First Instinct

[Yooper]

Why would Lizzie's first instinct upon finding her father dead be to call for the maid? After the arrival of others, Lizzie mentions that she thought she heard Abby return and she requests that a search be made for her. If she thought Abby was in the house, why not call for Abby? I realize that Lizzie and Abby were at odds, but Lizzie certainly couldn't have kept Andrew's death a secret from Abby for very long, for whatever that might accomplish. Ignoring Abby's possible presence in the house under the circumstances seems completely unreasonable. If she thought Abby had been killed, why would she assume that Bridget was still alive? If she thought Abby was still out on her call, why not send someone after her? The thought never occurred to Lizzie for some reason. Even if Lizzie didn't call out for Abby, the fact that Abby didn't come running when she called Bridget indicates that Abby was either out of the house or dead, but Lizzie thought Abby had returned. At that point, how did Lizzie know that Bridget wouldn't come downstairs carrying a bloody hatchet with mayhem on her mind?

[galacticgirl]

Yikes! That is SO obvious and yet SO good.

[Yooper]

The part that really bites Lizzie is that she said that she thought she heard Abby come in. When? While she was out in the barn? She told her father that Abby was out when he arrived. Bridget was in either the sitting room or dining room all the time Andrew was there until she went upstairs for a nap, very shortly after Andrew began his nap. Lizzie went to the barn. When did she hear Abby come in?

Judge Blaisdell at the inquiry questions whether Lizzie had tried to find Abby at any time after she had discovered Andrew. Lizzie was adamant that she thought Abby was out of the house.

[Harry]

Lizzie said that she thought she heard Abby come in after Dr. Bowen left to send Emma the telegram. By that time Bridget and Mrs. Churchill had returned, and if I recall right without looking it up, Alice Russell had arrived. Charles Sawyer would have also been on guard at the side door.

Lizzie's remark led to Bridget and Mrs. Churchill going upstairs to look for her.

[galacticgirl]

Maybe Abby often made groaning & sharpening noises - like the the ones Lizzie heard fromt the loft (cough)

[matt kevin jones]

Maybe the reason Lizzie called for Bridget, when she discovered Andrews body ( If of course you lean towards Lizzies being guiltless ) is because of the mindset of the day. probably anytime you needed something you would just call out to "The Help " to assist you.
I remember several Authors saying how Lazy Lizzie was. and I imagine most employers of servants probably expected them to be at the beck & call most all the time.

If you lean towards Lizzies Guilt, She probably called out to Bridget first because She knew Abby was dead upstairs.

[Yooper]

That's my point, Lizzie had to have known that Abby was dead. Lizzie told those present when the question as to Abby's whereabouts came up that she thought she heard Abby return. If she had gone to the barn, she could not have done that. If Abby returned during the activity after discovering Andrew, it is unreasonable to assume she would not be aware of the crime. If Abby returned before Andrew, why tell Andrew that Abby was still out on an errand?

Hollering "bloody murder" should induce the pitter-patter of little feet from all points in the house. If Lizzie lied to her father and she heard Abby return, further, if Lizzie was innocent, and the only response to her call was from Bridget, it meant that Abby was probably dead and Bridget is alive in the house with two dead people. Lizzie is innocent, who should she suspect of the murders? Why wait for the murder suspect at the bottom of the stairs? Why lie to her father?

If Lizzie told Andrew the truth about Abby being out on a call, why lie to her friends about hearing Abby return? Hearing her return implies knowledge of her leaving, or at least that conclusion can be drawn. Why not ask someone to try to locate Abby outside the house? Why must the search for Abby be confined to the inside of the house?

[Audrey]

Lizzie's reasons for alerting them that Abby may have indeed been on the premises are hard to fathom. I tend to think she didn't know enough to keep quiet about it and didn't really know what to expect when the police came. Surely she would know they would search the premises? It may have gone easier for her to leave Abby to found by the authorities.

[Yooper]

Audrey is right, Lizzie would have been better off letting Abby be discovered in due course. She could then say that she didn't realize Abby had returned.

