Emma's Beau.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:44 pm

There have been many theories brought forth that claim Lizzie may have had a secret lover who may have committed the deed. There really isn't any evidence that Lizzie ever had a boyfriend. In fact, there are statements made to the newspapers from people who know her well saying just the opposite. I guess it's not totally impossible that it could have happened in this way, but in my opinion it is not probable. If these theories can be put forth what about the theory that Emma had a boyfriend? This could explain her abscense during the murders.Maybe she did not want to implicate herself, or maybe she wanted to give herself an alibi. Maybe this is why she did not rush home to the scene, she already had a pretty good idea of what had happened and was in no hurry. She could've secrety invited John Morse to the house to keep an eye on things for her. This could even be the reason she ultimately moved out of Maplecroft. Maybe Lizzie found out that Emma knew what had happened, or possibly set it up to happen. Emma did say that things were more cordial between Lizzie and Abby than they were between her and Abby.Emma's boyfriend could be the man seen by Dr. Handy. This could also be the mysterious man Lizzie saw during the night. Emma could tell him where to hide, what the routines of the household were, where the stash the weapon, any number of things. I do not say I think any of these things are what really happened, I'm just throwing out some ideas. I noticed there really weren't too many new threads lately, so I decided to start one

.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:52 pm

Well it could happen but Lizzie would have known.
Perhaps it happened that way but why would her boyfriend do it he had no motive.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:23 pm

Why would either one of their boyfriends do it? But I guess the idea that maybe Andrew and Abby didn't want them to see each other anymore could be one reason.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:29 pm

Well that would be a reason.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:23 pm

I hadn't thought about Emma and a boyfriend. I guess that book drove the whole idea out of my head! The book that has Emma drunk at inns in the outlying areas cavorting with men.

When you mentioned it as a reason that Emma moved out of Maplecroft, you hit a chord. Because Emma reportedly said "The happenings at French Street that caused me to leave I must refuse to talk about. I did not go until conditions became absolutely unbearable...the Rev. A. E. Buck...said it was imperative that I should make my home elsewhere," could mean she herself was the cause of the tensions and strife. Emma never said it was Lizzie's doings which forced her to leave. 1913 is the year of this "Interview," and Buck had been dead for over a year when Emma finally did leave in 1905. So the drastic nature of it being imperative that Emma serparate from Lizzie immediately just doesn't add up. It seems like Emma left when it was finally convenient for her to do so.

This makes her sound more *calculating* than fearful.

However, the town left Emma pretty much alone about any scandals, yet dogged Lizzie until she died.
I think if there was a boyfriend, anywhere, we would have a hint?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:38 pm

Yeah wouldn't she have married him.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:05 pm

Well, which girl appears to be better *wife* material?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:11 pm

I don't know which one I never met them.
lol

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:31 pm

Kat @ Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:05 pm wrote:Well, which girl appears to be better *wife* material?

Well I am not sure, taken side by side, I would say Emma. She is more quiet and retiring. Lizzie was more outspoken and more of a handful. That is not something men looked for in a wife back then

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:33 pm

Witty response, Liz.

But a difficult ponder for any man - to marry Lizzie or Emma. Which? Hard choice in weighing attributes of marital bliss. If I were a man and HAD to make such a choice, I would opt for Lizzie. At least we could go out to dinner, dine on tripe, see a play, and have intelligent dialog afterwards before we settled down to read our books. With Emma......I'd die of bordom.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:38 pm

Lol I'd pick Emma shes more of a quiet type so we have something in common

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:31 pm

It depends on the man...

A man who liked the finer things in life might have done better with Lizbeth while for some reason I can only imagine Emma as the 2nd wife to some dreary widower with gout and a cane he pounds on the floor to alert her to "come a'runnin"....

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:49 pm

Audrey @ Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:31 pm wrote:
"come a'runnin"....

Cute Audrey. LOL

I just imagine Emma sleeping and him pounding on the floor above. She wakes and hurries up the stairs, then all a sudden she falls down the stairs and shatters her hip.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:39 pm

What was the reason for Lizzie and Emma never getting married and moving out? I have never understood this. Was it something to do with their personalities? Was it their looks? They certainly came from a good family. Considering they lived in an era when women were groomed to be someone's wife from the time they were very small, this is truly puzzling. Did Abby and Andrew stifle their prospects in some way? Did Abby, being married late in life herself, not know how to prepare the girls properly? It is not even known if Emma ever had any suitors. This is truly a mystery to me.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:55 pm

I have often said that I think Abby lacked the skills to coach in the girls in ways to enchant a man. Can you imagine her coaching Emma in the art of making a clever remark or showing Lizzie how to cock her head just so and smile at a man to make him willing to do her bidding at her very request?

