If Lizzie were the murderess…

[Franz]

I list here some questions I made to myself about the Borden Case. Certainly, these questions could have been all discussed in the past:

I wonder, if Lizzie, alone, had killed Abby and Andrew, and if she had premeditated the murders,

1. Why hadn’t she invented a more solid alibi and stuck on it afterwards? Her alibi testimony (her alibi lie) should have been one of the most crucial points in her criminal planning. But what actually happened was that she made contradictory statements since the very first moment after the discovery of Andrew’s body.

2. Why hadn’t she invented a better lie to prevent her father from searching Abby, and then, to explain her lack of thought about Abby during that morning? But what actually happened was that she “created” many witness against her.

3. If she had premeditated the murders, after knowing uncle John’s arrival, why didn’t she postpone her criminal plan and realize it when Morse would have left? Morse’s presence in the house was a risk pretty big: Lizzie could not be sure who of the two men: Morse and Andrew, would return first the next morning. Lizzie “heard him (Morse) down there somewhere about three o'clock”, so she would have plenty of time to rethink about her plan. Emma’s return wasn’t immediate, and Morse usually came only “to spend a night or two”. Why did Lizzie decide to run such a risk, instead of waiting only one or two days for another safer occasion? (If she was determined to kill Abby and Andrew, she would have other better opportunities, right?)

4. If she decided to realize her murder plan that day, in spite of Morse’s presence, why didn’t she change the murder place of Abby from the guest room to Emma’s room? Allen reminded me that Lizzie’s room was always locked. Even though, I wonder, it was Lizzie herself who decided to lock or not her bedroom’s door. She could kill Abby in Emma’s room (in my opinion a much more better place than the guest room) and closed the door of Emma’s room, and then, didn’t lock the bedroom door of herself. After the murders, when questioned, she could say: “yes, I usually lock my door, but that day I didn’t, because I knew I would come in and go out many times for household work… The door of Emma’s room? it was closed... No, I didn’t enter in her room all that morning. Oh my God, I just don’t know why and when Mrs. Borden entered there and was killed…” And she could actually feign to enter her room several times, and let Bridget know it (so she could testify for Lizzie afterwards).

5. No matter where Lizzie wanted to kill Abby, why didn’t she try to obtain some information about Morse’s doing on the morning of August 4th? Since she knew Morse’s presence as early as 3 o’clock in the afternoon of August 3rd, if Lizzie wanted, it would be very easy for her to have a conversation, a very common one, with Morse: “Uncle John, what are you going to do tomorrow morning? …You will dinner with us, right? It’s great, I have plenty of things to tell you.” (Something like that.) But what really happened was that Lizzie didn’t care about Morse presence. She didn’t care at all! But meanwhile, she was planning to kill Abby still in the guest room, ignoring totally what Morse would do.

6. Why didn’t Lizzie close the guest room door after the murder? (cf. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill’s testimonies). I agree that Bridget had no work at the second floor, I agree that from the outside, Abby’s body could be hardly seen (the blood smell?), but, in my opinion, to close the door should be always the better choice, a more prudent one, even psychologically speaking. If I were Lizzie, I would close the door. And you? I think it highly unlikely that in that hot day the door, if carefully closed, could be blown open by the wind.

7. Why wasn’t she more prudent and careful when questioned by the authorities? Knowing perfectly that she herself was the murderess and the risk to be hung, she would have tried to avoid any words that could throw suspicion on her, for example: “She was not my mother, she was my stepmother” (pronounced at a very bad moment), or “It depends upon one's idea of cordiality perhaps.” (she had indeed, in my opinion, an easier and better answer: “yes, I think we were cordial.”)

8. “Father, do you want the window left the way it is?” Lizzie asked Andrew few minutes before Andrew was murdered. If Lizzie killed Andrew, the intention (a criminal one) of her question seems clear (certainly, here is my personal interpretation). If so, why did Lizzie mention this detail to Knowlton? Just to throw more suspicion on herself?

These question (maybe there are others) trouble me a lot. What do you think about?

[Yooper]

I think a lot of this may depend on how far in advance the murders were premeditated, whether a matter of months, days, or minutes. One thing is for sure, once Abby had been killed, she was committed to follow through and she had to take whatever came her way. Whether or not Andrew's nap on the sofa or some other good opportunity to kill him could have been foreseen has been discussed before, as well as Bridget going to her room at just the right moment. From a different perspective, if we consider that Lizzie simply didn't care who was left alive (other than herself, obviously), she may have been prepared to kill everyone in the house, Bridget and John Morse included if necessary. The trouble with that is, she would pretty well have to isolate them and kill them one by one. What would she have done if Andrew and Morse arrived together? In my opinion, Andrew's murder was a crime of opportunity to prevent the relative certainty that he would suspect Lizzie of killing Abby if he was left alive. Bridget going to her room and Andrew taking a nap with Morse still out was just the way it played out that day. Bridget being outdoors washing windows while Abby was in the guest room was ideal, also. It may be that Morse having spent the night was a reason for Abby to be working at straightening up the guest room, who knows when that opportunity might come again?
Some of the apparent lack of solid planning may be the result of a belief by Lizzie that she wouldn't be suspected of the crimes, upper class females were generally not the first people suspected of such things at that time. It had been almost impossible to convict a woman of murder in Massachusetts until 1852 because there had been no provision for second degree murder. People just did not want to execute a woman, and murder until 1852 carried a mandatory death penalty.
Emma's room as a place to kill Abby would almost certainly implicate Lizzie. Abby had little or no reason to be in either Lizzie or Emma's rooms.
The possibility exists that if Andrew generally returned to the house about noon, and if Morse was aware of that and ordinarily punctual, Lizzie could have guessed that if Morse returned, it would probably be at noon. That's quite a reach!
The open door is a good question. Closing the door would not have prevented Andrew from going into the room if he had been determined to find Abby. There wasn't anyone else to consider as likely to go up the front stairs.
Lizzie could have been more prudent in some of her replies, I agree. I think years of pent up resentment were difficult to erase that soon after the fact.
Lizzie asking Andrew about the window sounds as though she is being kind and considerate toward him, and that may have been the intent in mentioning it to Knowlton.

