What if.....2

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:34 pm

What might have happened if Andrew had not decided to lie down on that sofa that day?

Would Lizzie have ever had the opportunity to kill?

(If he hadn't gone for that nap he might be alive today. Granted he'd be a 184 years old but you never know.)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 7:07 pm

Well I think if he did lay down to take a nap, that gave her a perfect opportunity to sneak up on him before he even knew what hit him. But,I am not completely convinced beyond a doubt that he lay down to take that nap in the first place.

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:38 pm

Allen @ Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:37 pm wrote:Well I think if he did lay down to take a nap, that gave her a perfect opportunity to sneak up on him before he even knew what hit him. But,I am not completely convinced beyond a doubt that he lay down to take that nap in the first place.

Do you mean that he got hit in a standing position and then fell into that position on the sofa? Or......?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 9:01 pm

Well anything could have happened. He could have been knocked over the head and dragged to the couch. All I meant is, we only have the word of Lizzie more or less to say he even lay down to take a nap.So I don't rule anything out.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:04 pm

If Andrew was attacked anywhere else in the room, it would have looked better for the inmates left in the house. Take his wallet, bury it and leave him looking attacked by an intruder, regardless of Abby lying dead upstairs.
It would just confuse the issue even more.
Andrew would pretty much have to be at ease to be attacked by his family member- nearly dozing?
That kind of timing doesn't happen to an outsider.

(if he had been killed standing in front of the sofa and his body arranged in the position it was found, then that kind of staging also points to someone who knew his habits. He reclined on that sofa when Bowen came Wednesday, and since the afghan was there and a pillow, it seems it might be a habit).
Prelim
Bowen
408
Q. How did he appear to be?
A. He was lying down then. As I went in, of course he sat up on the sofa.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:12 pm

[quote="Kat @ Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:04 pm] If Andrew was attacked anywhere else in the room, it would have looked better for the inmates left in the house.[quote]

How so? They already had the dead body of Abby laying upstairs in the guest room, so I do not see how where Andrew was attacked would have made much of a difference. There was already some explaining to do.Sorry my quotes did not quite work, but I've been up since 6am

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:18 am

The reasoning is that since Andrew had business clients come to the house we think, at times, between 11 and noon, then anyone could have struck him down if he was anywhere but reclining.
In his relaxed position lying on the sofa though, he woud only take that posture around family members.
And to be napping, as I said, would beat any odds of an intruder catching him that way.

This does not answer the question *what about Abby*? Because that would have to have been deduced at the time based on this new theory. I don't think I can project what theory of Abby's death they would have come up with based on this scenario.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:10 am

If he did, wouldn't this be a contradiction to the theory that he arrived home early that day, if he was thought to be home by 11 o' clock meeting clients? I still do not understand the reasoning behind the nap theory. I am not sure whether or not I believe he was, he may well have been. But the reasoning behind the nap theory it confuses me.If it had be an intruder who committed the crimes, couldn't it be someone who might catch Andrew unaware? Someone already in the house, someone who already killed Abby who is lying upstairs? If Andrew was unaware anyone else was in the house but family, he may have laid down to take a nap. That is a bit confusing for me, because if there is an intruder, you do not expect them to be there, why would you act any differently than you normally do when you do not believe anyone is there? I don't understand why his simply being asleep points to a member of the house. People are attacked while they sleep everyday.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:43 am

Mainly I think if there was an intruder, they would not wait until Andrew was napping. I don't think they could.
They would want to make the killing and get right away. What was any especial reason for waiting for him to sleep?
Was the wait simply for Lizzie to leave and Bridget to disappear? Meanwhile Andrew snoozed?

It's an author who claims Andrew came home early. We don't know that. Is that Lincoln?
We do know that men came to his house to discuss business.
Even Lizzie tried to tell about Andrew arguing with a man at the house etc.