Also-- the main thing that I always believe is that all people exude an energy. Call it an aura if you want. When you think of Lizzie and Emma what words pop into your head?

Lizzie: Manly, selfish, conniving..

Emma: Boring, mousy, plain...

Try it and see.. Have we believed what we read or can we sense their energy?

For me-- the way I feel about them makes me not curious at all about why they never had a serious relationship.... Ick.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:06 am

Okay we'll try it your way.
Lizzie: people person, center of attention, rich, pretty
Emma: quiet, shy, timid, rich, boring

prussicacid · Post by **prussicacid** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:48 am

It is strange that two woman from one of the wealthiest families in town were not snapped up for marriage. While being no beauties they were presentable, well educated and travelled young women.

Was the prospect of having to get past the grim Pa Borden too much for potential suitors or was there an unpleasant trait to the girls that deterred any courting.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:11 pm

Audrey @ Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:55 pm wrote:I have often said that I think Abby lacked the skills to coach in the girls in ways to enchant a man. Can you imagine her coaching Emma in the art of making a clever remark or showing Lizzie how to cock her head just so and smile at a man to make him willing to do her bidding at her very request?

Also-- the main thing that I always believe is that all people exude an energy. Call it an aura if you want. When you think of Lizzie and Emma what words pop into your head?

Lizzie: Manly, selfish, conniving..

Emma: Boring, mousy, plain...

Try it and see.. Have we believed what we read or can we sense their energy?

But the family name, the money, and the fact that many women who probably had the same qualities did in fact get married still makes me wonder why no man wanted to tread these waters looking for marriage. If Emma had gotten married I can see her being subservient to her husband as a woman was supposed to be. I can see her being a quiet and content homemaker. She would have made a better wife than Lizzie simply because she would have been content to stay home and take care of things, and do what it was her husband expected of her. Lizzie would not, in my opinion, have let any man dominate her or tell her what to do. I think this may have been at least part of the reason Lizzie did not find a husband. I think men sensed that Lizzie would be the one to wear the pants in this particular kind of relationship, and it put them off.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:06 pm

Emma and Lizzie were well educated? Did Lizzie get her GED while I wasn't looking?

diana · Post by **diana** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:49 pm

Through a correspondence school, perhaps? Maybe she came across an advertisement in the back of that old Harper's magazine ...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:33 pm

Lizzie was well traveled.. Emma was not.

Did Emma finish high school?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:22 pm

Sometimes it sounds like the differences between Emma and Lizzie are basically the differences between Scarlet O'Hara and Melanie What-ever-her-name-was (Brooks?).

Whereas Scarlet had a wild beauty Lizzie had the money background, so that's about even to a man back then.
But these were fictional women. So, as a guy prussicacid- what would you see in either Borden girl that was worth marrying? Or what would turn you off?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:31 pm

Melanie Hamilton Wilkes (Olivia de Havilland)

Tracy...

prussicacid · Post by **prussicacid** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:58 am

What does anyone find attractive about anyone else ? Monroe and Di Maggio? Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones? Fred and Wilma?

I'm just saying that on paper Lizzie and Emma coming from a moneyed background had as good a prospect of finding a partner as any other women in Victorian Fall River society.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:59 am

prussicacid @ Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:58 am wrote:What does anyone find attractive about anyone else ? Monroe and Di Maggio? Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones? Fred and Wilma?

I'm just saying that on paper Lizzie and Emma coming from a moneyed background had as good a prospect of finding a partner as any other women in Victorian Fall River society.