[Franz]

Yooper, all these are your simplest answers to all those questions?

[Aamartin]

Franz, Many have theorized that Lizzie may have planned to go out after killing Abby and that Andrew came home earlier than expected, forcing her hand.

That said-- no proof!

[Franz]

Hey Aamartin.

If I understand well, they theorized that Lizzie had had the intention to kill only Abby, not Andrew? If Lizzie’s original murder plan were this, she would have been able to go out as early as she wished, after killing Abby. Why did she waste a lot of time to iron her handkerchiefs?

Do those people think that the difference of the murders’ time was not as big as 1 hour or 1 hour and a half?

[PossumPie]

The answer to the first two questions is that people don't think things out enough, with all the possibilities. She was making stuff up on the fly without thinking it through. She could have planned well, and not known Uncle was coming, Maggie was going to wash the windows, Father was going out/coming back...etc.

3. Lizzie may have decided on the spur of the moment to do it BECAUSE Uncle was there...his presence may have helped muddy the suspect list. I tend to think all the talk of suspicious people to the neighbor friend the night before was preparation, and she didn't want to put it off...

4. I don't think Lizzie (or her accomplice) chose where to murder either one...just decided to find and kill them

5. A conversation like that with Uncle (Where will you be/how long?) would be a huge red flag after the fact. She or her accomplice killed both with Maggie around, and wasn't caught...Uncle coming home wouldn't have mattered.

6. Mute point...SOMEONE DID KILL Mrs. Borden in the guest room and whoever did DIDN'T close the door, so why should we ask why Lizzie specifically didn't?

7. We can't ask why she wasn't more careful in choosing words because we don't know. She may have been as prudent and careful as she could have been. Many a guilty person is caught b/c they contradict themselves, lie to cover lies, and finally get so confused they are stuck. Many an innocent person contradicts themselves b/c most of us don't have a photographic memory.

8. If guilty, she may have mentioned the window to make people think, oh, perhaps someone came in a window. Or maybe she just was thinking about Maggie washing windows, so windows were on her mind. Again, guilty people don't filter everything they say thinking "how could this be used against me in court?"
Great chess players think many moves ahead, anticipating what the other player will do...MOST of us AREN'T great chess players.

[Yooper]

Yooper, all these are your simplest answers to all those questions?

While they are all relatively simple answers, the simplest of all is that Lizzie did what she did and that's what came of it. Killing Abby or both Andrew and Abby might have been considered for some time prior to the murders in the general sense. But a double homicide with a time gap is pretty difficult to plan down to the last detail.

[Angel]

If Lizzie was guilty, maybe she had murder on her mind eventually, but Abby could have said something to her that morning which made her snap at that moment. The The viciousness of the act makes it seem as though someone could have completely lost it in the heat of the moment. Then, afterwards, Lizzie would have had to come up with some fast alibies, which, if there had been more time, she could have thought through more. She would have wanted to get out of the house after cleaning up and changing clothes, but then Dad came home early and she felt trapped.

[NancyDrew]

Franz, I think these are great questions, and I'd like to take a stab (no pun intended) at answering them: (below, in blue)

I list here some questions I made to myself about the Borden Case. Certainly, these questions could have been all discussed in the past:

I wonder, if Lizzie, alone, had killed Abby and Andrew, and if she had premeditated the murders,

1. Why hadn’t she invented a more solid alibi and stuck on it afterwards? Her alibi testimony (her alibi lie) should have been one of the most crucial points in her criminal planning. But what actually happened was that she made contradictory statements since the very first moment after the discovery of Andrew’s body. I think Lizzie had mental issues. She was certainly an odd person, and she exhibited neurotic behavior throughout her life (ie the shoplifting.) Thinking in a clear, linear, logical fashion may not have been possible for her. She was a messed up woman.

2. Why hadn’t she invented a better lie to prevent her father from searching Abby, and then, to explain her lack of thought about Abby during that morning? But what actually happened was that she “created” many witness against her. Again, she was doing the best she could, being who she was. I think these were crimes borne of intense emotion. She might not have been prepared for how disorienting the experience would be. This was, after all, her first murders.

3. If she had premeditated the murders, after knowing uncle John’s arrival, why didn’t she postpone her criminal plan and realize it when Morse would have left? In my opinion, the murders weren't necessarily premeditated. Lizzie was a cauldron of simmering rage, resentment, hostility, frustration...I think she was fantasizing about what life would be like if she had all of her father's money, but and she made have even thought harming her stepmother in her own head, but I don't think she decided on a specific time and place for the murder.s. She was near the tipping point, and something set off that chain reaction. Once she started, there was no turning back. I can only imagine the agony and churning of her thoughts between the 2 murders. Morse’s presence in the house was a risk pretty big: Lizzie could not be sure who of the two men: Morse and Andrew, would return first the next morning. Lizzie “heard him (Morse) down there somewhere about three o'clock”, so she would have plenty of time to rethink about her plan. Emma’s return wasn’t immediate, and Morse usually came only “to spend a night or two”. Why did Lizzie decide to run such a risk, instead of waiting only one or two days for another safer occasion? (If she was determined to kill Abby and Andrew, she would have other better opportunities, right?) Look at the nature of the killings. There was SO MUCH overkill. Have you tried my suggestion? Pick up an object, and pretend to stab someone...18 times. It's a LOT! It suggests a frenzied, disorganzied, rage-filled mind. It suggests (to me at least) INTENSE overwhelming emotions, not careful planning.