We know Lizzie didn't care too much about Abby's signs of when she died- or knew enough about it maybe (if she did it) because in a very short time after finding Andrew's body she claims she thought she heard Abby come in- someone please go look.
This implies she's not aware of the details of time-of-death. If she's not aware and just winging it, then Abby can fit my earlier scenario of the bothched robbery of Andrew leading to his death, in Lizzie's mind.
The original question was whether Andrew had not laid down to nap, might he have escaped his fate that day and if Lizzie did it, my personal answer would probably be "No."

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:39 am

Well I don't know, it still makes no sense to me. But I only have one more question, wouldn't it be easier to kill someone who is asleep? It would make it far easier and quicker to do the deed and get out than to face an attack on a tall man who is awake and capable of a possible stuggle?If this was his custom, as you stated, to lay down and nap, the intruder could wait until he figured Lizzie and Bridget were out of the way, and then found him asleep. I'm not saying I think an intruder did it. I think Lizzie did it all the way, I'm just saying that is one bit of evidence I would not consider relevant enough to prove her guilt.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:53 pm

Kat @ Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:43 am wrote:We do know that men came to his house to discuss business.Even Lizzie tried to tell about Andrew arguing with a man at the house etc.

Can you tell me where some of the other sources are for this? So that I might look them up for myself?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:56 pm

Allen...

All that and more is available for free download from this very website.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

You will be busy for weeks! If you decide to print any of them... Have plenty of hi-liters handy and be ready with dozens of new questions!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:41 pm

I have already read all of these sources, they are were I get most of my information from. I rely on the key documents and the Lizzie Borden Source Book for the newspaper accounts before any others.I have my own copies of the Witness Statements and Lizzie's inquest testimony that I purchased from the B&B before I had gotten a computer and found that I could look at them for free online.I guess I will have to go back and take a look through and answer my questions on this matter.

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:06 pm

Audrey @ Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:26 pm wrote:Allen...

All that and more is available for free download from this very website.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

You will be busy for weeks! If you decide to print any of them... Have plenty of hi-liters handy and be ready with dozens of new questions!

First, Audrey, thank you I have already downloaded three pdf's and I am wading through them.

Not to cross from one thread to another but does Bridget ever in her testimony say that Abby told her directly that there had been a note?

BTW I keep getting cut off due to a "near blizzard" here in Boston and my wife having a work related emergency due to the storm.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:16 pm

I reread Bridgets trial testimony today to refresh my memory, and she did not state that Abby told her directly of the note. All the references I found were of Lizzie talking about the note.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:15 am

In Clegg's testimony he says he was at the house twice that week to talk business. Lizzie says a man came thast morning and that she had overheard in previous weeks an argument about a store with a man at the house. She also said she collected keys from a man who came to the house.
Try Lizzie's testimony and try Clegg.
I know it is elsewhere, because we have looked this up a while ago- but it's probably the newspapers- like a family member interview- maybe Harry or Diana can help with this.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:34 am

I do not take Lizzie's word for anything. If she was trying to cover her tracks for murder,she could have lied about whatever she felt necessary. This doesn't make her very credible to me. So I am looking for other sources for this.

diana · Post by **diana** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:06 pm

There are two references in Masterton's Lizzie Didn't Do it to Andrew conducting business at home.

"Andrew Borden ordinarily "held court" at his home between 11:00 A.M. and noon; anyone wanting to see him on business could call during that period." (p. 219)

And later:
"Clegg first went to see Andrew Borden at 92 Second Street on Tuesday, August 2. Their first meeting apparently took place between 11 A.M. and noon, when Andrew was ordinarily "at home" for business purposes.(p.232)

But I don't know what Masterton is using as his primary source for this information.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:59 pm

Thanks Diana, I have a copy of Masterton but it's on loan to a friend right now, so I will look that reference up after she returns it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:47 pm

Diana says Masterton gives no reference for his claim.
Yet we have Lizzie's words on oath for some claims of businerss visitors.
You would prefer to look at Masterton and discount Lizzie.
This doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater and we learned this struggling with Brown.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:30 pm

Kat @ Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:47 pm wrote:Diana says Masterton gives no reference for his claim.
Yet we have Lizzie's words on oath for some claims of businerss visitors.
You would prefer to look at Masterton and discount Lizzie.
This doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater and we learned this struggling with Brown.