Marilyn Monroe and Arthur Miller come to mind for me when it comes to Monroe. I never did fully understand what brought these two together. They were both artists of a sort, but they basically had nothing in common. Joan Crawford and Alfred Steele were never what I would call a love match either. I think theirs was more a marriage of convenience. He was chairman of the board of Pepsi Cola at the time of their marriage. She got to be the spokeswoman for Pepsi cola, and he got to have Joan Crawford as the spokeswoman for Pepsi cola. But she also ran him into the ground financially. Joan Crawford had a lot of the mental and emotional traits I think Lizzie possessed. Yet, she was very attractive to men. Of course it was a different era. I guess the reason Emma and Lizzie didn't marry will always be a mystery.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:13 pm

If there was a shadowy boyfriend in the background that did the killings, whether it was Lizzie's boyfriend or Emma's, what would their motive have been? I know someone who is hell bent on this theory. I don't quite understand it. If it was indeed the fact that Andrew made himself an obstacle in the way of their being together, why then after the murders did they not BE together? Doesn't that rather take the purpose out of committing them in the first place?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:51 pm

Yes that is a good point and I have no answer for it but I don't htink that is what happened.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:24 pm

Allen @ Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:13 pm wrote:If there was a shadowy boyfriend in the background that did the killings, whether it was Lizzie's boyfriend or Emma's, what would their motive have been? I know someone who is hell bent on this theory. I don't quite understand it. If it was indeed the fact that Andrew made himself an obstacle in the way of their being together, why then after the murders did they not BE together? Doesn't that rather take the purpose out of committing them in the first place?

I agree....

Not only that.....

Any man who loved a woman enough to kill for her would never let her sit in jail... Never allow her to be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of her life...

Had she manipulated a man into doing it, like some bad made for TV movie--- I think it would have come out. You do know what they say about a secret?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:53 pm

Well, prussicacid- I was asking you specifically as to what traits in these girls you would like or dislike. I guess if your answer is a generalization, I have to accept that. A guys insights into our Borden girls was what I was after.

It would seem as if Andrew would love at least one of his daughters off his hands and off his financial support. I think back then the eldest was supposed to marry first, but that might have been more of a stricter rule in Victorian British society.
Would he have had to pay a dowry?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:02 am

Here are some "Emma Did It" theories I've collected over time from sundry sources. Stef and I, of course, had discussed the possibility that Emma did it, and how she might have done it, just like the excerpt of the letter below, before we ever had the Knowlton book. But this Scotts lady puts the idea very well, in1892!.

Emma Did It Theories

Rebello
138

"Emma Did It

Oursler, Jr., Fulton, Behold This Dreamer! An Autobiography, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964, 366-367.

Fulton Oursler, in his autobiography, recalled a conversation he had with Louis Howe, Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest political advisor and friend. Mr. Howe was married to Grace Borden Hartley of Fall River. She was a cousin of Lizzie's and a major benefactor of Lizzie's estate. Mr. Howe told Fulton that 'Lizzy' [sic] didn't kill her parents. It was Emma who 'stole back from Marion' [sic] [Massachusetts] and killed Abby and Andrew. Emma was 'crazy' and suffered from 'epileptic fits' according to Mr. Howe. 'Lizzy discovered Emma and sent her back to Marion.' "

--This would be prior to 1933 when Pearson's Legends of Lizzie was published containing Howe's theory.
.......................
"Frank Spiering, author of Lizzie (1984), believed Emma committed the murders."
................
(Knowlton Papers:) Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

"HK062
Letter, handwritten in ink, enclosed in holograph envelope."

"September 5th /92
Scotland -Mass - United States -
To
District Attorney Knowlton &c &c
New Bedford -
Dear Sir:

"..... I am no 'crank' - but the daughter of an English Chief Justice - whose name has been known in almost every household in the British Islands - as well as in the British Provinces - who has filled most important offices - the first ones signed by 'King William' the Fourth - His last ones by Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria -

He has been Judge of Probate - Judge in Chancery &c &c -and been twice a member of the Legislature - and has written most valuable Law books - used in every Court in the Dominion of Canada - whose Judgments have never been appealed against but in one instance when it was taken to the Privy Councel in England when his Judgment was con-
firmed.

You will most naturally ask - what has all this to do with me - or the matter you wish to speak of - only this - to shew you that the daughter of such a man would be likely to have common sense - if no other kind -...

After reading the papers day by day - those of them I got - for I am sorry to say I've missed some - my first impression was - and now again is - that 'Emma' was the guilty party - But you say she was away therefore could not do it -You know better than myself whether she could bridge the distance in the time –

Remember she was in the house of an old couple who would be likely to retire early - or she - 'Emma' could have made an excuse for so doing on the plea of having to go out early in the morning to visit friends or shop &c &c and not being suspected she would not be watched by the old couple - but would get home in the afternoon unsuspected - and not
having visited any friends in the meantime they would not enquire for her thinking - if they knew of it - that she was at the old couple's -

As I say my first impression was that it was 'Emma' not 'Lizzie' - nor 'Morse' nor 'Bridget' I never for one moment - nor do I believe it now - that it was either a Thief -maniac - or outsider - It seems incredible to think it - and as for the supposition that it was two maniacs that is simply absurd - No two maniacs could plan and hold together so long as to do it- it is most unreasonable to think it - At same time it may be possible there were two engaged in the horrible butchery - or a knowledge of it by 'Lizzie' and her endeavour to screen her sister -...