4. If she decided to realize her murder plan that day, in spite of Morse’s presence, why didn’t she change the murder place of Abby from the guest room to Emma’s room? It would have been hard to get Abby into Emma's room...she never went there. The girls took care of their own rooms, their own laundry, their own clothes. The guest room was where Abby was: period. I think they had words in that guest room...I think Abby did or said something that triggered a psychotic rage in Lizzie. Allen reminded me that Lizzie’s room was always locked. Even though, I wonder, it was Lizzie herself who decided to lock or not her bedroom’s door. She could kill Abby in Emma’s room (in my opinion a much more better place than the guest room) and closed the door of Emma’s room, and then, didn’t lock the bedroom door of herself. After the murders, when questioned, she could say: “yes, I usually lock my door, but that day I didn’t, because I knew I would come in and go out many times for household work… The door of Emma’s room? it was closed... No, I didn’t enter in her room all that morning. Oh my God, I just don’t know why and when Mrs. Borden entered there and was killed…” And she could actually feign to enter her room several times, and let Bridget know it (so she could testify for Lizzie afterwards).

5. No matter where Lizzie wanted to kill Abby, why didn’t she try to obtain some information about Morse’s doing on the morning of August 4th? Since she knew Morse’s presence as early as 3 o’clock in the afternoon of August 3rd, if Lizzie wanted, it would be very easy for her to have a conversation, a very common one, with Morse: “Uncle John, what are you going to do tomorrow morning? …You will dinner with us, right? It’s great, I have plenty of things to tell you.” (Something like that.) But what really happened was that Lizzie didn’t care about Morse presence. She didn’t care at all! But meanwhile, she was planning to kill Abby still in the guest room, ignoring totally what Morse would do. I disagree with you here. I don't think she was planning on killing Abby in the guest room. I think she was a ticking time bomb and it happened to explode in that room at that time. Plus, she didn't have that kind of relationship with Uncle John. They were NOT close. Lizzie was in a bad way mentally...I think she might have been even dissociating on and off

6. Why didn’t Lizzie close the guest room door after the murder? (cf. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill’s testimonies). I agree that Bridget had no work at the second floor, I agree that from the outside, Abby’s body could be hardly seen (the blood smell?), but, in my opinion, to close the door should be always the better choice, a more prudent one, even psychologically speaking. If I were Lizzie, I would close the door. And you? I think it highly unlikely that in that hot day the door, if carefully closed, could be blown open by the wind. This is a very good question, I agree with Yooper. It further speaks to how confused she was. Who know what her thinking was...maybe she thought "an intruder wouldn't think to close the door, he'd do his horrible business and be flying through the house."

7. Why wasn’t she more prudent and careful when questioned by the authorities? Knowing perfectly that she herself was the murderess and the risk to be hung, she would have tried to avoid any words that could throw suspicion on her, for example: “She was not my mother, she was my stepmother” (pronounced at a very bad moment), or “It depends upon one's idea of cordiality perhaps.” (she had indeed, in my opinion, an easier and better answer: “yes, I think we were cordial.”) Because Lizzie was an awkward person, with a poor understanding of social contracts. It probably never occurred to her that telling one of the first cops to question her "she's not my mother" looked odd. I've met plenty of people like that. My boss is like that...he's very wealthy, and very odd. Makes statements that are completely inappropriate and has no idea that they are. Again, I think we aren't taking into account just how much Lizzie's mood/personality disorders (she certainly had one or both of some kind) affected her cognition and therefore her verbal choices.

8. “Father, do you want the window left the way it is?” Lizzie asked Andrew few minutes before Andrew was murdered. If Lizzie killed Andrew, the intention (a criminal one) of her question seems clear (certainly, here is my personal interpretation). If so, why did Lizzie mention this detail to Knowlton? Just to throw more suspicion on herself? Do we have anyone's proof she actually said that besides Lizzie herself? I'm too lazy to go look at the inquest and trial testimony at the moment. She may never have actually said that, and been trying to foster the notion that 1. she cared about her father and 2. open windows are places for intruders to escape, although wasn't there quite a drop to the ground from that room?

These question (maybe there are others) trouble me a lot. What do you think about?

[Franz]

NanyDrew, do you mean that the same Lizzie, as by you described and interpretated, had briliantly killed Abby and Andrew, and then, in a few minutes, brilliantly clearned the most probable (in my opinion) blood on her body and clothes, and brilliantly hidden her criminal weapon in or near the house?

[Allen]

I've speculated before that Lizzie could have planned the murders using the knowledge of the daily routine of the members household. Uncle John showing up would add a little extra risk,because he was more unpredictable, but he generally went out visiting people around town when he was there. His testimony bares this out because he had done it on his previous visits as well. She could not know any of their movements would stick to routine with one hundred percent certainty, but no murder could ever be planned with one hundred percent certainty that everything will go according to the plan. If she waited for that perfect moment when she had control of all of the variables Andrew and Abby would never have been murdered. There is no time like that in planning anything regardless of it being a murder. I think she picked a perfect time. The only other person who was always at home and rarely left the house was gone. Emma was away. How would she have gotten Emma out of the house if she had been at home? She could count on her father going out that was his general routine as well. She could count on Bridget following her routine and going upstairs. I surmised that she could have known Bridget went upstairs because it was her habit to take a nap after her morning chores were finished. And the fact that it was a hot day and with Bridget being sick I think she could have counted on Bridget sticking to her routine. This was supported with Bridget's own testimony at the preliminary hearing that it was her custom to go up to her room and lay down after she had finished her morning chores to rest before the next meal. Lizzie knew everyone's habits. People are creatures of habit. She could have figured Bridget would go up to her room to lay down because this is what she generally did do. She could have figured Andrew would go out because he generally did. And where is the testimony that states Andrew came home earlier than usual? Do we know what time he generally arrived home? No, we do not. But I'm sure Lizzie did. I can usually predict what is going to happen in my house on a given day, because there is a daily routine in place.