When I look at the rest of Lizzie's testimony, and all the inconsistancies and improbabilities she claims are true ( I was downstairs the whole time, no I went to my room, no I did not go to my room, I was on the stairs, I was in the kitchen, I was getting tin, no I was getting iron, no wait I was getting lead, I never saw Bridget after Abby went upstairs).She most probably murdered Andrew and Abby and therefore would lie about whatever she felt necessary to save herself, I dont think discounting Lizzie on anything is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do not take a person who is probably guilty of murders word for anything. Alot of murderers have been known to lie under oath. All I said is that I would look these up, not that I took them as the gospel truth.I was thanking Diana for being kind enough to point them out to me, and that I would look them up.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:01 pm

We had a discussion about from where we thought we knew that Andrew received business vistors a while ago. I understand that people have studied the archives and that is commendable.
It's funny, but the original question to that topic is very similar to what began this one! Here is a previous discussion link:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... LBplay.htm

Here is what Harry found...please consider this in quotes:
26. "Found it"
Posted by harry on Jul-19th-02 at 9:29 PM
In response to Message #10.

Just "re"-located one of the places I read the item about 11 to 12 being Andrew's time to conduct business. It was in the New Bedford Evening Standard newspaper. As with all sources weigh the value of what is being said. Here's the entire article:

"THE SISTER'S THEORY.

Think Mr. and Mrs. Borden Were Killed
by Some Strange Man.

Fall River, Aug. 29. --- Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie have a theory in regard to the murder of their parents. It is a very unsatisfactory one, but it is, nevertheless, a theory. Lizzie and Emma and Mr. Morse are absolutely certain that Lizzie did not commit the crime. They think that some strange man killed Mr. and Mrs. Borden.
They state that Mr. Borden always received his business callers between 11 and 12 o'clock in the morning. He always answered the door bell between these hours, they say. They think that the assassin entered the house between 9 and 10 o'clock, probably, and that he came in search of Mr. Borden.

This man may have wandered through the rooms downstairs in search of his intended victim, and, not finding him, have gone to the upper story by the front way. Then, hearing a noise that disturbed him, he sought a hiding place in the clothes closet at the head of the stairs, just opposite the entrance to Lizzie's room and near the door leading into the spare room.

This is as far as the family theory goes. The members of the household do not attempt to explain how or when Mrs. Borden was killed; neither can they offer any reason why Mr. Borden was murdered. They say, however, that they think the assassin could have got out of the house by the front door and escaped without detection."

--This is probably a source of reference for Dr. Masterton.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:44 pm

Thanks for the information Kat

. I'm still waiting for my book to be returned so I cannot refer to any of the Masterton material right now. However, I do want to check those quotes provided by Diana when I get it back.I have been going through the archives and looking at the threads, I have found some interesting information there.Its good to have input from so many others, and the opinions and theories expressed are always interesting. Even the material I do not necessarily agree with myself.It makes it more interesting if everyone does not always agree, it allows more than one point of view, which is always a good thing.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:04 pm

I think it is very possible Lizzie expected Andrew to arrive home earlier than he actually did on that August 4th morning. The intruder theory works better if the two murders occur closer together in time. I think Lizzie may have been counting on this when she killed Abby; imagine her anxiety level increasing while she was waiting for an Andrew who was late. Would her father protect her if the only victim was Abby? Too much after eleven AM and Bridget would be working in and around the dining room and kitchen, Uncle John could arrive back at any minute, a business acquaintance of Andrew's might come knocking on the front door, and where is Abby, anyway? Perhaps Lizzie's laugh at the top of the front stairs was a momentary burst of emotional relief on her part, "Ah, at last Father is here!" But Lizzie has to account for Abby's absence in front of both Andrew and Bridget in case Andrew does not put himself in a position for Lizzie to attack him. I think Lizzie's story of the note was as much for Andrew's benefit as for Bridget's, but of course Bridget was there and heard it and remembered.

