Why leave a living witness and why kill Abby

[snokkums]

One thing that I have always found strange is that there were four people in the house and only two people were killed. I am running with the scenario of Lizzie and Bridget didn't do it. The killer would have had to have known these two were in the house. Why leave the two as living witnesses?

If the killer got into the house, he would have been waiting two hours after Abby died for Andrew, he would have seen lizzie and bridget coming in and out of the house.

If he was let in the house by Lizzie or Bridget under the pretense to see Andrew the person would have seen the two. If he was planning on killing abby and andrew, after seeing the maid to let him in , he would have had to kill her too.

But this leaves me with another question: Why kill Abby? I can understand Andrew, he was a miser, but why Abby? She was killed first and she was up in the quest room Could it be the possiblity that Abby had a few words with the person and then went up stairs? He followed and killed her? He got made at her because of the words she might have said?

[doug65oh]

Best of luck with that scenario, Snokkums.

Technically speaking (taking Bridget's account as truthful as to where she was at the time of Andrew's murder) she didn't see anything, so would present no risk to the killer whomever they might have been. Running with your theory a bit, how can you prove that Bridget was anywhere other than where she claimed to be? In order to make her a "witness" you'd almost have to do that.

If Bridget was upstairs, how would the killer have even known for sure she was there? (Presuming for the moment that Bridget was not renowned for snoring.)

Same applies to Lizzie... By her own account she was not even in the house and so could have witnessed nothing. Put her in the house and... See what I mean?

[sheryl]

snokkums, I'm certain these were questions pondered by the police, Knowlton, et. al. Is it not surprising they came to the conclusion they did? Or that the majority of FR citizens deduced the same - and even moreso after the Trial?

One of the FR Globe's annual rivivals of the the case, concluded at the end that "no one" murdered them, that they died of heat prostration! I think the writer of those was James Dennan O'Neil, managing editor of the FR Daily Globe. (See Rob Lewis' Images of Fall River, p25). O'Neil is also my top candidate as the true author of the The Mystery Unveiled, "Todd Lunday".

In any event, "It was an impossible crime. And yet it happened." -Hosea Knowlton.

[Allen]

Best of luck with that scenario, Snokkums.

Technically speaking (taking Bridget's account as truthful as to where she was at the time of Andrew's murder) she didn't see anything, so would present no risk to the killer whomever they might have been. Running with your theory a bit, how can you prove that Bridget was anywhere other than where she claimed to be? In order to make her a "witness" you'd almost have to do that.

If Bridget was upstairs, how would the killer have even known for sure she was there? (Presuming for the moment that Bridget was not renowned for snoring.)

Same applies to Lizzie... By her own account she was not even in the house and so could have witnessed nothing. Put her in the house and... See what I mean?

Lizzie was in the house for the murder of Abby.

[doug65oh]

Granted...

[FairhavenGuy]

Basically, I think it comes down to this, Snokkums.

Both Lizzie and Bridget lived, but neither of them said they were witnesses to the crimes. Neither of them admitted to seeing anyone at all. They don't even admit to seeing each other very much.

So, if it were an outside stranger, either:
A) They didn't see him and he didn't see them.
B) One or the other saw him, but he knew they never would tell anyone, so he didn't have to kill them. And they never did tell.

If it wasn't a stranger:
A) Neither one saw him, so he didn't kill them.
B) One or the other was in on it, too, so she wasn't killed and she made sure the other one was out of the way.
C) It was either Lizzie or Bridget and the other one either didn't see or kept quiet.
D) It was everybody and they had a big ol' party until Mrs. Churchill started asking questions. . .

Lizzie was the one who was arrested, because out of all of the above, and other variations on those themes, Lizzie as the killer is the simplest answer.

[Elizabelle]

But this leaves me with another question: Why kill Abby? I can understand Andrew, he was a miser, but why Abby? ?

I'm taken aback by such a nonchalant statement about Andrew Borden.

This poor murdered man is getting a very bad rap in my opinion. Andrew Borden wasn't frivolous with his money...he didn't spoil his daughters...and he believed that a penny saved was a penny earned. I don't think that qualifies him as a monster by any means, and being a "miser" certainly doesn't mean that him getting hacked to death makes it any less of a tragedy.