I think she killed Abby in the guest room because it was the most remote area, Bridget never went up there, and there would at least be some excuse for her being up there even if Morse had not arrived. Abby did sew up there that's where the sewing machine was. She allegedly kept things of hers in the drawers there. And that was the only unlocked door on the second floor. Lizzie knew that. If Abby died anywhere else it would have to be explained how the killer got in the locked door to kill her. If she died in Emma's room how did she get in Lizzie's room with the door locked? Wouldn't she have had to ask Lizzie to let her in? And then Lizzie would have known Abby went in there. Why would she even be in Emma's room she had no reason to go there? If she went up to her room and the killer found her there, where did he hide until she went up to her room and unlocked the door? And why didn't Lizzie see her go up to her room through the kitchen when that is where Lizzie was? And if the killer found her up there and killed her Andrew would have known something was wrong because the key would not have been on the mantle. Abby would have taken it with her to go up to her room.

Testimony of Bridget Sullivan Preliminary Hearing page 26:

Q. Was it your habit to go up stairs that way?
A Yes Sir.

Q. When?
A. When I got through with my work down stairs, if I had not anything else to do, I always went upstairs, before I started to get dinner, if I had time.

[NancyDrew]

I don't think Lizzie was brilliant, Franz. I think she was very, very lucky.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie intended to kill her parents, there's a string of "luck" involved, if we care to call it that. Emma is away visiting, Abby is fussing with something in the guest room while Bridget and everyone else is out of the building. Then Bridget goes up to the third floor leaving Lizzie with Andrew napping in the sitting room. It really couldn't have happened much better for the murderer.

[Smudgeman]

I have always thought and have said many times here on the forum that Lizzie was lucky that day. But I also believe that she had nothing but time on her hands to listen and observe the action in the household. By that I mean, I think she made it her business to know what was brewing. I would bet that she eavesdropped on many a conversation between her Father and Abby as well as when Morse was visiting. She was in full charge of that household the day of the murders, then tried to make it seem like she was so busy doing mundane things around the house that she didn't know where Abby was. Boloney!

[Allen]

Emma had been away for over two weeks before the murders. That gave Lizzie two whole weeks to plan on Emma being absent. I wouldn't call her absence on that day luck. Nobody expected her to be there. They had not expected her to be there for two weeks.

We really don't know if Andrew was napping. We can only assume. Without being in the house that day we can't know for sure. All he needed to be doing was sitting unaware that someone was about to swing an ax at his head. The first blow killed him. I think all of the blows were to the face and head because this was the most likely area to attack that would assure death. No sound from either murder was heard by anyone that day. Whether Lizzie did it or not, no sound was heard that raised any alarm bells for anyone. If the window was indeed left open, and no sound was heard from Andrew's murder through the window, no cries or loud noises, I'd say he was quickly dispatched and the noise was minimal also.

I'm not sure Bridget going upstairs to rest in her room, as she testified she often did during the day after she had finished her chores, could be called luck either. Someone doing something they quite often do anyway in my opinion doesn't constitute a lucky occurrence.

[Smudgeman]

I hear what you are saying Allen, I guess I think lizzie was lucky that nobody came to the house during the period of the murders that we know of, so all we have is Lizzie's account for things that happened that day. It is interesting that she claims a man came to the house that morning, and Father turned him away, I wonder if she made this up to help her cause? And did she know where Morse was going that day, and knew she had plenty of time before he returned? I do believe Bridget was busy doing her maidly duties like any other day she had to work, and did not see anything out of the ordinary. I think she was shell shocked by it all then perhaps remembered some sequence of events that made her suspicious later, ?

[Franz]

6. Mute point...SOMEONE DID KILL Mrs. Borden in the guest room and whoever did DIDN'T close the door, so why should we ask why Lizzie specifically didn't?

Just a word about the sixth point in this tread. If Lizzie did it, according to Bridget and Mrs. Churchill's testimony, she would have left the guest room door open after killing Abby. Knowning well that she must wait more than one hour before her father's return, she left the door open, with Abby's body lying on the floor inside, (mot probably) with the blood smell ("she was lying in a pool of blood") spreading everywhere, with herself going downstairs and upstairs and passing before the guest room, all this is for me very highly unlikely.

On the contrary, if the killer was un intruder, he could have hidden himself in the guest room after killing Abby, with the door closed (Lizzie said she found it closed that morning with she past by the guest room), he left the door open only when he went out of the guest room and went downtairs to kill Andrew.

I propose to do a questionnaire survey among the members:

If you were Lizzie (assuming she did it), after killing Abby, you would leave the guest room and

A. close the door B. not close the door

[Allen]

If I were Lizzie I would not have bothered to worry about the door because I would know I'd told everyone that Abby had gone out of the house. And nobody had a reason to go up those stairs. Bridget had no duties up there. Andrew had no reason to go up there either. I also don't think the door being open proves anything either way. The fact is the door was open. Nobody smelled any blood. Nobody saw Abby until they were aware there was a reason to search for her. Nobody even thought to search for her in the house until Lizzie said she thought she heard her come in and asked for someone to look for her. So I don't think the door being open presented any problems.