So, yes, I think if Andrew had come home much later or had he for any reason not dozed on the sitting room sofa the conclusion of that August 4th morning would have been much, much different. And we probably would not be talking about it here!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:09 pm

That's really good, Doug. I hadn't thought of that, and I'll have to think it through some more. If Lizzie did it, then she probably was freaking out when her dad didn't come right back. But the whole thing was so iffy- she didn't know that Bridget would decide to lie down after her window washing job was done and be out of the way. She didn't know when her uncle would be popping back in. Would she have hacked Bridget or Morse too if they had intruded on to the scene unexpectedly or heard something to connect her with the murders?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:38 pm

Doug @ Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:04 pm wrote: But Lizzie has to account for Abby's absence in front of both Andrew and Bridget in case Andrew does not put himself in a position for Lizzie to attack him. I think Lizzie's story of the note was as much for Andrew's benefit as for Bridget's, but of course Bridget was there and heard it and remembered.

So, yes, I think if Andrew had come home much later or had he for any reason not dozed on the sitting room sofa the conclusion of that August 4th morning would have been much, much different. And we probably would not be talking about it here!

That does make alot of sense Doug. That Lizzie could have told Andrew that Abby had gotten a note to maybe keep him from questioning her about Abby's where abouts.Now I'm torn between two ideas. That Lizzie told him this to keep him from questioning her, or that she was testing him for a reaction. They both make sense when I put them into context. If Andrew had come home later, Lizzie may have had time to go out to try and establish her alibi, and Andrew may not have been killed. When I get very angry, or very nervous, I giggle.I can't control it, and it can be very frustrating.I think it's some sort of defense mechanism for stress. My children think this is very strange

Mom if you are mad why are you laughing? It made my mother very angry when I was young and being reprimanded and I would giggle. But could it explain why Lizzie laughed also? Maybe it was like "Oh My God! I can't believe he came home, now what do I do?" Just a thought. Not saying everyone has my weird habit of giggling under stress

.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:09 pm

My little sister once went into a mad fit of the giggles when she thought she was about to drown, as I've posted before. I have no problem believing Lizzie could've been startled when she realized it was Andrew on the other side of the door, back a bit too early for her to...take a stroll?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:51 am

So some say Andrew was early- and some think Andrew was late.
It doesn't sound like anyone could really determine his exact schedule that day, ahead of time, in order to plan.
We don't even have testimony that he was shaved and yet it's in the timelines.
He does have missing time tho- so maybe he stopped at his mistresses? (joke)
Regardless, it is interesting to think of him as late for a change. (Thanks Doug). That would tie in with Morse implying, and Lizzie asking if the cellar door had been locked (the Intruder theory where their deaths were to appear closer together, meaning he was expected earlier).
But how could Lizzie know Andrew's schedule? He had been sick, he might be walking more slowly. He might have stopped to use a "necessary."
She gave him a letter to mail so he would go to the post office- but that's all she would know.
Andrew's being sick Wednesday might have made more catch-up visits around town on Thursday and made him late.
Maybe Lizzie (if responsible) shot herself in the foot with that one...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 3:46 am

Whether it was because he was sick, or he had other plans that threw off his normal routine that day, I don't think Lizzie counted on him coming home when he did.I think she realized all was not normal when Abby said she had a note to go out, but I think she somehow still believed Andrew would stay gone longer than he did.

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:08 pm

Allen @ Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:16 am wrote:Whether it was because he was sick, or he had other plans that threw off his normal routine that day, I don't think Lizzie counted on him coming home when he did.I think she realized all was not normal when Abby said she had a note to go out, but I think she somehow still believed Andrew would stay gone longer than he did.

I agree totally. If this is true it may have forced Lizzie to kill her father when she might not have wanted to. If she had gone out before he got home there would be doubt in his mind that she could have done it. But once he was home with Abby upstairs dead there could be no doubt at least as far as he was concerned. Strangely, though, if she hadn't killed Andrew she might not have even become a suspect.