Once Lizzie had told Andrew, in Bridget's presence, that Abby had gone out, she had committed herself to something. Then she told everyone (including Bridget) that she heard Abby return. Bridget clearly thought Abby was out according to testimony as to what was said by Bridget to others, including Lizzie. Bridget must have eventually realized that if Lizzie had been in the barn, she couldn't have heard Abby return.

I'm thinking Lizzie told Andrew a lie about Abby being out to prevent his looking for her. She was upstairs when Andrew arrived according to Bridget, and according to Lizzie at the inquest, at least part of the time! This would physically deter anyone from ascending the front stairs if she had started down. Then, once she is downstairs and no longer blocking the stairway, she needs a story to prevent anyone finding Abby. Bridget would have said that she didn't know where Abby was, which might prompt a search.

Maybe Lizzie's laugh or giggle at the top of the stairs was induced by the realization that she might just be able to kill Andrew, too. She couldn't have known until then that she would have the opportunity.

[matt kevin jones]

Another thing that seems odd to me, is not only did Lizzie call out to Bridget for help, But when Mrs Churchill came over after seeing Lizzie from Her window next door, She asked Lizzie where Mrs Borden was
And Lizzie said She got a note & went out & then Lizzie said to mrs Churchill " I think She may be killed also & wished someone would try to find Her.
If She thought She was out & then Thought She heard Her come in
Why would lizzie just assume She had been Killed also
It just seems to point to Lizzie not giving up all She knew

[Yooper]

If Lizzie thought Abby was dead, it implies knowledge that Abby was in the house. She did not say "Abby must have come in while I was in the barn and while Andrew was being murdered", she said she heard Abby arrive.

This makes a liar out of Lizzie, either by telling Andrew that Abby was out, or by telling everyone that she thought Abby was in.

[Audrey]

Lizzie had to place Abby outside the home in order to establish why she didn't know the poor woman was dead.

My personal opinion is that Lizzie intended to kill Abby only. She planed to do the deed and then head out to establish herself an alibi. She didn't know what to expect, got gore and blood all over herself and was faced with the rather dauntless task of cleaning herself up. Meanwhile, Andrew came home and she had no choice but to kill him too. This time she knew what to expect and took precautions against getting splattered.

[Yooper]

Bridget must have realized the inconsistancy at some time. Lizzie must have been aware that she had told two stories in Bridget's presence. Bridget would have been the one person who could have blown the whistle on Lizzie, but she didn't.

[matt kevin jones]

I agree with you Audrey
I dont think Lizzie intended to kill Her Father,
But after things got out of hand She knew She must kill him to keep him from discovering Abby.
Her love for Her Father was great and I think part of the reason for Killing Him was so he would not give her that dissaproval ( for Killing Abby) that She could not handle in any aspect of her life.
Lizzie , you sly devil you
Seems She always had to have control over situations, or try to.
Look even after Her death this many years later, She has control over us right now. I should be working, but instead I'm surfing the Forum.
I hope my Boss dosent look over my shoulder.

[Yooper]

I agree, the murder couldn't have been a planned double homicide. Andrew's murder was the result of opportunity or necessity. Abby was the original target.

[Kat]

Didn't Lizzie say she didn't say she thought she heard Abby come in?
If Lizzie says she didn't say it, who is the liar?

[Yooper]

Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill testified at the trial that Lizzie told them that she thought Abby had returned. When Bridget offered to go to Mrs. Whitehead's house to look for Abby, Lizzie told Bridget that she thought she heard Abby come in. Mrs. Churchill was told the same thing immediately upon her arrival. Mrs Churchill testified at the inquiry that Lizzie told her that she suspected that Abby was dead when she first arrived. No one had searched for Abby until after Dr. Bowen left to send the telegram to Emma, so something prompted the search at that time.

[Fargo]

I would have to do a bit of rereading but I was pretty sure that someone who was there stated that Lizzie never said about hearing Abby come in until someone asked about Abby's whereabouts first. With all the people inside and outside, Lizzie might have heard something that she thought was Abby coming in.

