To poison or not to poison...

[Allen]

Let me put my question to you this way. According to your theory Morse orchestrated these murders with the help of two accomplices and wanted the murderers to do the crime so that it could never be traced back to him or his nieces. Why, if he did not want the murderers to be discovered, would his plan have been to have them knock on the front door of a home on a busy street, and have the woman of the house walk down to the fence by the road on said busy street, with a man hiding in plain sight on the side of the house for anyone who happened to be walking, driving by, or just standing in their own yard within sight of the house? How is that a crafty murder plot?

[Franz]

Ok Franz, I have to say that post was bordering on absurd. We don't know everybody that passed by the house that morning because not everybody who lived in Fall River gave a statement to police. And who CARES if it was only Mrs. Churchill and only Mrs. Kelly who saw them? Does that make the actions any less seen because it was only one person who witnessed it? SOMEBODY saw it. Why does it matter if it was only one person??

Allen, I care if it was only Mrs. churchill and only Mrs. Kelly who saw them. This could mean: 1) as you said, there could have been other persons passing by the house but they didn't give a statement. 2) but... this could mean as well that no other people was there at all. Mrs. Kelly and Bridget trstified enven clearly that the street was desert when one was going to her dentist, another returning from Dr. Bowen.

You said: "... because not everybody who lived in Fall River gave a statement to police." Maybe you mean: "everybody who lived in Fall River and passed through the Second Street that morning"? But if there was no other statement, why are you so sure that there were these people?

It has been thought for long time that that day was very hot. And those who believe that an intruder was absolutely impossible say simply that the Second Street was a busy street. It could usually be so. But we must have concrete evidence to prove that that morning, especially at certain moments, there was indeed a busy traffic. But do we have evidence about this? At least in two moments, as testified Mrs. Kelly and Bridget, the street was desert!

[Franz]

...
I'm getting the feeling even if we had a witness who said they were standing there continuously staring at the Borden house from 9:30 to 10:00 you would say they had to blink sometime.

Allen, fortunately I don't need to say such a thing, just because we haven't a witnesse who said they were standing there continuously staring at the borden house from 9:30 to 10:00. If we haven't such evidence, how could we be sure that something didn't happen at a certain moment when no one was there to watch?

Was the street busy at that morning? We need concrete evidence to make such a statement. In my opinion, to prove the impossibility of un intruder, it is not enough by saying: the street was usually busy.

[Franz]

Let me put my question to you this way. According to your theory Morse orchestrated these murders with the help of two accomplices and wanted the murderers to do the crime so that it could never be traced back to him or his nieces. Why, if he did not want the murderers to be discovered, would his plan have been to have them knock on the front door of a home on a busy street, and have the woman of the house walk down to the fence by the road on said busy street, with a man hiding in plain sight on the side of the house for anyone who happened to be walking, driving by, or just standing in their own yard within sight of the house? How is that a crafty murder plot?

Allen, considering the social activities of Abby and professional activities of Andrew, I think (my personal opinion) that the best place to kill them should be just ... their house.

You know well that in the first version of my theory, I speculated that Morse let his conspirator enter in the house the previous night. You and Yooper (where is he now?) convinced me that this was (almost) impossible. Then, after reading more primary sources, I think that the Second Street could be not as busy as people always believed. Beside Bridget and Mrs. Kelly's testimonie that I mentioned previously, the reluctance of Bridget made me think a lot, when she was questioned if the street was usually busy, she answered: well...there are people (something like that, excuse me for not quoting the source here, I am just writing a quick reply). If I recall correctly, she never said: oh yes, it's a (very) busy street.

[Allen]

All we have testimony from is that Mrs. Kelly and Bridget didn't take notice of anyone else on the street, not that there wasn't anyone else there.

Trial Testimony of Mrs. Caroline Kelly page 216-217:

Q. Did you notice at that time who were passing on the street?
A. No. I don't remember anyone. ( Doesn't mean there wasn't anyone. Just that she doesn't remember anyone.)

Q. Didn't take any notice at all?
A. No, sir. (She's not paying attention to anyone else passing by on the street.)

Q. Don't you remember a carriage that passed by there, an open buggy, right at the time, and right against you?
A. No, sir, I don't. (So a carriage passed by but she doesn't remember seeing it. )

Q. And a couple of men in it?
A. No, sir, I don't. (There were evidently a couple of men in this carriage that passed by at this time but she doesn't remember seeing them.)

Q. That street isn't very wide?
A. I know it, but I don't remember it.

Q. Do you remember any carriage or team passing you right at the place?
A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. Going either way?
A. Either way. It might have possibly, but I don't remember it. I didn't take notice.

Q. Then two or three might have passed you and you not notice at all?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you meet any people on the sidewalk there?
A. I don't remember.