[Smudgeman]

I don't believe the door being opened or closed matters. Just because Lizzie said it was closed makes no difference. LIke Allen said nobody had a reason to go up there.

[NancyDrew]

What about John Morse? What if had had suddenly been struck with the same illness they all had been suffering from, and had returned early, wanting perhaps to go upstairs and lay down? She had no way of knowing that wouldn't happen.

[Yooper]

The closed door wouldn't have prevented Morse from entering the room. The open door allowed Abby to be seen from the stairway looking under the bed as Mrs. Churchill did. The only reason anyone other than Lizzie would have had for ascending the front stairs would be to go in the guest room, Lizzie's room and the large closet were locked. A closed door would not have prevented that, so it didn't make much difference if the door was open or closed.

[Franz]

I don't think Lizzie was brilliant, Franz. I think she was very, very lucky.

If Lizzie did it, I would agree that she was lucky, but in my opinion, she was lucky because Bridget was resting in her room, because Andrew was having a nap, because Morse returned only after she had accomplished her murders. She was lucky for this things. But do you really think it was a matter of luck that Lizzie killed her two victims with the very first blow, not making any (or almost any) noise, just like a trained butcher? that Lizzie, in only few minutes, cleaned up the blood (twice) and hid the weapon (never found afterwards) in or near the house, just like a professional killer?

If Lizzie was so brilliant in actions, why was she so stupid in words ? (I mean, her stupid alibi testimony and her stupid note story). I think it should be the contrary more probable: she prepared a pretty good alibi, and a lie much better than the note story, but made a bad performance in her killing.

I noticed that when you answered all these questions, more than one person used the word “luck” or the conception of the word. Very good. But I think if you give the hypothetic killer Lizzie so many luck, you should give equally so many luck to the hypothetic killer the intruder: In spite of the presence of Morse, ignoring totally Morse’s doing, Lizzie killed Andrew and Abby successfully, if Lizzie could be so lucky, why an intruder could not be so lucky as well: enter in and escape from the house without being seen by anyone?

[Franz]

Allen, Yooper, I don’t want to offend nobody, but I must say that I have an impression that when I ask a question apparently in favour of Lizzie, you avoid to answer them directly. This time, Allen you said: “I would not have bothered to worry about the door”, Yooper you said: “it didn't make much difference if the door was open or closed”. For that question of cruelty Allen said, there are many cruel women as well., etc. Ok, ok, very good, they are your brilliant arguments. But if you were Lizzie, you would or leave it open, or close it (one of the two), right? what I need for the moment is only a simple answer, A or B, that’s all. So, would you like to answer my question?

I give you an example:
Question: the note story could demonstrate that more probably Lizzie was A. guilty; B. innocent.
My answer: A. guilty (Considering the question in itself, I choose A, that's all, even though I am more convinced for her innocence)

Would you like to answer my questions, in the same manner, and with sincerity? I repeat my questions:

1. If you were Lizzie, you would A. close the door; B. leave the door open

2. The Borden case was an extremely horrible crime, (only considering this cruelty), I think that it was more probablely the work of A. a man; B. a woman.

[Allen]

Franz, I don't want to offend you, but in asking us to only pick one of two choices with one word answers, or simple answers, and not express an opinion you might not find valid while doing so, that isn't much of a discussion about the case. That's too limiting a forum for me. I prefer having a discussion to feeling like I'm taking multiple choice exams in college all over again.

[Yooper]

How does the question about the door favor Lizzie?

I don't jump through hoops, so you have my answer about the door from the previous post.

[Aamartin]

I don't think anyone normally going up or down the stairs would have HAD to have seen the body. Mrs C and Bridget were going up nervously-- and probably looking about.... Furtive glances and all. For me, the door makes no difference in determining whether or not I think Lizzie did it.

[Yooper]

I don't think Lizzie was brilliant, Franz. I think she was very, very lucky.

If Lizzie did it, I would agree that she was lucky, but in my opinion, she was lucky because Bridget was resting in her room, because Andrew was having a nap, because Morse returned only after she had accomplished her murders. She was lucky for this things. But do you really think it was a matter of luck that Lizzie killed her two victims with the very first blow, not making any (or almost any) noise, just like a trained butcher? that Lizzie, in only few minutes, cleaned up the blood (twice) and hid the weapon (never found afterwards) in or near the house, just like a professional killer?

If Lizzie was so brilliant in actions, why was she so stupid in words ? (I mean, her stupid alibi testimony and her stupid note story). I think it should be the contrary more probable: she prepared a pretty good alibi, and a lie much better than the note story, but made a bad performance in her killing.

I noticed that when you answered all these questions, more than one person used the word “luck” or the conception of the word. Very good. But I think if you give the hypothetic killer Lizzie so many luck, you should give equally so many luck to the hypothetic killer the intruder: In spite of the presence of Morse, ignoring totally Morse’s doing, Lizzie killed Andrew and Abby successfully, if Lizzie could be so lucky, why an intruder could not be so lucky as well: enter in and escape from the house without being seen by anyone?

If Abby and Andrew were dead with the first hatchet blow, I don't think it was particularly "brilliant" to strike them several more times. Bridget didn't testify to hearing any noise, being outdoors during Abby's murder and two floors removed from Andrew's murder. That does not mean there was no noise involved, just apparently none that Bridget heard. Lizzie had a fair amount of time to do anything necessary after Abby's murder and by the time she got around to Andrew, she was more aware of what to expect.

Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie. An intruder would have had the identical amount of time to kill the Bordens and whatever else was necessary afterwards. Clearly, somebody was able to commit the crimes. The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie.