I think that Lizzie laughed because Bridget was having trouble getting the front door open for Andrew and uttered something that she later claimed was "Oh Pshaw". It doesn't take too much to figure out what Bridget really said. When mentioning this laugh many sources have not mentioned the whole story of it and have kind of taken it out of context making it look suspicious.

[Harry]

Yooper, I was researching it at the same time you were typing. Great minds ...."

I was reading the trial testimony of Mrs. Churchill regarding the "I thought I heard her come in" remark. Mrs. Churchill testified that Lizzie said it twice. Once when Mrs. Churchill first went over (p348):

"Q. State if you please, anything that was said between Miss Lizzie Borden and yourself as soon as you reached the screen door?
A. I stepped inside the screen door and she was sitting on the second stair, at the right of the door. I put my right hand on her arm and said "Oh, Lizzie." I then said, "Where is your father?" She said, "In the sitting room." And I said, "Where were you when it happened, and, said she, "I went to the barn to get a piece of iron." I said, "Where is your mother?" She said, "I don't know; she had got a note to go see someone who is sick, but I don't know but she is killed too, for I thought I heard her come in."

Then on page 350-351:

"Q. Was there any further suggestion about Mrs. Borden from anyone?
A. After Miss Russell came Lizzie said she wished some one would try to find Mrs. Borden for she thought she heard her come in. So Bridget and I started to go to find her, went through the dining room out of the sitting room at the head, or where Mr. Borden was sitting or lying, and up into the hall. Bridget was just ahead of me. She led the way, and as I went up stairs I turned my head to the left; and as I got up so that my eyes were on the level with the front hall, I could see across the front hall and across the floor of the spare room. At the far side or the north side of the room I saw something that looked like the form of a person."

When on cross-examination the defense side-stepped this remark:

"Q. Now I don't care to follow up what you said. You went in there and had the conversation as you have stated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With her: and she said she wanted the Doctor?
A. Yes, sir."

No mention of the "I thought I heard ..." remark.

Bridget could only testify to the second time as she was off to get Alice Russell when Mrs. Churchill came over. From Bridget at the trial (p247):

"Q. Where were they when you returned from your errand in seeking Miss Russell?
A. I think Miss Lizzie was in the kitchen with Mrs. Churchill, and Mrs. Churchill and I went into the dining-room, and Dr. Bowen came out from the sitting-room and said, "He is murdered; he is murdered."
Q. What happened then?
A. "Oh," I says, "Lizzie if I knew where Mrs. Whitehead was I would go and see if Mrs. Borden was there and tell her that Mr. Borden was very sick." She says, "Maggie, I am almost positive I heard her coming in. Won't you go up stairs to see." I said, "I am not going up stairs alone."

Bridget said essentially the same thing in the Witness statements (p22) and the Preliminary (p29).

If Mrs. Churchill is telling the truth about Lizzie saying it when she [Mrs. Churchill] first arrived then Lizzie would have had to have heard it between the time she arrived back at the house from the barn and when she called over to Mrs. Churchill. She didn't tell her father before she allegedly left for the barn that she heard Mrs. Borden come in. In fact she stated Mrs. Borden was out.

I have no reason to doubt Mrs. Churchill or Bridget.

[Yooper]

Harrington and Doherty interviewed Mrs. Churchill on August 8 and she told them the same story that she told in court, she is consistent. This after agonizing about "having to tell all".

In the same interview, Mrs. Churchill says that Lizzie asked everyone present to "go upstairs to look for Abby". This was after Andrew had been covered by Dr. Bowen.

[Yooper]

Kat is correct, at the inquiry Lizzie is asked at length about Abby's note and whether she thought Abby had returned. Lizzie states repeatedly that she thought Abby had not returned.

However, Lizzie never prompted a search for Abby outside the house, even when assistance was specifically offered.

[Harry]

I think the dense could have possibly used that statement in Lizzie's behalf. They could have intimated that what Lizzie heard was not Mrs. Borden coming in but the killer leaving.