A miser is a selfish person who hoards money and possessions. I believe that the Borden girls were very well taken care of and weren't in want of anything. I didn't get 95% of the things I "wanted" when I was growing up, and now that I'm older and I look back at my youth, I'm glad my parents didn't spoil me. They taught me that material things are not necessary and I appreciate that. They also taught me the value of a dollar and to not take anything for granted.

In my opinion, those are the opposite qualities that Lizzie & Emma Borden possessed. They were VERY concerned about material things, money, status, fashion, and possessions. So...in their minds perhaps they were being neglected in a materialistic sense; but that just goes to prove how ungrateful they were. In my opinion, I believe the two sisters were secretive, hateful, conniving, and manipulative. I feel most sorry for Abby Borden. She was an unwelcome guest in her own home. I believe Emma & Lizzie made life hell for that poor woman. If they didn't get half the things they wanted in life, I'm sure Andrew had it on very good authority not to provide those things to such overgrown brats.

I save my money...I don't buy frivolous things...and when I have children the last thing I will do is spoil them. A spoiled child is a rotten child. I will provide for them, but when it comes to things they want in a material sense, then they will work to pay for those things themselves. I will provide what they need. If that makes me a "miser" then so be it...but if that also makes me getting hacked to death an understandable thing, then Snokkums, if there is a God in Heaven, I hope you're not the judge or jury at my murder trial.

[theebmonique]

Is it possible that Andrew's being miserly was just the surface of things happening in the Borden home ?

Psychological battering can cause people to think that they ARE justified in coming up with what they feel is the only possible solution to a terrible situation. That certainly does not make their "answer" the best solution, but in their minds...it is the ONLY choice.

Harris and Klebold thought they would take care of their problems by taking out innocent victims in Colorado. Yes, kids had been picking on them, but in our sane minds, we understand that carnage was NOT the right answer at Columbine (or anywhere else for that matter).

IF IF IF Lizzie was involved in the murders, I believe it was possibly an act of desperation on her part. I am NOT saying that would make it "OK", legally or morally, but that in Lizzie's mind, it was her only choice.


Tracy...

[snokkums]

What I am saying is that maybe there might have someone out there that thought they should have been getting paid more. It is known or so I have read that he wasn't very well like, he was well respected but not liked.

[sguthmann]

Why kill Abby? Same reasons as "why kill Andrew?" That is, either it was for monetary gain AND/OR it was for personal reasons. Remember the local laws of inheritace without a will - had Abby died even 1 minute AFTER Andrew, the Borden girls would have been splitting up his fotune with Abby's relation - and after the fit they threw when Andrew gave Abby's stepsister that house to live in, you can imagine how well THAT would have gone over!

Now let's say for the sake of argument that the murderer had a quarrel with Andrew, but not necessarily Abby, but that she happened to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and so had to be killed as well (like, maybe she got a glimpse of the killer before he whacked Andy, etc.) I say, not likely, because if someone wanted to kill Andrew that badly and get away with it, why do it in broad daylight with 3 other witnesses around? Surely there would have been a better opportunity to committ such a crime? I tend to think that the killer had some personal "beef" with BOTH Bordens. I also think that money had something to do with it, but not in a "murder/robbery" sort of way, since there was no robbery with these murders.

[Kat]

The Globe printed up the inheritance laws and there is a topic hereabouts which relates this. We need to remember this is a Commonwealth State, and the rules are not clear-cut.

viewtopic.php?t=1352&start=0
Abby would only get a life-interest in some property-and $5,000- something like that.

The point was already made that the girls were the main ones to inherit, no matter when Abby died. BUT: There is a question as to who knew this, tho, which is valid.
Because it sounds like Abby's relatives did not know this.

The one who profited by 1/2 a house was Abby.
Andrew bought out Abby's step-mother's share and put it in Abby's name. So Abby shared ownership with her half-sister Bertie (Sarah Bertha Gray).

I agree the killer had something against Abby.
I was also recently wondering if there was a *robbery* at the time of the murders. The taking of something or money we don't know about.

[snokkums]

But that is what I am trying to get at why leave witnesses? Lizzie and Bridget were both around the house and they didn't here anything?