This case is like an onion. You can peel away layer after layer.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:15 pm

Why didn't Lizzie leave after Abby was killed? She had over an hour.
Somehow, Andrew needed to be killed.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:44 pm

Maybe she hesitated to leave at first,because it would leave Bridget home alone with Abby's body. Maybe this is why she questioned Bridget as to whether or not she would be going out.Then told her about the sale of dress goods, she might have been trying to urge Bridget to leave the house so she would not be suspected?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:18 pm

That's a pretty cool customer...
I don't know why someone who is in such a murderous rage and has just slaughtered someone for the first time, would stop to worry about the servant, though. At 9:30, about the time that canon says Abby was killed, tho, we supposedly have a subdued Lizzie at the screen door asking Bridget if she is going to wash the windows now and where Bridget tells her she can lock the screen if she wants. We don't think Lizzie did lock it if we think an intruder came in- but we think she locked it if she was ready to kill Abby so as to be undisturbed.

Let's say Abby is done in at 9:30, Lizzie has still an hour to get out and down the street for an alibi before Andrew starts home. Meanwhile, Bridget is supposedly outside washing windows and if Lizzie worried at all that Bridget would be suspected, she might assure herself that Bridget would be seen outside by neighbors and be exhonerated. That would take care of Bridget's alibi, if Lizzie cared...

As to Lizzie caring where Bridget was when Andrew was killed, she didn't mind that Bridget was in the house when it happened and didn't try too hard to get her to leave. She would have been better off sending Bridget out (with a note?) to a friend, if Lizzie really cared about Bridget.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:27 pm

Something odd here I always wondered about:

Lizzie tells Bridget if you go out lock up because I may go out too. She makes no mention of what Mr. Borden might do. She leaves him out of the equation, as if he is already dead.
Then, she goes out and doesn't make sure Bridget hooks the door.

Granted, Lizzie might have trouble getting back in before Bridget is done resting, but Lizzie is the one to say make sure the door is locked and she herself proceeds to leave the door unlocked. Whether she killed Andrew or not, this is odd. It points at least to knowledge that she is going to need doubt about that door, in her favor, in the future...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:49 pm

I think the plot involves killing Andrew the more I think of it.
(Plot -meaning one person with another finding out and not stopping it...or any permutation of characters which people may believe).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:24 pm

I think this is still a very interesting topic and have thought more on the subject.

Earlier, I said I think Andrew was meant to die that day.

I think the timing is crucial, but the character(s) involved allowed a leeway when planning.

The first "timing" framework can be the situation set up where Emma is gone.
Then the next timing that could cause worry is Morse's visit.
(I don't think anyone could account ahead of time for anything Bridget might be doing- the servant, except windows on a Thursday). Morse, being kin, must have no cast of suspicion, even if Bridget is sacrificed.
That's why, I believe Morse, when he first arrived home, wandered around the backyard before going into the house: he was wasting time to meet his deadline.

The plan would be that the outside parameters of the completion of the murders must be within the time starting when Morse has left Thursday morning, and when he returns. Morse's return would need to be planned within the loose framework of Andrew's schedule. We talked about Andrew being early or late, but I think whoever planned this used the confines of 9 and noon, approximately. They must have known that Abby would always be there by dinnertime and so would Andrew: probably within 20 minutes of dinnertime at that- 20 minutes of noon would be the outside time to figure both would finally be dead.
Coincidentally, Morse arrives about 20 of 12, maybe 11:45.
Bridget may usually rest before dinner, needing maybe 20 minutes to get the meal: again 11:40.
A noon meal schedule, which was dependable in that household (and many others it seems), would be the framework of timing.

I still think it is interesting if Andrew was considered late that day, because yes that's going to cause anxiety and turmoil and frustration in the killer (which might account for 10 hacks to his head, instead of the very few really needed to dispatch him which otherwise might have inhibited a loving daughter from an overkill). But if we look at the overall picture of timing, Morse's absence, prearranged, might be just what dictated the whole scheme, timing-wise.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:18 pm

Kat @ Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:24 pm wrote:Morse, being kin, must have no cast of suspicion, even if Bridget is sacrificed.That's why, I believe Morse, when he first arrived home, wandered around the backyard before going into the house: he was wasting time to meet his deadline.