Of course they would have had to have left by the front door which may have been why the defense didn't pursue it as we know that door was locked when Bridget went to let Andrew in.

[Yooper]

You're right, Harry, the only time Lizzie could have heard Abby arrive was after she had sent Bridget for Dr. Bowen. Thanks for the quotes, one of these days I'm going to have to learn how to quote from Adobe!

Is it reasonable to assume Lizzie would have ignored Abby's return under the circumstances? Abby would have to enter the front door if Lizzie was standing at the side door, is it reasonable to assume that she did not see Andrew and go directly to the guest room? Would Bridget have missed seeing Abby on the street?

[Harry]

Is it reasonable to assume Lizzie would have ignored Abby's return under the circumstances? Abby would have to enter the front door if Lizzie was standing at the side door, is it reasonable to assume that she did not see Andrew and go directly to the guest room? Would Bridget have missed seeing Abby on the street?

Masterton in his book "Lizzie Didn't Do It" speculates on some of these same things. See page 222.

In a nut shell Masterton speculates Abby received the note from Sarah Whitehead, left her chores in the guest room, and went to the Whitehead house on 4th street. At about 11'ish she returns. The killer sees her enter the house and immediately follows her and knocks on the door. Abby answers the door and the killer asks to see Andrew. Thinking he is a business caller she directs the killer to the sitting room while she herself goes upstairs to the guest room to finish the chores she left undone when she received the note.

The killer then murders Andrew and realizing Abby could identify him proceeds to murder her. He then has the killer escape by the side door.

Since Lizzie was in the barn she would be unaware of all this.

I'll leave it to the reader as to whether all that is plausible. There are other things in his theory that are weak such as the killer finding the hatchet in the sitting room, how Abby knew Andrew was home and in the sitting room, etc.

[Audrey]

You're right, Harry, the only time Lizzie could have heard Abby arrive was after she had sent Bridget for Dr. Bowen. Thanks for the quotes, one of these days I'm going to have to learn how to quote from Adobe!

Is it reasonable to assume Lizzie would have ignored Abby's return under the circumstances? Abby would have to enter the front door if Lizzie was standing at the side door, is it reasonable to assume that she did not see Andrew and go directly to the guest room? Would Bridget have missed seeing Abby on the street?

I was never able to figure out how to copy/paste from Adobe and I have the Professional Version! (I do not think you can unless the author of the document enables it)

Eventually-- I gave up and purchased a relatively inexpensive program that converts PDF to word documents and can now copy/paste with abandon!

[Yooper]

I agree, Harry, Masterton's argument is weak from the standpoint that Lizzie "heard" Abby return. The problem still exists as to when she heard that, especially if she was in the barn at about 11:00.

The location of the hatchet is important from the perspective that "Lizzie is guilty" because it had to be retrieved, which requires time. I strongly suspect that Andrew's murder was the result of necessity or opportunity rather than a planned murder. Audrey argues that Lizzie intended to leave the house to dispose of the hatchet and provide herself an alibi for Abby's murder which would explain why the hatchet is still available after Abby's murder. Andrew's arrival would have thwarted her efforts and made his murder necessary.

[Harry]

I misspoke in my last post about Lizzie being unaware of all this. Masterton also speculates that Abby entered the front door at the exact time Lizzie was leaving at the side door to the barn. That is how he explains why Lizzie could have possibly heard her come in.

What I meant was that Lizzie would not have known about the murders according to Masterton's theory.

[Yooper]

I have not read Masterton's work, but I'll assume his good intent in providing a new and different perspective on the Borden case.

The problem I have with hair's-breadth timing and compound possibilities is that the complexity lowers the probability considerably. I'll be the first to admit that something in the case apparently defied the laws of probability, but dependent variables only decrease the likelihood of plausibility. While I have no reason to disregard any theory in the Borden case, I believe the simplest explanation stands the best chance for correctness.