Q. And do you say you did not?
A. I don't say I did not, no.

Q. You didn't take notice enough so but what if you had seen two or three men along there, you wouldn't think anything about it?
A. No, I don't think so.

Q. And especially if they were across the street? Do you know where Mr. Miller's house is across the street?
A. Yes.

Q. And where Dr. Bowen's house is, part of the same block?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see anybody over there in front of that house?
A. I didn't look. I don't remember.

Q. Did you pass down by Mr. Hall's stoop on the same side of the street as Mr. Miller's house?
A. I passed on the opposite side.

Q. Did you notice anybody about there?
A. No, sir. (We have testimony from witnesses that they were standing outside at Hall's stable.)

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Bridget Sullivan page 263:

Q. Did you say that Second street is a quiet street?
A. No, sir; I didn't say no such thing.

Q. Well, is it a quiet street?
A. Well, I don't know; I didn't see any quarreling there.

Q. No, no; I don't mean quarreling, but noise of travel?
A. Well, there is quite a lot of teams and hacks and so forth goes by there.

Trial testimony of Mrs. Churchill page 355 - 356:

Q. The street is one traveled a good deal by carriages, wagons and teams?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, speaking comparatively, it is quite a noisy street?
A. Yes, sir.

Trial testimony of Officer Doherty page 604:

Q. That Second street you were quite familiar with I suppose?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is a street of great thoroughfare, heavy teams and carriages, and person passing through constantly?
A. Yes, sir, I should say so.

Trial testimony of John Morse page 151:

Q. That is a well traveled thoroughfare, is it not, of the city?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. A great many carriages and teams are passing, from time to time there?
A. Yes, sir, of all kinds.

Q. And it is a very noisy street, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.

[Franz]

Allen, thank you for the posts.

I take only one point as an example:

Q. Did you notice at that time who were passing on the street?
A. No. I don't remember anyone. ( Doesn't mean there wasn't anyone. Just that she doesn't remember anyone.)

But, with my poor English undertstanding, I think the answer doesn't mean that there was anyone. Since in the question is used "notice", I could inteprete the answer in this manner: I don't remember that I noticed anyone who were passing on the street. This means, in my opinion, that most probably there was no one at all to be noticed.

And I repeat, we need concret evidence about the traffic of that morning. Even a busy street doesn't mean that there were always, continously people and carriages to pass there. And I don't think a question like this one is legal in a court: It is a street of great thoroughfare, heavy teams and carriages, and person passing through constantly? In my modest opinion, it should be asked: "do you have any knowlegement about the usual traffic of that street?"

[Allen]

The question about a carriage passing by right at that moment with two or three men in it shows that there was nobody on the street at the time?? Franz....I give up. You really do IGNORE anything that doesn't agree with your theory. She also said she didn't notice anyone at Hall's stable but there CLEARLY were people there.

[PossumPie]

Franz, you again take ONE tiny insignificant fact and argue it to death. I believe I presented a well-constructed package of astounding coincidences, that added together would mathematically be virtually impossible, You fail to respond to the pieces that matter, and choose to pick one tiny piece, that maybe it was hot and nobody saw a man sneak into the house. Funny, SOMEONE saw every other coming and going from that house that day. What about my other 8 coincidences?

[Allen]

Two things I find the most frustrating are that Franz demands concrete proof about traffic on a street that many people of that time agree was a busy thoroughfare, and concrete proof of other elements of the case that have been discussed, but he doesn't have one shred of proof to back up his own theory. Concrete or otherwise. And the fact that he ignores any information that doesn't fit into his theory.

[PossumPie]

Two things I find the most frustrating are that Franz demands concrete proof about traffic on a street that many people of that time agree was a busy thoroughfare, and concrete proof of other elements of the case that have been discussed, but he doesn't have one shred of proof to back up his own theory. Concrete or otherwise. And the fact that he ignores any information that doesn't fit into his theory.

And he ignores any solid arguments against his theory, and picks some trivial word or description, and argues that. I welcome differing opinions from mine, and I'm not 100% convinced of Lizzie's guilt, but I deplore faulty logic. It's like playing chess against a computer who knows the game but makes illogical, self-defeating moves...

[twinsrwe]

Two things I find the most frustrating are that Franz demands concrete proof about traffic on a street that many people of that time agree was a busy thoroughfare, and concrete proof of other elements of the case that have been discussed, but he doesn't have one shred of proof to back up his own theory. Concrete or otherwise. And the fact that he ignores any information that doesn't fit into his theory.

And he ignores any solid arguments against his theory, and picks some trivial word or description, and argues that. I welcome differing opinions from mine, and I'm not 100% convinced of Lizzie's guilt, but I deplore faulty logic. It's like playing chess against a computer who knows the game but makes illogical, self-defeating moves...