[Franz]

Franz, I don't want to offend you, but in asking us to only pick one of two choices with one word answers, or simple answers, and not express an opinion you might not find valid while doing so, that isn't much of a discussion about the case. That's too limiting a forum for me. I prefer having a discussion to feeling like I'm taking multiple choice exams in college all over again.

Allen, and others, maybe I did't make my idea clear. I certainly won't do any judgement according to your simple answer A or B. I certainly don't want to limit our discussion in this way. But I think that as a response to a number of facts, we could have an instinctive answer. This instinctive answer could derive from the common sense, or from the experience of life of everyone, and then, our reasoning comes afterwards, and our reasoning can confirm or refute the instinctive answer that we made before. I certainly, just like you, prefer taking multiple choice exams in college all over again, but this is our reasoning that comes later. We can discuss them as widely as we like in many many other posts. But in this one, at this moment, I would like to know only your instinctive answers to that two questions, that's all. I think it should not be forbidden this type of discussion as a very very very little part of our discussions in the forum in all. This time do I make my idea clearer?

(For example, my instinctive answer to the note story is Lizzie was guilty, but I have many things to express in order to explain why, in spite of the general opinion that the note story strongly incriminates Lizzie, I am more convinced for her innocence. Another example, if someone thinks Lizzie was guilty, but meanwhile he answers me: the extreme cruelty demonstrates the killer is more probably a man. In saying so he does not make a contradiction at all with his (final) conclusion: Lizzie was guilty, because the answer he gave me is only his instinctive answer. I certainly know that he has many reasons for which his final conclusion is different from his instinctive answer of only a single question. I can give all my instinctive answers for all the facts, no matter how my answers could seem stupid or illogic. Am I more clear now?)

[Franz]

How does the question about the door favor Lizzie?

I don't jump through hoops, so you have my answer about the door from the previous post.

Yooper, in another discussion you said that most people should rush out immediately after the discovery of Andrew's body, right? Since Lizzie didn't act in this manner, you think Lizzie's reaction is suspicious, right?

If most people would close the door after killing Abby and wait for more than one hour Andrew in the same house in which a body was lying one the floor of one room, I asked myself why Lizzie left the door open, could I ?

If someone answered me (an hypothesis) that most people would close the door, but Lizzie could leave it open and actually she did so, then I would say: most people would rush out immediately, but Lizzie could react differently and she actually reacted so.

[Franz]

I don't think anyone normally going up or down the stairs would have HAD to have seen the body. Mrs C and Bridget were going up nervously-- and probably looking about.... Furtive glances and all. For me, the door makes no difference in determining whether or not I think Lizzie did it.

I totally agree with you for the first part of you reply. But, if a group of conspirators are sure 100% that there isn't anyone in the next room, for this reason would they talk about loudly their criminal plan?

Do you think that the psychology of a person hasn't any importance when we consider a murder case?

[Aamartin]

100% certain? Of course they would.

As far as the psychology of the killer? Someone who believes he is she is above the law would most certainly do things differently from someone who does not believe this.

[Franz]

100% certain? Of course they would.

As far as the psychology of the killer? Someone who believes he is she is above the law would most certainly do things differently from someone who does not believe this.

If you imply that Lizzie believed she was above the law, do you have any proof?

In these days it seems everyone asks me proof, could I ask you your proof for all your speculations?

[Franz]

... Bridget didn't testify to hearing any noise, being outdoors during Abby's murder and two floors removed from Andrew's murder. That does not mean there was no noise involved, just apparently none that Bridget heard. ...

Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie. ... The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie.

1. Yes, Lizzie, if she did it, could have made some noise. I have never gone to the Borden house, but I read more than one time those who have gone there, that according (at least some of) them, judging by the structure of the house, it would be very difficult to imagine that nobody actually heared nothing. So, even Lizzie made some noise, it should have been very weak, this implies that the victims dead (almost) immediately after the first blow (or at least had no more capacity to make some noise bigger), Even though, I think Lizzie's "performance" was really brilliant as well. How many members are there in the forum? and how many dare say: "If I were Lizzie, I could do as brilliant as her or even more brilliant than her"? Who, among us, could declare such a heroic statement? According to me, if Lizzie did it, she could participate to the murder championship - if there were one - and became easily one of the few finalists.

2. You said "The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie". You are right. But if Lizzie went out to hide the weapon (even the weapon could be put in something as a bag), she should be lucky as well that nobody saw her go out with a relatively voluminous objet in her hand. On the other hand, the luck associated with Morse's returning time does not apply to the intuder, if he were Morse's conspirator.

[Aamartin]

No-- I didn't say I believe Lizzie thought herself above the law....

Take members of organized crime for example. I don't think if they were 100% sure no one was listening in the next room that they would whisper....People who have gotten away with numerous crimes. Yet, someone planning their first crime? An Amateur? They might whisper and worry about doors being open or shut, etc.

I merely stated my belief that IF Lizzie killed Abby in that bedroom -- she had little reason to think anyone would stumble upon her corpse.

[NancyDrew]

Franz:

I'll answer your questions.

1. If I were Lizzie, and I had killed Abby, I would have left the door OPEN. It looks more like an intruder, it gives the chance for others to discover the body more easily, and...well, I don't know, you asked for an instinctive response. There you go.

2. I think the nature of the crimes indicates a WOMAN. A man would have dispatched with the Bordens more efficiently. A gun maybe. The repeated hacking of someone's face...that tells me the person doing the hacking was ANGRY and in particular, wanted to obliterate the eyes. What was in that Andrew insisted on watching , or seeing, that made destroying his eyes so necessary? The overkill too...that speaks to me of a woman, someone with limited upper body strength. Just my opinion. Hope I don't get jumped on for it.