I am disinclined to believe Morse knew anything prior to the murders.I think he was smart enough to have deduced what happened afterward though.If the idea was to cast suspicion away from Morse, couldn't this have been better achieved by him not being there to begin with? Why come to visit if he wanted to be kept above suspicion? He did not have anything to gain by the murders also.

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm

Kat @ Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:54 pm wrote:I think this is still a very interesting topic and have thought more on the subject.

Earlier, I said I think Andrew was meant to die that day.

I think the timing is crucial, but the character(s) involved allowed a leeway when planning.

The first "timing" framework can be the situation.

I long for those days many years ago when I thought this case was very simple: Lizzie Borden kills her parents with an axe because she thinks her father might die first and her stepmother will cheat her out of her rightful inheritence. Later an all male jury is unable or unwilling to convict a woman of such a horrifying crime. Simple, simple, simple!

To paraphrase "Theebmomique's" tag line: "We don't know what we don't know!" And we might never know and its galling me.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:52 am

Morse was needed, is my only answer to Allen. And to Ron I say, keeping it simple is probably going to get us farther. You started the "What if...?" topic and it's a good one, I think!
It's open to anyone- anyone can speculate!

Morse came, ate the food which wasn't poisoned and then went to Swansea to get the eggs so that the farmer need not bring them into town Thursday.
It's the only bit of all the business Morse says he set out to do that he actually accomplished.
It's possible that if Lizzie did this, and planned things, she wanted or wished for the support of her uncle Morse, and he's savvy enough to be useful but not directly implicated. He may have been brought to town to pump Andrew about financial dealings- which info may have sealed Andrew's fate. It was summer and Lizzie could have been listening outside the sitting room windows Wednesday evening- this is not a new idea- but she was later home than she should have been- which people don't realize. She has about 15 unaccounted for minutes that evening from when she left Alice's house until Morse says he heard her come in.
Her stories of seeing prowlers later may be her attermpt to explain away someone being outside that night if she was inadvertantly seen lurking, listening.
Morse could have been useful to Lizzie in ways we haven't thought of yet, without him actually physically committing a crime.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:38 am

If I could see he had a some type of motive, one that could be supported by some type of evidence, it might make it more believable to me for him to have been an accomplice. But he gained nothing by Andrew and Abby dieing.

Lizzie had lived in her fathers house all her life. She knew his routine, the routine of what normally went on from day to day in the house.Living there day in and day out, she had plenty of time to study what went on and when.She would even know how long it usually took Bridget to wash the windows. She could estimate her window of opportunity pretty easily. What I have always wondered is, if Morse had come back sooner, would he have become a victim as well?

RonRico · Post by **RonRico** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:42 am

Kat @ Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:22 am wrote:Morse was needed, is my only answer to Allen. And to Ron I say, keeping it simple is probably going to get us farther. You started the "What if...?" topic and it's a good one, I think!
It's open to anyone- anyone can speculate!

.

Just to make my point clear I wish this case was as simple as I once thought it was. But your post (extremely well articulated by the way) just points out how utterly complicated it is. The possibilities are endless. And there may be factors foreever unavailable to us since those most closely involved are no longer speaking about the case. (Death is the ultimate gag order.) Its this forum that keeps people like us digging. Who knows what someone here might uncover.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:46 pm

I think she might have killed her parents. Shes not very trustworthy. She kept changing her alibi as to what she was doing at the time of the murder

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:21 pm

Oh I think Uncle Morse was perverse enough to contribute in some way to helping Lizzie out, if she did it. We don't know that he didn't "gain" anything by the crimes. How can we know that?
He might not have known ahead of time what Lizzie planned specifically. She may have called him in and gave him time to pump Andrew, pass her the info, and then put her own plan into motion, telling him to be gone Thursday between 9 and 11:45. period. He may not know what she had in mind, hence his uttering upon arrival in the house: How did this happen? He may have guessed...
Lizzie and Emma had a *friend* feeding them finacial info in the past- who else would Andrew confide in, and would have an allegiance to pass this on to Lizzie?