[Yooper]

Has anyone noticed that, during the trial, certain "buzz words" like "dress" and "note" seem to elicit objections from the defense at almost every mention of them? This might tend to de-rail the jury's train of thought at that point.

[Kat]

Is it reasonable to assume Lizzie would have ignored Abby's return under the circumstances? Abby would have to enter the front door if Lizzie was standing at the side door, is it reasonable to assume that she did not see Andrew and go directly to the guest room? Would Bridget have missed seeing Abby on the street?

--Yooper, partial

From Proceedings,
The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton, pgs. 211+

2.  The Thin Red Leather Notebook:  Andrew Jennings interviewed many people as he gathered his defense material.  I have only used the interviews of people who saw a strange man in the neighborhood the morning of the murders and quotations from what I consider a summary of Jenning's assessment of the case.
...
j.  Mrs. Dr. Bowen--called and said that on Tuesday of the murder she was walking up the street with Mrs. Borden and (spoke?) and (B saw?) said L wasn't up yet but Mrs. Bowen had seen someone come away so she knew she was and went over there with Mrs. Borden.

Mrs. Borden said she couldn't get in the front way 'for they had taken her key.'  So she and Mrs. Bowen went in by the back door.


viewtopic.php?t=37

[Harry]

I have not read Masterton's work, but I'll assume his good intent in providing a new and different perspective on the Borden case.

The problem I have with hair's-breadth timing and compound possibilities is that the complexity lowers the probability considerably. I'll be the first to admit that something in the case apparently defied the laws of probability, but dependent variables only decrease the likelihood of plausibility. While I have no reason to disregard any theory in the Borden case, I believe the simplest explanation stands the best chance for correctness.

I agree Michael, simple answers are usually the best. Facts can be twisted and used many different ways.

Masterton's book is valuable however as it looks at the crime from a forensic and technical point of view. Shrinking or eliminating the time gap between the two murders makes it more possible that an outsider could have committed the crimes. He argues very effectively for that theory. Like Radin's book however, it has a weak and unconvincing ending.

[Yooper]

There is probably, at the very least, a bit of truth in any of the books written about the Borden case, no matter how far-fetched any of them might seem. I expect that each author will bring a different perspective, and possibly an area of expertise to the study.

I have purposely avoided reading anything other than testimonies and statements given in the case. I believe it is important to examine: first, what was done, and second, what was said about what was done and, especially, when it was said. There are limiting factors throughout, they need to be identified. Inconsistencies should be noted and logic applied appropriately. Modern forensics may either support or refute some of the findings. If this is Masterton's contribution, a re-application of forensics, then it is indeed important.

There are some major questions in the case; the lack of a viable murder weapon, the lack of a note to Abby or the note's author, the act of burning a dress so shortly after the murders, and the time and conditions required to commit the crime. The era in which the murders occurred is important, certain social stigmas may apply which could alter the likelihood of an event. It would help a great deal to know exactly what the police examined during the investigation.

There didn't seem to be any female investigators in the case, but how many women were consulted in the case? They would likely be aware of male bias in an investigation and might be less inhibited in examining certain areas. Consider the idea of hiding a hatchet head in a container with menstrual pads or napkins. Women would be aware that there were almost certainly two containers in use, if Lizzie was menstruating, then Bridget was, too.

We have the distinct advantage of fewer limitations than the jury had. The testimony about prussic acid was inadmissible, and rightfully so, because the Bordens were not poisoned, and, it would be difficult to ascribe intent to the purchase. Lizzie's inquiry testimony was withheld due to Dr. Bowen's prescription, but investigator's notes before the prescription was used were valid. We may examine Lizzie's testimony, but if we use it, we must use it in its entirety.

There's plenty of room for bias in the Borden case, the possibilities seem endless!