[Yooper]

... Bridget didn't testify to hearing any noise, being outdoors during Abby's murder and two floors removed from Andrew's murder. That does not mean there was no noise involved, just apparently none that Bridget heard. ...

Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie. ... The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie.

1. Yes, Lizzie, if she did it, could have made some noise. I have never gone to the Borden house, but I read more than one time those who have gone there, that according (at least some of) them, judging by the structure of the house, it would be very difficult to imagine that nobody actually heared nothing. So, even Lizzie made some noise, it should have been very weak, this implies that the victims dead (almost) immediately after the first blow (or at least had no more capacity to make some noise bigger), Even though, I think Lizzie's "performance" was really brilliant as well. How many members are there in the forum? and how many dare say: "If I were Lizzie, I could do as brilliant as her or even more brilliant than her"? Who, among us, could declare such a heroic statement? According to me, if Lizzie did it, she could participate to the murder championship - if there were one - and became easily one of the few finalists.

2. You said "The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie". You are right. But if Lizzie went out to hide the weapon (even the weapon could be put in something as a bag), she should be lucky as well that nobody saw her go out with a relatively voluminous objet in her hand. On the other hand, the luck associated with Morse's returning time does not apply to the intuder, if he were Morse's conspirator.

1. This statement can stand on its own merit.

2. "If" Lizzie went out to hide the weapon. but if not?

[Allen]

I gave my instinctive response Franz. And because it didn't fit your mold of what you considered the correct answer you said I avoided the question. I don't believe whether the door was open or shut proves anything at all about who did it. The door was found open. That does not show any proof that it was ever shut because an intruder hid behind it and then opened it when he went to kill Andrew. I said if I had been Lizzie it would not have mattered to me. I wouldn't have bothered to worry about it. That is my instinctive answer. So discussion about one's answer also comes into play because my answers are NOT A or B so I cannot choose either one and should be able to explain why. I also think my instinctive response to your other question about whether or not a man or woman committed the crime is either a man or a woman is capable of committing the murders. They are equally capable. That is my simplest answer. So I cannot pick A or B. That isn't avoiding the question. That's giving my honest answer. I cannot fit them to your specifications.

I have been to the house. Twice. And there were other people staying there as well. I slept in the guest room both times. There were two women who slept in Lizzie's suit and there were people on the third floor as well. And during the night I never heard one peep of what the other people in the house were doing. I don't know if that points to how well the noise of a body hitting the floor would carry, but I heard nothing. I could have been in the house alone. Or maybe the other people staying there just didn't make much noise. Either way I heard nothing. Somebody killed them. They were murdered and are dead. Somebody made no noise while doing it. Somebody left no blood trail or transfer after the murders, even though they supposedly hid out in bloody clothing for over an hour. Somebody had just as much time to get cleaned up afterward to be presentable for public viewing as Lizzie did after killing Andrew. So I don't understand why Lizzie is not capable of committing these murders because of all these factors and an intruder would be. Lizzie knew the lay out of the house. Lizzie knew where to get cleaned up afterwards if she needed to clean up. Lizzie had access to clean clothing. Lizzie had lived in that house for most of her life and I'm sure knew where something could be hidden in a hurry if it needed to be. Lizzie knew the routines and habits of the house hold members. I'd say an intruder needed way more luck than Lizzie did.

[Franz]

Yet, someone planning their first crime? An Amateur? They might whisper and worry about doors being open or shut, etc.

I merely stated my belief that IF Lizzie killed Abby in that bedroom -- she had little reason to think anyone would stumble upon her corpse.

In your opinion, Lizzie was an amateur, or not?

[Franz]

... Bridget didn't testify to hearing any noise, being outdoors during Abby's murder and two floors removed from Andrew's murder. That does not mean there was no noise involved, just apparently none that Bridget heard. ...

Yes, any luck involved in the form of logistics would also apply to someone other than Lizzie. ... The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie.

1. Yes, Lizzie, if she did it, could have made some noise. I have never gone to the Borden house, but I read more than one time those who have gone there, that according (at least some of) them, judging by the structure of the house, it would be very difficult to imagine that nobody actually heared nothing. So, even Lizzie made some noise, it should have been very weak, this implies that the victims dead (almost) immediately after the first blow (or at least had no more capacity to make some noise bigger), Even though, I think Lizzie's "performance" was really brilliant as well. How many members are there in the forum? and how many dare say: "If I were Lizzie, I could do as brilliant as her or even more brilliant than her"? Who, among us, could declare such a heroic statement? According to me, if Lizzie did it, she could participate to the murder championship - if there were one - and became easily one of the few finalists.

2. You said "The luck associated with entering and leaving undetected does not apply to Lizzie". You are right. But if Lizzie went out to hide the weapon (even the weapon could be put in something as a bag), she should be lucky as well that nobody saw her go out with a relatively voluminous objet in her hand. On the other hand, the luck associated with Morse's returning time does not apply to the intuder, if he were Morse's conspirator.

1. This statement can stand on its own merit.

2. "If" Lizzie went out to hide the weapon. but if not?

If Lizzie didn't go out to hide the weapon, she should have hiden it in the house. She was, in my opinion, brilliant as well, maybe more.

[Franz]

Thank you Allen for sharing your experience at the Borden house. Did you sleep in the bed or ... on the floor? I heard some people slept lying on the place where Abby's body had been found!!!

[Allen]

Thank you Allen for sharing your experience at the Borden house. Did you sleep in the bed or ... on the floor? I heard some people slept lying on the place where Abby's body had been found!!!