Now I want you to pay attention to what 'Dr. Handy' says - The mans whole appearance and walk was most peculiar - That he had a very full white forehead - To see that his hat or cap must have been well off his forehead - Now in such extreme heat - as we were then having - was that not rather strange? Would he not have been more inclined to shade his face - unless he had something concealed in his hat -a 'hatchet' without a handle -the latter could easily have been burnt - Again - if it were 'Emma' disguised in man's apparel would not her walk be peculiar - especially if she were agitated - and knowing the 'Dr.' also and fearing to be recognized would turn aside in walking - and not accustomed to the clothes she would feel very strange in them - If it were 'Emma' could she not have left Fair Haven in her own clothes gone into some wood and hid them - then returned and made away with the others-...

I wish to say this - that while 'Dr. Handy' thought it his duty to tell what he saw I have a suspicion that he did not tell you he recognized 'Emma' for it was not his duty - he might think - to betray his old friend's daughter - though clearly so to put you on the trail-..."
.........
.... " I remain
most respectfully
'Mrs. H. F. Worrall' "

..........................
Inquest
Emma
111+
Q. Did you know of anybody who was not on good terms with your step mother?
A. No Sir, I dont think I did.
Q. Or of any trouble she had ever had with anybody?
A. No Sir.
Q. Were the relations between you and your step mother cordial?
A. I dont know how to answer that. We always spoke.
Q. That might be, and not be at all cordial.
A. Well, perhaps I should say no then.
Q. Were the relations between your sister Lizzie and your mother, what you would call cordial?
A. I think more than they were with me.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:48 am

Thank you someone else has finally pointed that out, and my book says she did it to.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:10 am

What evidence are you using of her guilt Liz?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:55 pm

That she was not cordial with either parent and Lizzie was.

Motive for Emma
None for Lizzie

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:31 pm

[quote="Kat @ Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:02 am"]Here are some "Emma Did It" theories I've collected over time from sundry sources. Stef and I, of course, had discussed the possibility that Emma did it, and how she might have done it, just like the excerpt of the letter below, before we ever had the Knowlton book. But this Scotts lady puts the idea very well, in1892!.

Emma Did It Theories

Rebello
138

"Emma Did It

Oursler, Jr., Fulton, Behold This Dreamer! An Autobiography, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964, 366-367.

Fulton Oursler, in his autobiography, recalled a conversation he had with Louis Howe, Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest political advisor and friend. Mr. Howe was married to Grace Borden Hartley of Fall River. She was a cousin of Lizzie's and a major benefactor of Lizzie's estate. Mr. Howe told Fulton that 'Lizzy' [sic] didn't kill her parents. It was Emma who 'stole back from Marion' [sic] [Massachusetts] and killed Abby and Andrew. Emma was 'crazy' and suffered from 'epileptic fits' according to Mr. Howe. 'Lizzy discovered Emma and sent her back to Marion.' "

I've read several bios on FDR which prominently feature Louis Howe. And I've read and done research (including in Fall River) on Grace's husband, Louis Howe. He was a man of ascerbic wit and tongue in cheek humor. His suggestion of Emma as the killer was subtle tongue in cheek, IMHO.

Had Lizzie lived longer she may have had an opportunity to be an overnight guest at the White House. Louis Howe was Assistant to FDR who was Secretary of the Navy at the time of her death (1927). When FDR was President, Grace often stayed in the White House with Louis, but more often lived in Fall River, i.e., Horseneck Beach, a place Lizzie most assuredly visited.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:45 pm

But then there is Pearson's opinion on Howe's *theory*:

More Studies In Murder, "Legends Of Lizzie", Edmund Pearson, NY, 1936, p121-131:

"A laborious theory has reached me from a person in high place, who is related by marriage to the Bordens. He graciously acquainted me with what is called 'the family view' of the crime. It is that not Miss Lizzie but her sister, Miss Emma Borden, was the guilty one.