If I were to kill a person, let's say Andrew, I am going make sure there is no one in the house around to finger me.

And if it was monatary reasons, that would explain Lizzie doing it, but what about the stranger? That person would not have any knowledge of who was getting what in inheratence.

[Allen]

I tend to think Lizzie did not know what the law stipulated, and I think she believed that if Andrew died first his money would go to Abby, and then to her relatives. I believe this for a variety of reasons. For one there are a few comments attributed to her in the Witness Statements that bolster this idea for me. I know what the laws were, but I just don't think that everyone really understood them. It's not very much different from today. If I were to die tomorrow, God forbid, I have no idea what the law is about who gets what since I do not have a will drawn up as of yet. So it is fine to say what the law stipulated, but it is also good to point out as Kat did that there might be some speculation as to how well understood they were by the key players in the case.

[sguthmann]

Kat, excellent points. Thanks for the corrections and the link to the "Globe" article, which I had not read until now. Very interesting.

I wonder if there is any record of Lizzie or Emma ever seeking legal counsel for advice on wills and probate matters PRIOR to the murders? Judging again by the reaction from the whole "putting-the-house-in-Abby's-name" problem, I could easily see them seeking out advice - even without any murderous intentions - just to clarify who would get what when Andrew and Abby died. They seem like practical girls in that regard. I s'ppose that info would still fall under "attorney-client" privledge?

[Kat]

I tend to think Lizzie did not know what the law stipulated, and I think she believed that if Andrew died first his money would go to Abby, and then to her relatives. I believe this for a variety of reasons. For one there are a few comments attributed to her in the Witness Statements that bolster this idea for me.

--Allen

Which statements attributed to Lizzie do you refer to?
Just wondering.

[Kat]

There are sources in the newspapers which claim Lizzie sought legal advice, and then again there are sources which say she didn't. I think there are equal amounts, one-for-one.
She did visit Charles Cook before selling back the Ferry Street property to Andrew. That's in the Witness Statements- so there is precendent.

There is a letter from an Attny. Owens in the Knowlton Papers where he says he heard that it was said Lizzie consulted him, but he said he didn't think she had- that A BORDEN came to his office- he wasn't there, and Owens wanted to come confer with attny's in Fall River over this because it was privledged anyway.
I think Lizzie was supposed to have asked lawyers in R.I., N.Y., and New Bedford?

DID both daughters inherit equally, or did Emma inherit and share her windfall with Lizzie?

[Allen]

I tend to think Lizzie did not know what the law stipulated, and I think she believed that if Andrew died first his money would go to Abby, and then to her relatives. I believe this for a variety of reasons. For one there are a few comments attributed to her in the Witness Statements that bolster this idea for me.

--Allen

Which statements attributed to Lizzie do you refer to?
Just wondering.

Well I should say they are statements that were attributed to Lizzie by other people.

The Witness Statements page 11:

Miss Ida Gray, No. 27 Whipple street. Last Friday evening, Aug. 5, while in the horse car, two ladies were talking of Lizzie Borden. One remarked that Lizzie said, when referring to Mrs. Borden that " she was one of the kind that never die." Who the ladies were, she did not know.

All this from the three ladies was given very reluctantly, and not until they were forced quite hard.

page 13-14:

We then went to Mrs. Geo. Whitehead, on Fourth Street. She said " this property was owned in part by me and my mother. My mother wished to dispose of her interest. I could not purchase it, and did not want to sell; so in order that I might keep my place, Mrs. Borden, my step sister, bought the other interest. This the girls did not like; they showed their feeling on the street by not recognizing me. Lizzie did not like Mrs. Borden.

page 31:

Fall River, August 8, 1892:

Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. "Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father.But she must have some influence with my father, or he never would have given my stepmother's half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father's death. This conversation took place at different times during the former visits; nothing being said during her visit July 26th.

As for there being precedent for Lizzie consulting an attorney, it seems that yes she did, but over land matters. I would think that if she consulted an attorney concerning what her share of her father's estate would be after his death, it would've come out. I believe this would've come out because it goes toward showing whether or not Lizzie had a motive for murder.