[RayS]

Why would Lizzie's first instinct upon finding her father dead be to call for the maid? After the arrival of others, Lizzie mentions that she thought she heard Abby return and she requests that a search be made for her. If she thought Abby was in the house, why not call for Abby? I realize that Lizzie and Abby were at odds, but Lizzie certainly couldn't have kept Andrew's death a secret from Abby for very long, for whatever that might accomplish. Ignoring Abby's possible presence in the house under the circumstances seems completely unreasonable. If she thought Abby had been killed, why would she assume that Bridget was still alive? If she thought Abby was still out on her call, why not send someone after her? The thought never occurred to Lizzie for some reason. Even if Lizzie didn't call out for Abby, the fact that Abby didn't come running when she called Bridget indicates that Abby was either out of the house or dead, but Lizzie thought Abby had returned. At that point, how did Lizzie know that Bridget wouldn't come downstairs carrying a bloody hatchet with mayhem on her mind?

I think that better knowledge would prevent any invented problems.
Lizzie had found Andy dead and sent for help. It was when other people were there she said she thought she heard the 'heavy steps'? of Abby. According to the testimony, Abby was supposed to have gone out on an errand (via the note), so Abby would not have been home. So far, no inconsistencies. Does everyone agree?

[RayS]

While the Inquest and Trial statements provide official records, they do not convey the colorful events of that day. The official record is that Lizzie was found 'not guilty'. End of story. Or is it?

Somebody asked what was the difference between 'not guilty' and 'acquitted'. It is the difference between a glass that is half-empty or half-full.

[RayS]

I have not read Masterton's work, but I'll assume his good intent in providing a new and different perspective on the Borden case.

The problem I have with hair's-breadth timing and compound possibilities is that the complexity lowers the probability considerably. I'll be the first to admit that something in the case apparently defied the laws of probability, but dependent variables only decrease the likelihood of plausibility. While I have no reason to disregard any theory in the Borden case, I believe the simplest explanation stands the best chance for correctness.

I agree Michael, simple answers are usually the best. Facts can be twisted and used many different ways.

Masterton's book is valuable however as it looks at the crime from a forensic and technical point of view. Shrinking or eliminating the time gap between the two murders makes it more possible that an outsider could have committed the crimes. He argues very effectively for that theory. Like Radin's book however, it has a weak and unconvincing ending.

I would NOT assume 'good intent' because Masterton's book tries to refute the well-known difference in blood between the two bodies. This difference is what tells every unbiased person that Nicole and Ron were killed around 11:40; hence OJ is innocent. Note how often he drags in this modern case?

[Yooper]

Why would Lizzie's first instinct upon finding her father dead be to call for the maid? After the arrival of others, Lizzie mentions that she thought she heard Abby return and she requests that a search be made for her. If she thought Abby was in the house, why not call for Abby? I realize that Lizzie and Abby were at odds, but Lizzie certainly couldn't have kept Andrew's death a secret from Abby for very long, for whatever that might accomplish. Ignoring Abby's possible presence in the house under the circumstances seems completely unreasonable. If she thought Abby had been killed, why would she assume that Bridget was still alive? If she thought Abby was still out on her call, why not send someone after her? The thought never occurred to Lizzie for some reason. Even if Lizzie didn't call out for Abby, the fact that Abby didn't come running when she called Bridget indicates that Abby was either out of the house or dead, but Lizzie thought Abby had returned. At that point, how did Lizzie know that Bridget wouldn't come downstairs carrying a bloody hatchet with mayhem on her mind?

I think that better knowledge would prevent any invented problems.
Lizzie had found Andy dead and sent for help. It was when other people were there she said she thought she heard the 'heavy steps'? of Abby. According to the testimony, Abby was supposed to have gone out on an errand (via the note), so Abby would not have been home. So far, no inconsistencies. Does everyone agree?

The only problem here was "invented" by Lizzie. The self-contradiction "in the house & not in the house" was her doing.

[Yooper]

While the Inquest and Trial statements provide official records, they do not convey the colorful events of that day. The official record is that Lizzie was found 'not guilty'. End of story. Or is it?

Somebody asked what was the difference between 'not guilty' and 'acquitted'. It is the difference between a glass that is half-empty or half-full.

Apparently the various authors with theories concerning the Borden case didn't think so.