Thank you Allen and PossumPie! I was in the process of typing up a post regarding the very things the two of you mentioned here.

Franz, I can’t believe you even asked where Yooper is now. Go back and re-read his posts; I think he made his reason for leaving the forum quite clear.

[Aamartin]

Franz... Dozens of people may have passed the house that morning and thought nothing of it. I live 2 blocks from a grocery store I go to several times a week. Sometimes I walk, sometimes I drive. I seldom notice anything different-- and if a crime was committed inside a house, I might have no statement to give because I saw nothing. Therefore I would not be called upon by the police. But if I did see something unusual, even if I thought nothing of it at the time-- when I heard about the crime, I may very well think 'I did see that car parked there' or 'there was someone in the yard there'. I would SURELY notice if I saw a neighbor talking to a stranger at the sidewalk while someone else lurked beside their house! In fact, if I saw that I would stop and call out 'what's going on?'. Even if I just saw someone lurking beside someone's house-- I would say or do something! Even if I didn't have my phone with me-- like I never do for that 2 block trip! So, in my mind, if someone saw a fiend lurking on the Borden lawn the least they would have done was come forward after the crimes became known.

[Franz]

Two things I find the most frustrating are that Franz demands concrete proof about traffic on a street that many people of that time agree was a busy thoroughfare, and concrete proof of other elements of the case that have been discussed, but he doesn't have one shred of proof to back up his own theory. Concrete or otherwise. And the fact that he ignores any information that doesn't fit into his theory.

Allen, I don't want to irritate anyone.

Yes, we are discussing here the case. And the discussion is open. We have different opinions. But I think - I am saying I think - there is a big difference between (some of) you and me. It's true I think Lizzie was probably innocent, and I discuss with you, but I have never intention to prove the impossibility of the theory that Lizzie was guilty. But I have the impression - I could be wrong - that (some of) you are trying to prove the impossibility of my theory. I think that whoever's theory - I am speaking in general - if we want to disprove it, we must have concret proof to do so. I doubte that Lizzie did do it, so I discuss with you, but I have no proof to prove the impossibility of this theory, so I state my opinions but I have no intention to prove its impossibility (because I can't). That's all.

Now let's talk about the intruder theories in general (not only the mine). Since a number of people believe that Lizzie was probably innocent, so there is always this question: if it was not Lizzie, not Bridget, it must be un intruder. So when, from where and how did the inturder enter into the house is always a question to be answered for the innocentists. Since the case has been discussing for more than 120 years without a conclusion, we should admit (no matter what's your opinion) that it should be possibile that an inturder entered somehow, at a certain moment, from a certain place. So the question: where, when, and how?

If we could prove the impossibility of the intruder, we would solve the Borden case. But up to now we just can't solve it because we have no concret proof for the intruder's impossibility. I think that even today, if one testifies in the court - speaking in a very general, very vague manner - that the street was busy, this could not convince the jurors to believe a certain thing could not have happen.

I hope I explained well my thoughts.

[Franz]

Thank you Allen and PossumPie! I was in the process of typing up a post regarding the very things the two of you mentioned here.

Franz, I can’t believe you even asked where Yooper is now. Go back and re-read his posts; I think he made his reason for leaving the forum quite clear.

Twinsrwe, with that phrase I meat that I wish to read him again. It's always a bad thing that a member leaves the forum. There are a lot of people in the forum, I am not alone here. Whoever doesn't agree with a certain member can discuss with others, ignoring the posts of that member in question.

[Franz]

... So, in my mind, if someone saw a fiend lurking on the Borden lawn the least they would have done was come forward after the crimes became known.

Yes, certainly. But if no one was there to see what was happening at a certain moment? Could it be possible that at certain moments the Borden house and what was happening there was not in the sight of anyone? If we look the old photos of the street (with the Borden house), have you seen a street scene with many traffic? According to Bridget and Mrs. Kelly's testimonies, I think that it was not impossibile that the street, from time to time, could be pretty desert.

[Franz]

The question about a carriage passing by right at that moment with two or three men in it shows that there was nobody on the street at the time?? Franz....I give up. You really do IGNORE anything that doesn't agree with your theory. She also said she didn't notice anyone at Hall's stable but there CLEARLY were people there.

Allen, you mean this?

Q. Don't you remember a carriage that passed by there, an open buggy, right at the time, and right against you?
A. No, sir, I don't. (So a carriage passed by but she doesn't remember seeing it. )

Could you quote me the original testimony that a carriage paqssed by there? Thank you.

