claim she got it on her clothes while examining Andrew's body.

While Brown's theory may sound good on paper, there is no evidence to support it. If there is, I'd love to hear it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:50 pm**

Steveads2004 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:41 pm wrote:As usual, Ray sums it all up...Lizzie was an involved bystander...Bridget was an ignorant background piece. The only main players in the house that day were Abby, Andrew and Billy.

Maybe Ray is using some kind of weird math to do his summing, because I have yet to see a copy of/a source of where to find HH's memoirs...and for proof of Billy Borden's relationship to Andrew. We have asked...and he has not yet provided those things. We are still waiting...

Tracy...

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:32 pm**

theebmonique @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:50 pm wrote:
Steveads2004 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:41 pm wrote:As usual, Ray sums it all up...Lizzie was an involved bystander...Bridget was an ignorant background piece. The only main players in the house that day were Abby, Andrew and Billy.
Maybe Ray is using some kind of weird math to do his summing, because I have yet to see a copy of/a source of where to find HH's memoirs...and for proof of Billy Borden's relationship to Andrew. We have asked...and he has not yet provided those things. We are still waiting...

Tracy...

Actually Lizzie was outside the house at TOD. Lubinsky's testimony.

My "Proof of Brown's Theory" parts 2 explain why it was a relative who was shielded. Part 4 provides another explanation for the shielding.
If I use the name "Billy" its because he was a relative, a farmer (used to slaughtering animals), and a crazy bastard (to use impolite language).

Joseph Bosco's "Blood Will Tell" gives the alleged? illegitamacy of the two men convicted for the baseball bat murders. Just a coincidence? I think that gossip from people could tick some people off, being blamed for a condition they had no control over. Over time, a sensitive person.
Have YOU ever known of such cases in your past?

PS
I am not a native of Fall River, nor do I have the time and money to do personal research, like Arnold Brown. I would welcome the efforts of any honest person to perform a parallel search into those papers.

I hope the 'Lizzie Dunnit' crowd haven't destroyed these papers.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:17 pm**

I don't believe there were ever any memoirs, otherwise they would have surfaced by now. Perhaps Brown just "interviewed" people, and called it their memoirs.

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:22 am**

I see no reason why Lizzie could not be outside and seen by Lubinsky and then instantly be inside and kill Andrew in 45 seconds or so. It's not like we have exact time of death in these killings, as you must agree, Ray.
Lubinsky's quick peek at a woman as he drove downhill with a fresh team means nothing.

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:44 pm**

Kat @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:22 am wrote:I see no reason why Lizzie could not be outside and seen by Lubinsky and then instantly be inside and kill Andrew in 45 seconds or so. It's not like we have exact time of death in these killings, as you must agree, Ray.
Lubinsky's quick peek at a woman as he drove downhill with a fresh team means nothing.

You are 100% correct. But it does confirm her story about being outside at TOD, AND, limits the amount of time needed to hide a bloody dress and the murder weapon.

NO bloody clothes (blood spatter), no weapon found = proof of innocence. (This applied to Dr. Sam Sheppard, but also to Lizzie and OJ.) Rick Geary's book would be better if the back cover showed Dr. Sam Sheppard, not OJ. Dr. Sam was at the crime scene; OJ was picked up by the limo driver at 11pm and could not have done it. (The rich pay others to do their dirty work.)

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

"What Made Lizzie Kill?"

Why Lizzie killed.

what made lizzie kill?

Re: what made lizzie kill?