Notice also in the statement made by Mrs. Tripp the emphasis put on the relationships of the Borden family by Lizzie ' my stepmother's half sister." Not simply my mother's sister.

[Kat]

As a reply to the question of what statements witnesses may have made attributed to Lizzie as to what her thoughts might be on inheritance, Mrs. Tripp is a good anser, and is to the point.
The other examples don't speak to the question tho.
I'd say Mrs. Tripp is it- anyone have anymore? Thanks for the citation!

I guess Cook is not an attorney- he was an estate agent and I think an insurance agent- so I didn't mean to imply he was someone Lizzie sought advice from as to wills, probate, inheritance- but land deals- yes. (R-329 bio).

When it's said *It would have come out* if Lizzie had visited an attorney- I don't know if I agree or disagree. Because there were almost equal numbers of yes she dids and no she didn't's in the papers. Also, as privledged info, it may not have been made public- but I do think its possible that rules of privledge were more lax back then- at least with Dr. Bowen it was!

"my stepmother's half sister." Not simply my mother's sister.

--Allen
This could reflect Lizzie's stance that she wishes to be precise. That is the reason she gave for why she made the claim that Abby was her stepmother, not her mother, to the police during questioning- which they thought was so suspicious.
Could Lizzie have been the kind of person who wishes to just be precise?

[Kat]

Kat, excellent points. Thanks for the corrections and the link to the "Globe" article, which I had not read until now. Very interesting.

I wonder if there is any record of Lizzie or Emma ever seeking legal counsel for advice on wills and probate matters PRIOR to the murders? Judging again by the reaction from the whole "putting-the-house-in-Abby's-name" problem, I could easily see them seeking out advice - even without any murderous intentions - just to clarify who would get what when Andrew and Abby died. They seem like practical girls in that regard. I s'ppose that info would still fall under "attorney-client" privledge?

You're welcome, to the Globe's transcription. I have lost track of who has read it and who hasn't! Harry transcribed it. It's very complicated, isn't it?

[Allen]

This could reflect Lizzie's stance that she wishes to be precise. That is the reason she gave for why she made the claim that Abby was her stepmother, not her mother, to the police during questioning- which they thought was so suspicious.
Could Lizzie have been the kind of person who wishes to just be precise?

I'm not sure a person who is precise would have to be so much so that they have to constantly stipulate that the person who raised them from the time they were very young was their stepmother. To me this shows animosity toward Abby. In my opinion, it is like Lizzie had to constantly remind Abby and everyone else that Abby was not her real mother.I had a stepfather growing up ( he passed away a few years ago), and I also have three half siblings. I don't call my sisters or my brother "half". I just say 'my sister', or 'my brother'.

[Kat]

Well, was Lizzie doing that *constantly*?
Maybe it was also Mrs. Tripp being precise?
I recall she was very wary about what she said and how she said it.

[Allen]

Just in my opinion, it does seem she was constantly saying Abby was her stepmother. I also add this to the fact that she had stopped calling Abby "Mother", and was refusing to take meals with her, and who knows what else they subjected that poor woman to. So she had stopped calling her "mother" and was reminding everyone that she was only her stepmother. That's my opinion.

Also when Mrs. Tripp is relating it she stated " he would never have given my stepmother's half sister"...which to me implies she is repeating Lizzie's own words. Because Abby was not Mrs. Tripps stepmother.

[1bigsteve]

I have always had the feeling that there was more going on in the Borden household than what we know from the trial or ear witnessess. Lizzie may have been putting the screws to her parents with more intensity than we realize. She may have been a loose cannon.

Lizzie was in her 30's and Emma was 40ish so Lizzie may have been thinking, "Well pops is getting a little long in the tooth but he may live another 20 years and I need some money now." I think what she was really saying was, "Hey, while I'm young, OK?" I mean look at what she did after getting out of jail. She bought the best of everything. Big mansion, maid, lavish parties, trips to NY, etc. She didn't throw herself into the gutter and eat grass the rest of her life and I never heard about her weeping at her parent's graves. She lived it up. So as far as motives go Lizzie had it.