He would have to think quickly on Thursday to wander around muttering that the cellar door had been *open* and later to impugn the front door lock.
And what about them eggs!

It doesn't seem complicated to just add Morse into the equation. There are those who think Morse and 2 or 3 people did this: Or Anthony and 3 other people: Or a bastard son etc- Now that is complicated!

I think if Morse hadn't come, the crime might have been postponed, else why did it proceed when he did come?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:04 pm

I have to agree to disagree. I don't think he had anything to do with it. I'm more inclined to believe it was a sudden rage. Otherwise why the overkill? If the aim was just to kill them, a couple of swings would've done it. There was a lot of anger exhibited in these kills.And there is no evidence I can find of any gain on his part. Just as there isn't really any evidence I can find to support the idea he was involved. There really isn't a whole lot of evidence to prove any of the theories. Though it is interesting to put the facts together and speculate

. I lean towards a crime of passion, I always have. I think something set her off that day. There could've been a lot of reasons he came then, maybe he was planning something with Andrew and Abby, maybe it is this something that caused the murders to occur.And I don't see where he would make a trip just to be there to pick up some eggs.I don't discount anyone's theories completely.I just have the ones I personally believe more plausable than others. I don't mean to offend anyone if I disagree with them, and I hope I haven't. I think it is good if not everyone always agrees.I think it's good even when someone doesn't agree with me

Points out flaws in my theory for me. It presents more than one scenario, which is good, considering we will never really know what happened.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:58 pm

Well, I am not wedded to this thory. It came up in the What If category.
I also have a scenario where Morse plays no part whatever- Stef and I worked on that one.
I can't stay aligned with any one theory of the crime because I like to change my mind.
I also believe Abby was a passionate crime, but I can't see sustaining such rage until time to kill Andrew. So that murder seems like *business.*

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:12 pm

I am deathly afraid of snakes. They make me sick to even look at them. If I see one in the yard I run away from it....

One time about 4-5 years ago I encountered one and decided to "face my fears" and kill it.

I ran to the tool shed and got a hoe. I screamed and screeched at that snake and called it all sorts of horrible things (in French) and hacked it way past death.... There was little left of it when I was done. I was not enraged... I was terrified! It was a "I am woman hear me roar" moment.

Passionate? You bet-- but it need not have been rage. It could have been any number of emotions. If Lizzie did indeed kill Abby-- the emotions she was feeling may very well have had more to do with Lizzie than with Abby. Relief. Power. The old "blank" you....

When I was spent-- and I hoed at that reptile till I could hoe no more.... I threw up on the lawn and staggered into the house and fell into a dramatic heap on the couch.

All that adrenalin was spent and I had no energy. I certainly couldn't have dressed for town...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:59 pm

Audrey @ Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:12 pm wrote:All that adrenalin was spent and I had no energy. I certainly couldn't have dressed for town...

That really jumped out at me. Could it explain why Lizzie did not leave right away, even though as Kat pointed out, she had plenty of time to do so? Could be she was simply to exhausted, not only emotionally but physically, to think about what to do next for a bit?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:35 pm

Bridget threw up that morning...
We only have her word when that happened- no one saw her...
With her duty of washing windows, she'd have a reason to be disheveled and out of breath and sweating and sick...
and damp- she could be damp from spot-cleaning her dress.
And then Lizzie didn't leave because she didn't know Abby was dead- the guest room door was closed. The little she saw Abby could also be the little she saw of Bridget.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:42 am

But the guest room door wasn't closed. Or they would not have been able to look under the bed and see Abby from the stairs.I also think this is why Lizzie at first claimed to have been upstairs, and then said no she had not gone upstairs. She realized she would have to explain how she had not seen Abby when the door was open.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:53 am

But we don't know the door wasn't closed.
Lizzie at the inquest under oath said it was pg. 64 (21):
Q. When you went up stairs for a short time, as you say you did, you then went in sight of the sewing machine?
A. No, I did not see the sewing machine, because she had shut that room up.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I mean the door was closed. She said she wanted it kept closed to keep the dust and everything out.

I'm very adaptable.