Miss Emma, ten years her sister's senior, was in Fairhaven on the day of the murders. The new theory rests on the belief that there was a conspiracy between the sisters, both of whom wished to keep the stepmother from inheriting their father's property. Up to this point, it is all probable.

But the further idea was that Miss Lizzie stayed at home, since she could clear herself of suspicion. It is not explained why they were sure of this - for she utterly failed to clear herself of suspicion. And Miss Emma, pretending to be in Fairhaven, really slipped away early on that August morning, with the hatchet in her little reticule. She came unseen to Fall River, walked to the family home, undiscovered though she traversed a street of lynx-eyed neighbors, killed the victims, unobserved by the servant, and went back to Fairhaven, still undetected and invisible.

This theory depends on the notion that the police did not investigate Miss Emma's alibi and satisfy themselves that she had not left Fairhaven. Such a notion is untenable. The police work on this case was, at any rate, painstaking....Why anyone should reject the claims of the sister who had every opportunity, and nominate as murderess the one for whom it would have been fantastically diffucult, is hard to see."

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:08 pm

It's the Pitts....

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:24 pm

OMD !!!...Too funny !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tracy...

john · Post by **john** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:32 pm

Actions speak louder than words. If Lizzie killed her Father, or knew that he was to be killed by someone she was involved with, she would never have wakened Bridget up so quickly. She would have either given herself more time to make sure she was completely cleaned up, simply left to go shopping if she felt she was ok physically looking and let Bridget discover the body, or stayed in the barn and let Bridget discover the body giving the killer maximum time to escape.
The only logical answer to this enigma is that Lizzie knew her stepmother was to be killed but didn't know her father would be killed.
I was just thinking about this, and can't remember Lizzie ever saying she didn't do it. Anybody?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:24 am

Honestly John you may be right about Lizzie never saying she didn't do it but some distant memory of mine thinks there was just one case of innocence.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:16 am

So far I have only looked thriough the Witness Statements...and I am not sure if this will qualify as the answer you are looking for, but here is what Lizzie said when interviewed by Asst. Marshal John Fleet, Sgt. Philip H. Harrington, and Officer Wiliiam H. Medley:

Witness Statements Pg. 2 Asst. Marshal John Fleet questioning Lizzie August 4, 1892:
.....Saw Lizzie Borden on the same floor, was sitting with Minister Buck on lounge. Asked her what she knew of these murders. She said she knew nothing further than her father came in about 10:30 or 10:45 a.m. and that he seemed quite feeble, and she helped him, and advised him to lay down on the lounge, which he did.
......"Have you any idea who could have done this?" "No, I do not know that my father had bad trouble with anyone. But about two weeks ago a man called, and they talked as though he was angry:..."

Witness Statements Pg. 5 Sgt. Philip H. Harrington questioning Lizzie August 4, 1892:
....."Have you any reason, no matter how slight, to suspect anybody ?" "N-n-no I do not." "Why hesitate ?" "Well, a few weeks ago father had angry wordswith a man about something."

Witness Statements Pg. 28 Officer William H. Medley questioning Lizzie August 4, 1892:
......Had a talk with Lizzie about the deaths of her parents. I asked here where she was when this thing happened. She said she was up stairs in the barn; and on coming into the house, found her father all cut and bleeding on the lounge. She then called Maggie, and then Mrs. Churchill. She did not have any idea who could have done it...

I will check transcripts in the morning.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:37 am

That's really really good Allen!

As to not awakening Bridget- maybe Lizzie needed to be there when the bodies were found. Control of the scene? Being available to watch what was going on? Maybe there was something hiding in plain sight which she needed to keep an eye on?
It doesn't necessarily rule out her involvement in Andrew's murder just because she hung around.

If she only went as far as the yard which was her first story, then she saw sombebody at least, right?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:35 am

For clarification...was the INQUEST the only time Lizzie was actually called to the stand to testify ?

Tracy...

diana · Post by **diana** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:47 am

There was Lizzie's 'statement to the jury' on the last day of the trial.

AFTERNOON SESSION [June 20, 1893]

The Court came in at 1.45 P.M.

The Chief Justice addressed the prisoner as follows:

Lizzie Andrew Borden: Although you have now been fully heard by counsel, it is your privilege to add any word which you may desire to say in person to the jury. You now have that opportunity.