Lizzie may not have understood the probate laws and chose Abby as first victim out of ignorence of the law or Abby may have been the first victim simply because she was the first to be caught alone. Lizzie could not have attacked Andrew first with John, Bridgett and Abby in the house. After Andrew and John left and Bridgett went outside that left Lizzie alone with Abby. When Andrew came home alone, and Bridgett going upstairs, that left Lizzie alone with Andrew. Lizzie admited to being alone in the house with Abby at the time of her murder but said she was out of the house during Andrew's murder. We only have Lizzie's word that she was out of the house. She could very easily been alone in the house with both victims during the murders. Lizzie said she was in the barn looking for fishing sinkers, metal to fix a screen, up in the upstairs portion eating pears, ouside in the yard eating pears, then heard a groan and went inside. The police said there were no foot prints in the upstairs dust. So, where was Lizzie?

I just don't see a killer, hired or nonhired, hiding in a stuffy closet for upwards of four hours between killings. Possible, though. What gaurantee did he have that he would not come face-to-face with a friend of Andrew's who may have followed him home? I see too much risk that I don't think a killer would take unless he had Lizzie as a "look out." So I think Lizzie was the killer and she murdered her parents for the money. When she failed at buying cyanide she resorted to the hatchet. Anyway, that is what I lean toward right now.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

Well, at least you are stating your position!
And at least you sound like that could change!

What's the 4 hours? I think a misprint? It's a chance there was someone secreted there in the house overnight- at least Morse wondered about that.
But otherwise, we hear of about 90 minutes between murders, as pretty reliable.

[snokkums]

I like that scernio: wait till everyone leaves the house and then get Abby then Andrew. She did have a motive, I agree with you on that one. Old money bags Andrew wasn't giving up anything.

[1bigsteve]

Well, at least you are stating your position!
And at least you sound like that could change!

What's the 4 hours? I think a misprint? It's a chance there was someone secreted there in the house overnight- at least Morse wondered about that.
But otherwise, we hear of about 90 minutes between murders, as pretty reliable.

What I meant was 4 hours from the time the killer may have entered the house to the time of Andrew's normal return time of noonish and not the time between the killings. My bad choice of words. If the killer got in at around 8:00AM (and I'm only taking a stab at 8:00 for want of a better hour), and I don't see how with all the people moving around, hid in the closet and wacked Abby at 9:00AMish then returned to his den and prepared to wait until Andrew's "normal" return at 12:00PMish that would be about 4 hours. Andrew got home early giving the killer an hour off for bad behavior. My times are only approximate.

If John was right and someone did let the killer in hours earlier, than that four hours gets stretched. I can't see a killer hiding all that time, certainly not without a pot to pee in. One creaking floor board at 2:00AM and the gig is up. It would seem to me that a killer hiding in that house, even for a couple of hours, would have had to have had some inside help. With Bridgett outside washing windows during Abby's killing (I feel that Abby sent Bridgett outside at Lizzies "suggestion") and Lizzie suggesting Bridgett go into town for the fabric sale, it look's like Lizzie was trying to empty the house of eye and ear witnessess so either she could do the killing or her Prince Charming. Without inside help I don't see a killer waiting in hiding. If he had blood on him it would most likely have been brushed off onto something like a door jamb.

It's possible a killer was hiding without the knowledge of anyone in the house but I still lean toward an inside job. Perhaps Uncle John let the killer in and kept him in the guest room. I find it strange that he shows up, which he seldom did, and Emma left Fall River, which she almost never did, just before the murders. Uncle John's alibi was just too well prepared for my tastes. It look's like he was aware of what was going to happen and made double sure his whereabouts during the killings were documented. His behavior upon entering the yard suggest to me that he was already aware of what had happened.

Anyway, those are the vibes I get from all this. But I keep an open mind.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Ad]

Why leave a living witness and why kill Abby?
Who would have been the living witness? It's my understanding that both Bridget and Lizzie witnessed nothing. (or at least that's what they say)

Why kill Abby (& Andrew)?
If you're dead, you can't:
will a house
sell a house
inherit a house

If they're alive, you can't:
live on the hill
spent money
travel
have a life

Someone must have known the internal household movements and habits. The house does not have hallways, which are normal pathways and would make it less likely that an intruder would be noticed - no reason to look in every room as you go down the hallway. This does smell of an inside job. The challenge is to figure out who was working with whom.