I slept in the bed. But I did have my picture taken lying in the same pose that Abby was found beside the bed. As I'm sure many of the visitors have done. It seems morbid but I was told that is one of the first things many visitors want to do is lay in that spot. I also had a picture taken of me lying on the sofa from the area in the dining room door where I believe the killer stood. I can see from looking at it from that perspective Andrew was a perfect target from that vantage point.

[Allen]

As for the blood spatter. I have always thought that the killer did not have to be that blood spattered to start with. That has been my contention. And what little blood spatter there was could have been easily cleaned up, and something worn over the clothing to make the clean up easier still. I saw a video involving the murder a man who was killed in broad daylight on the street in Woolwich recently. The video was included in a news report I read about the case. The man was murdered with a meat cleaver and a knife. The killers hacked him to death in front of any witnesses who happened to be walking by that day. They hacked him to pieces and tried to decapitate him right there on the street. They did not hide their crime. On the contrary they wanted it to be a message. They did not take care to NOT be covered in blood or to keep evidence of their crime off of their person. The most amazing thing is one of the killers walked up to a man on the street and began talking to him to explain his wild reasoning for killing this man. The man started filming. The killer had not only literally just walked away from the body, but was still holding the bloody murder weapons. And to look at this man he was NOT covered in blood. He had just hacked someone to death and was NOT covered in blood. His hands were bloody that is all that I noticed. His face was not smeared. His clothing was not smeared with blood. Aside from bloody hands and bloody murder weapons in those hands, I saw relatively little blood at all on his person. I posted this video here on the site. For me it only proves further that the murderers of Andrew and Abby did not have to be that blood spattered.

[Franz]

Thank you Allen for sharing your experience at the Borden house. Did you sleep in the bed or ... on the floor? I heard some people slept lying on the place where Abby's body had been found!!!

I slept in the bed. But I did have my picture taken lying in the same pose that Abby was found beside the bed. As I'm sure many of the visitors have done. It seems morbid but I was told that is one of the first things many visitors want to do is lay in that spot. I also had a picture taken of me lying on the sofa from the area in the dining room door where I believe the killer stood. I can see from looking at it from that perspective Andrew was a perfect target from that vantage point.

Didn't you receive any illumination?

[Allen]

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

[Franz]

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Oh that's only a jock, Allen. Maybe inspiration is the word more exact?

[Allen]

This is the photo that was taken from where I believe the killer stood to kill Andrew. The person taking the picture stood in the doorway of the dining room. From this angle Andrew was a perfectly easy target. That did give me some 'inspiration' yes. That this was the most likely spot for the killer to have been standing, and that even if he was lying there awake he never had to see it coming until it was too late.

[Franz]

This is the photo that was taken from where I believe the killer stood to kill Andrew. The person taking the picture stood in the doorway of the dining room. From this angle Andrew was a perfectly easy target. That did give me some 'inspiration' yes. That this was the most likely spot for the killer to have been standing, and that even if he was lying there awake he never had to see it coming until it was too late.

That should have been very exciting! Thank you!

[Franz]

I don't think Lizzie was brilliant, Franz. I think she was very, very lucky.

Bridget, in the witness statements (p. 22), testified: “I never had occasion to use a hatchet but once, and that was to take the heels off of my shoes.” Emma, in her Inquest testimony (p. 110), said she had no occasion to use those two axes down stairs and she did not have a great deal of business down cellar. So, NancyDrew, what do you think about Lizzie and hatchets or axes?

It is generally thought that Abby and Andrew were probably killed both by the very first blow. Could Lizzie be capable of such a brilliant “performance”? Only a question of luck? Highly unlikely for me.

[Franz]

NancyDrew, I copy here a topic posted by Kat, entitled "The Belanger Murder":

Do we know about this? I ran across this snippet at the bottom of a news item page devoted to the Borden crime. It's from the Fall River Evening News, Wednesday, August 10, 1892. The snippet is supposedly from The Lowell Times.

"Strangely Coincident.
Some features of the Borden tragedy seem strangely coincident with some of those that characterized the Belanger murder in this city. In both cases a sharp instrument was used, but in neither case can the precise nature of the instrument be determined. The final conclusion was that a butcher's cleaver was used in the Lowell murder, and the same probability is suggested in the Fall River case. The perfect accuracy with which the blows were struck was something particulary noted in both cases. The blows precisely followed each other; there was no hacking, and the slashing looked like the work of a practical hand. The actual concealment of all traces was another remarkable feature, common to both cases. The assassin left no drippings from his instument, and no other traces of his retreat. Probably all this is mere coincidence, but, nevertheless, is it not strange?"

---The part about the weapon not being agreed upon, no traces of the person leaving a bloody scene and no drippings from the instrument are what got my attention. We've yet to figure out why there was no blood trail from the guest room.

NancyDrew, what got my more attention is this: "The perfect accuracy with which the blows were struck was something particulary noted in both cases. The blows precisely followed each other; there was no hacking, and the slashing looked like the work of a practical hand."

This brilliant killer, could it be Lizzie? Highly unlikely for me.

[PossumPie]

If you stand in the same spot and swing an ax at a block of wood, most of your hits will be within a relatively small area. You are describing the same arc with your arm and shoulder. I used to be disturbed more by the lack of blood, but being an RN, I understand now that at the time of the sharp force trauma, there may be little blood. The large pools you see in horror movies only occur if the blood has been seeping out over a long time. There are very small droplets that occur with an ax or other instrument, but not much blood 'dripping off' the ax when you are finished. If the killer stood over the body even for 10 seconds, the blood on the ax would have dripped on the victim and not in a path out the door...Unfortunately we get much of our understanding of forensics from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and CSI: Miami...