The prisoner arose and responded:

I am innocent. I leave it to my counsel to speak for me.

(Source: Trial, page 1885)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:04 pm

Thanks Diana ! That's what I was looking for.

Liz and john...maybe this answers your question ?

Tracy...

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:10 pm

john, when Lizzie stood up in court and said: "I am innocent, I leave it to my attorney to speak for me," she was essentially saying "I didn't do it."

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:11 pm

Oh, i see
Diane already had that in there. I guess Ineed to learn to read all the replies before jumping in to post a response. :)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:06 pm

Kat @ Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:37 am wrote:
As to not awakening Bridget- maybe Lizzie needed to be there when the bodies were found. Control of the scene? Being available to watch what was going on? Maybe there was something hiding in plain sight which she needed to keep an eye on?
It doesn't necessarily rule out her involvement in Andrew's murder just because she hung around.

I believe these are some of the main reasons Lizzie hung around. There are many killers who hang around outside or near the scene to watch the police and ambulances show up. Some have even attended the funerals of their victims. There are killers who are even brave enough to question the police as to how the case is going! They even try to aid the police, or involve themselves in the investigation somehow. I believe they do this not only to keep track of what the police might know, but they get some kind of perverse pleasure in knowing that the person the police are looking for is standing right in front of them and they don't even know it. I have been doing some thinking about the prussic acid story given by Eli Bence. It has been maintained by a few that trying to poison someone with prussic acid and hacking someone with an axe are two MO's. Therefore why would someone go from trying to purchase poison to picking up an axe? It has been said that a killer usually doesn't switch MO's. I think it is being thought of in terms of a serial killer using the same MO because it fulfills some need for them. It is their particular ritualistic style of killing that drives them to commit the same type of murders over and over. But even a serial killer will change his MO if he believes the police are on to him. I think the MO also evolves as the killer becomes more adept at his trade. He gets braver, bolder. But I'm getting off my point, which is that the changing of MO's is being thought of in terms of a serial killler. Lizzie wasn't a serial killer, I do not think ritual meant anything to her. Her only desire was to have them dead, and I think she would've done this by any means necessary.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:55 pm

I've been thinking aout the poison incident myself lately.

I agree Lizzie probably would not be considered a serial killer but maybe it's still too black and white as to why someone would switch from poison to hatchet.

Because if we agree that Lizzie would kill *by any means necessary* that implies spontaneity. I agree that serials have to go through their ritual. And a single killer doesn't, necessarily. But it's a double killing. With time in between. So the first murder established an MO, as far as I can tell. Otherwise, Andrew could have been attacked on the way home, or pushed under a trolly car or poisoned- which he wasn't. Something about the hatchet must have appealed- other than the someone just found out by killing Abby with it that it gets the job done. Getting this job done (now ready to kill Andrew) now is a choice to use the same or similar weapon, with all the attendant muss and fuss and changing clothing etc.
I don't necessarily disagree here with you- I just think there's more to this weapon choice.

And technically: Is this a mass murder or a serial is another question.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:06 pm

One point just hit me from your discussion, Kat and Melissa. Lizzie may not have chosen to change her MO as much as was forced into it. If she wanted to poison the elder Bordens and kill them quickly with Prussic Acid, she was never able to obtain it, as far as we know. So, she had to go with another method.

Yes, she could have used a different poison, but, perhaps this was the only one she knew something about and that it was used in the killing of insects and thought she would be able to get it for that reason. Maybe that it was also more of an obscure item too, less chance of being found as the cause of death. Arsenic poisoning may have been too common for our Lizzie.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:43 pm

Kat @ Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:55 pm wrote:
And technically: Is this a mass murder or a serial is another question.

I don't think they technically qualify as either.

Although the terms "serial killer" and "mass murderer" are often used synonymously, criminologists distinguish the two. The following distinctions are commonly made:

A serial killer is one who commits a number of murders over a long period of time, with the killings separated by often long periods of apparent normalcy.
A mass murderer, on the other hand, is an individual who kills several people in a single event.
A spree killer kills in a series of closely connected events.

http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/serial.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas serial murder involves the killing of several victims over a period of time, MASS MURDER involves the killing of several victims at one time and in one place. A typical mass murder would involve someone going into a restaurant and shooting to death everyone in the store. Mass murder should also be distinguished from spree murder, which involves several victims but not all in one place. In either case, the usual number of victims to meet the definition should be at least three.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect21.htm