The fact that neither Lizzie or Emma showed any sorrow seems "very" strange to me. I don't mean just at the murders and trail. I'm talking all the way up to the day they jointed their family at the graveyard (1927). I have never read anything about them going to the gravesight and setting flowers there, let alone weeping outright. I'm sure the newspapers would have picked up on something like that. This may indicate an inside job.

I may understand about less sorrow for Abby, but for "two" daughters not to shed a tear for a father they have known their whole life - Odd!! There must have been some family bonding over the years. Even in household abuse situations, you usually see some sort of emotion.

The fact that the murders are spaced by 90 minutes, in my opinion, could point to inside job or a hit - it would take a very personal matter to wack someone to the extent that Abby was (the amount of blows), and then re-visit that rage again 90 minutes later with as much fervour -very personal!!

Or it could be done by someone very cold, trained and motivated by money. But I don't see the reason for so many blows. You only have to kill them once. Ever hit a pumpkin with a tomahawk? (hatchet) I doesn't take much!

I say it's an inside job. I just don't know the players.

[john]

It wasn't an impossible crime - just well thought out.
Someone knew that Emma would be gone. Someone knew that Uncle John would be arriving or it would have been sandbagged. Someone knew there would be a policeman's picnic. Someone sent Andrew out of the house in spite of his illness. Someone had Abby do up the guest room for undisclosed guests on Monday in spite of her illness. I believe these people had been poisioned for days yet were manipulated and that is certainly a form of torture, so even if Lizzie didn't pull the switch she is horrific.
But what I believe doesn't make 2 and 2 equal 4 so what do you believe?
Do you believe that as Abby said, someone took her keys, then who took them?
Do you believe that Andrew killed Lizzie's pet pidgeons?
Do you believe that that could be a motive for killing her Father? I do. But what do you believe?
What do you believe - tell me in pm and I'll adjust.

[Kat]

No one is going to read this because you have overused your privileges. It's too bad.
Posting over and over with no content on countless other topics will only stop people from following your posts.

[theebmonique]

This is off topic, but then so is copying & pasting the same post in several threads...when that post does not apply to the discussion of the case, but to promoting one's own self.

I want to publicly thank Audrey and Kat for sticking up for the legitimacy of what is to be posted and and for posting against repetitive, inane ramblings.

Freedom of speech is a right which comes with responsibilities. Abusing that right, is not being responsible.


Tracy...

[john]

Speaking of posting over and over with no content, lets examine your last ten posts Kat. I'm serious - I only do this stuff, and I admit I've done it before, when there is little or no stuff in the posts - now look back at what you have been discussing the last month. The B&B? Lizzie's slippers? That all isn't going to solve the crime, and I think the intent of this forum should be to solve the crime. If she did it, maybe she was gay, but decide if she did it first. Interesting things come up all the time - like the hat which I didn't see that anyone else caught. Now that has something to do with the crime, but twelve peoples opinions as to why she was in the barn doesn't.
There aren't enough facts to stick to facts, but I think some resolves should be determined - lb to our discussion of the front door - and stuck to.

[Kat]

I was only attempting to give you a friendly warning.
If you want to be read and you wish to be taken seriously, this kind of thing is not conducive to that, that's all.

To paraphrase Harry:
Never mind what Kat does

[Kat]

I only do this stuff, and I admit I've done it before, when there is little or no stuff in the posts -

--john

BTW: I finally finished checking all your recent posts in the 7-8 pm range which the majority turned out to be redundant and a lot of those were viable topics so what you claim is bologna- sorry.
I do read everything.

[john]

I have never issued a banal post! Show me one! All of my posts are for information or humor in some way. I have issued many, many posts that just ask questions and try to get others to think. For example, I never answered the hat issue, I just asked questions of others, because that's a thing that they can bite upon. Same is true of the keys - I know what happened about the keys, but I kept asking and asking and in the end nobody figured it out, although I think you came the closest.
There are still major crime clues that no one has ever brought up here, and I guess I'm guilty of skirting them, and not directly telling what they are, but I've hinted at them, and I'd like to see someone else discover something and be excited, not that a great deal at the mall isn't exciting.
There are beautiful people on here who are for some reason interested in a 100+ year old crime that will probably never be solved. I'm just trying to give them a little more for their time by mostly dealing with issues.