[Kat]

There didn't seem to be any female investigators in the case, but how many women were consulted in the case? They would likely be aware of male bias in an investigation and might be less inhibited in examining certain areas. Consider the idea of hiding a hatchet head in a container with menstrual pads or napkins. Women would be aware that there were almost certainly two containers in use, if Lizzie was menstruating, then Bridget was, too.

--Yooper, partial

Please, what does this mean?
Thanks!

[Smudgeman]

I would NOT assume 'good intent' because Masterton's book tries to refute the well-known difference in blood between the two bodies. This difference is what tells every unbiased person that Nicole and Ron were killed around 11:40; hence OJ is innocent. Note how often he drags in this modern case?[/quote]


Once again Rays, from trial testimony, it was approximated that Nicole died between 10-10:30pm, shortly after the dogs were wailing at 10:15-10:20pm. OJ is NOT innocent.

[Yooper]

There didn't seem to be any female investigators in the case, but how many women were consulted in the case? They would likely be aware of male bias in an investigation and might be less inhibited in examining certain areas. Consider the idea of hiding a hatchet head in a container with menstrual pads or napkins. Women would be aware that there were almost certainly two containers in use, if Lizzie was menstruating, then Bridget was, too.

--Yooper, partial

Please, what does this mean?
Thanks!

The biological phenomenon of synchronous menstruation is observed among women who live together. Given time, the periods of women who spend a lot of time together will synchronize. Bridget lived in the Borden household for over two years. Emma was probably on the same schedule. I've never found a satisfactory explanation or a definitive answer for why, but I've been told that it's true several times.

[Kat]

But that is not something we can state or assume.
It does happen, I agree, but not always, not everytime, and also if one is off schedule they won't synchronize again for months, if they did tend toward synchronizing.
Therefore I don't think this is something we can depend upon.
Sorry.
But thanks for your explanation.

[Audrey]

They have done some really gross experiments on that very thing... Something about some women being more dominate and putting kotex pads in their arm pits and then wiping them on other women's faces....

MON DIEU!

I think synchronous menstruation may have more of an impact on other mammals than on humans. ie-- large packs of animals who live together in some way with more females than males-- for reproductive reasons the females menstruate at the same time so that they are fertile at the same time as well--- so that there is more of a chance for a 'hit' when breeding.

[Yooper]

Kat and Audrey

Thanks for the input, I'm hardly an authority on the subject of synchronous menstruation! While it is not an absolute, I think it is safe to assume that a female investigator might have known enough to look for a second container, while a male investigator might not. That was the point I was trying to make, in a rather clumsy manner!

[Kat]

I'd really rather hear your theory or opinion on the fact that *They* took away Abby's key by Tuesday of the murder week, so she probably could not get in the front door thereby she couldn't be heard coming in from that ingress- even tho she didn't.
The smilie is because of how complicated my sentence is!

[Harry]

We don't know whether or not she had a key on Thursday. If I found myself locked out, and in that embarassing situation on Tuesday, I would try to rectify that by getting my key back. We simply don't know.

Since she had intended to use the front door it may have been her normal way of entering. Or was she just being formal because Mrs. Bowen was
with her?

Bridget testified that when she returned Wednesday night she entered by the side door (screen door had to be unhooked). After entering she then hooked the screen door and locked the other locks. Whether that was the normal practice of hooking the screen door at night isn't known but if so it would require someone to unhook it for another person to gain admittance.

Bridget also testified that she thought Abby had a key to the back door. If the screen door was hooked on Tuesday someone would have had to let Abby and Mrs. Bowen in. We don't know what time of day Abby and Mrs. Bowen returned but the comment "L [Lizzie I assume} wasn't up yet" would seem to indicate it was the morning.

All these locks and doors are as confusing as Lizzie's inquest testimony.