[john]

You did take a viable interest in the key issue, and you really did try to figure it out, Kat, but I don't recall anyone else thinking very hard upon it. We are a society that has Henry Ford or some guy named Honda that figures out how to make a car and we use the car in spite of our ineptitude at creating one, and we use a light bulb and never understand at all why it lights, and we use people like Kat to figure everything out for us so we can study for a few hours and be proclaimed an expert and make lots of money so we can drive a better car than a Ford.
And the kids think we're famous until they grow up and realize that we're lonely, and the kids if they're smart take the money and run through the university and if they're stupid buy an old Ford and fall in love and live in a trailer home with a little Christmas tree and some babies that talk jumble and are happy as the jumble babies.

[snokkums]

read some of these posts! WHY ARE WE GETTING HATEFUL HERE??? ENOUGH SAID!!!CALM IT DOWN!!

[theebmonique]

Snok...I don't know if you have had the chance to see this other thread (click on the link below), but Stef, our forum administrator has intervened and taken care of things. We thank her for taking good care of all of us and our beloved forum.
viewtopic.php?t=1629


Tracy...

[john]

Well, Tracy, there you go again. Let Steph handle it. Maybe you guys don't read my posts anymore (maybe - I should say obviously) and so you're in your own world with your own thoughts which is cool. But I think if you post after subjects or a subject, you should at least read it. I know I wander on threads, but there is usually some substance, or an attaching thread to go by. But I really can't figure your train of thought (Tracy) on this, and many other posts, yet the room considers you a leader (I guess) in figuring this crime out. I'm just wondering where your head is because I don't see it being anywhere in solving Lizzie.

[RayS]

Without going through the entire postings, I'd like to add my comments.
After Andrew was killed, the killer simply walked out of what was an empty house. (Bridget was asleep on the 3rd floor attic.)
Lizzie wasn't hacked down in the back yard because there was no hatred for her.
Besides, the workmen in the back would have heard any scream.
The noise from the thoroughfare in the front wouldn't have masked this noise. Don't try this at home, but a screaming woman around noon would bring men rusing to see what's there.

I hope this answers any questions. I don't believe Lizzie was in on this "before the fact". Yes, its an assumption of innocence. I think Lizzie was trying to follow Andy'a advice "never talke about Willy". IMO

And now I think I've used up my quote for the week.

[FairhavenGuy]

My question for you, RayS, is this. I don't think it's something that Brown adequately and logically explained. Why would Lizzie, Jennings, the Mellen Heads and everybody let the mentally ill William go free for so many years before "suiciding him?" He was a cold-blooded killer, right? He wanted a piece of the estate, right? Why just let him walk free and pretend to put Lizzie on trial instead? If there was no evidence that William was the illegitimate son of Andrew, the gang could have just said, "this poor unfortunate lunatic murdered the Bordens." It get's him off the street and out of the inheritance picture and you don't have to risk Lizzie getting a life sentence at the trial.

[Kat]

Don't forget Bertha Manchester's murder. Didn't Brown include her in his theory ?

[Harry]

Mellen heads? I love it!

[RayS]

My question for you, RayS, is this. I don't think it's something that Brown adequately and logically explained. Why would Lizzie, Jennings, the Mellen Heads and everybody let the mentally ill William go free for so many years before "suiciding him?" He was a cold-blooded killer, right? He wanted a piece of the estate, right? Why just let him walk free and pretend to put Lizzie on trial instead? If there was no evidence that William was the illegitimate son of Andrew, the gang could have just said, "this poor unfortunate lunatic murdered the Bordens." It get's him off the street and out of the inheritance picture and you don't have to risk Lizzie getting a life sentence at the trial.

As I remember it, NOBODY knew that Willy done it. Note Jennings speaking about "a skeleton in the Borden closet, if there is one"!!!
Spiering's book notes that there was a spontaneous work stoppage in the mills, nothing getting produced. They needed to produce a suspect so the workers would continue producing wealth for the owners.
Isn't this just elementary politics and economics?