[Yooper]

If the only time Lizzie could have possibly heard Abby return was after sending Bridget for the doctor and before Mrs Churchill's arrival, and if Abby had no key for the front door necessitating her entering the side door; then she either ran Lizzie over upon entering, or Lizzie was somewhere other than the side door. If she ran Lizzie over, there would be little reason for Lizzie having "thought" she heard Abby arrive. If Lizzie was somewhere other than the side door, then Abby entered, walked past Andrew, entered the guest room, and was murdered by someone other than Lizzie. All of this presumes Lizzie's innocence.

Abby was aware that she had no key for the front door on Tuesday and did not even attempt entry while with Mrs. Bowen at that time. It seems reasonable that she wouldn't attempt entry on Thursday, regardless of how the door might have been left by Andrew when he arrived. Bridget told investigators that Andrew closed the door, she was ahead of him.

Because it is completely unreasonable that Abby entered while Lizzie was at the side door, then Lizzie had to be somewhere else when Abby arrived. The door from the kitchen to the sitting room was closed. She had to enter the house, walk through the dining room, walk at least partially through the sitting room where Andrew lay, and up the front stairs to the guest room, all without making her arrival known. At that point, she is (noiselessly) killed with a hatchet, and the murderer exits sometime after that. Either that, or Lizzie is lying!

Abby would have had to completely miss Bridget running for Dr. Bowen and Mrs Churchill arriving home, and vice versa. Abby would have had to completely miss seeing Andrew on the sofa. She would have to arrive without announcement, and die silently.

I find that scenario much more baffling than dazzling. Abby would have had to find a way to coagulate her blood and lower her body temperature at a record rate, too.

[Yooper]

It is quite odd that "they" would have "taken" Abby's key. Harry is right, she would likely have tried to recover her key, if possible. There was a statement somewhere (possibly by Bridget) that Abby had a key for the side door. If her front door key had been taken or given in the interest of not having too many keys in circulation, or, confining certain individuals to possible ingress, then she may not have attempted to recover the key. There is no way know for certain without additional information.

[Angel]

It's true- the only time Lizzie could have heard Abby come in was after she came back from the barn. If that is the case then Abby would have had to come in through the front door because Lizzie was at the side door, and that was impossible because Abby had no key at that time for the front door. If Lizzie had "heard" Abby coming in BEFORE she went to the barn then, if she was innocent, she would have been concerned about Abby's whereabouts in the house after the murder because she knew Abby could possibly been in danger too. And she would have called out for Abby too. The fact that she didn't really shows she knew no one would answer.

[Yooper]

If Abby had recovered her front door key, she still had to go directly upstairs without announcement and die very quietly, having missed Bridget and Mrs. Churchill on the street, and Andrew in the house!

By the way, this also means the murderer is still in the house while Bridget and Mrs. Churchill are back and forth, because Lizzie apparently didn't hear anyone at the front door twice!

[Yooper]

There was a reason Bridget did not feel safe sleeping at the Borden house after the murders. The place was crawling with cops at night, it was the safest place in town against an outside intruder. Bridget may have felt a threat from inside the house. Bridget was the one who had the "goods" on Lizzie because she was present when Lizzie told Andrew that Abby was out. I don't think Mrs. Churchill was aware of what Lizzie told Andrew when she (Mrs. Churchill) first arrived. She may have put two and two together sometime before August 8th because she agonizes about "having to tell all" to an investigator at that time.

Monday, August 8, 1892, Harrington and Doherty, partial:

Second interview of Mrs. Churchill. Mrs. Churchill. “Must I, am I obliged to tell you all?”
“Well, if I must, I cant be blamed. O, I wish I had not to do this. I do not like to tell anything of my
neighbor; but this is as it is. When I went over in answer to Lizzie’s call, I asked O, Lizzie where is your
father? In the sitting room. Where were you? I was in the barn looking for a piece of iron. Where is your
mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I dont know but they killed her too. Has any
man been to see your father this morning? Not that I know of. Dr. Bowen is not at home, and I must
have a Doctor. I think I heard Mrs. Borden come in. Will I go and get one or find someone who will?"

From p. 12, Witness Statements.


Something in this is apparently incriminating, according to Mrs. Churchill.