[Allen]

Franz, why do you ignore information that does not fit into your hypothesis, or that refutes what you have said? Mrs. Kelly did not say there was nobody on the street. She said she didn't notice anyone. I do not think such a specific question would have been asked about a carriage passing by her at that moment, with two or three men in it, an open buggy, unless there was some type of evidence someone passed by there in said carriage at that moment. If there was a carriage passing by there were other people on the street. It wasn't empty. We have testimony from witnesses that they were on the street there. She also said she did not notice anyone at Hall's stable. But there were in fact people at Hall's stable. This is what frustrates me. You pick and choose your testimony and ignore whatever doesn't agree with you. For example Mrs. Kelly's testimony. She very clearly stated there could have been other people on the street, but that she didn't take any notice. She very clearly stated that she was not saying there was no one else there. She was very clearly asked about a carriage passing by, and the people at Hall's stable. But all you focused on was the bit of evidence that supported what you said and ignored the rest. So for you there will never be any concrete proof of anything because you'd probably ignore it. And I'm tired of banging my head against the wall here. I hope to talk about the other threads such as what happened to everyone after the murders, and I am looking forward to Nancydrew's thread about why Lizzie didn't take the stand. But I am done presenting any evidence or valid arguments that are flatly ignored.

[Franz]

Two things I find the most frustrating are that Franz demands concrete proof about traffic on a street that many people of that time agree was a busy thoroughfare, and concrete proof of other elements of the case that have been discussed, but he doesn't have one shred of proof to back up his own theory. Concrete or otherwise. And the fact that he ignores any information that doesn't fit into his theory.

And he ignores any solid arguments against his theory, and picks some trivial word or description, and argues that. I welcome differing opinions from mine, and I'm not 100% convinced of Lizzie's guilt, but I deplore faulty logic. It's like playing chess against a computer who knows the game but makes illogical, self-defeating moves...

PossumPie, on the facts we could have different interpretations. For example, Morse's "what" pronounced to Mrs. Churchill, you think that it was insignificant, but in my opinion, it was very suspicious. On the contrary, if some one thinks that it was suspicious that Lizzie didn't suspect Bridget immediately after the discovery of her father's body, I could think that her reaction could be innocent. Disagreeing with others, I don't think that the opinion of the others is illogical. In your posts directed to me you used many times the words "illogical". Here I take always Morse's "what" as an example, do you think that it is illogical if I suspect his "what"?

[Franz]

Franz, why do you ignore information that does not fit into your hypothesis, or that refutes what you have said? Mrs. Kelly did not say there was nobody on the street. She said she didn't notice anyone. I do not think such a specific question would have been asked about a carriage passing by her at that moment, with two or three men in it, an open buggy, unless there was some type of evidence someone passed by there in said carriage at that moment. If there was a carriage passing by there were other people on the street. It wasn't empty. We have testimony from witnesses that they were on the street there. She also said she did not notice anyone at Hall's stable. But there were in fact people at Hall's stable. This is what frustrates me. You pick and choose your testimony and ignore whatever doesn't agree with you. For example Mrs. Kelly's testimony. She very clearly stated there could have been other people on the street, but that she didn't take any notice. She very clearly stated that she was not saying there was no one else there. She was very clearly asked about a carriage passing by, and the people at Hall's stable. But all you focused on was the bit of evidence that supported what you said and ignored the rest. So for you there will never be any concrete proof of anything because you'd probably ignore it. And I'm tired of banging my head against the wall here. I hope to talk about the other threads such as what happened to everyone after the murders, and I am looking forward to Nancydrew's thread about why Lizzie didn't take the stand. But I am done presenting any evidence or valid arguments that are flatly ignored.

Allen, I am not the only person in the world who believes that Lizzie was probably innocent. Now let's imagine that I am speaking for the theory of another person who believe that Lizzie was innocent. Even if I thought that Lizzie was guilty, I could admit that it was possible that un intruder could enter into the house without being seen. My point is here, Allen. I just read one post of PossumPie, he said that he is not 100% certain of Lizzie's guilt, if so, he admits indirectly that an intruder was possible, so he must consider the same question: from where, how and when the intruder enter the house, right?

Allen, if you are absolutely certain that it was not possible for un intruder, the case is solved for you. Congratulations! I say this with all my sincerity, because I, like many others, am still struggling with the case.

[PossumPie]

Franz, we are not opposed to believing someone other than Lizzie committed the murders. To convince us, you need LOGIC, facts, supporting evidence.
You stating that somebody angry at Mr. Borden offered Morse $15,000 to have him killed, which Morse did by hiring 2 thugs to con Mrs. Borden into allowing one to sneak in and kill her has no supporting evidence. You don't have to prove your theory, but you can't pull ideas out of your rectum and expect us to swallow them...not without some kind of supporting evidence.

[PossumPie]

I'm going to repeat this since Franz chose to ignore it.

Speaking psychologically, We all tend to hang on to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against. We ALL hate to give up our beliefs, True, there is no one bit of evidence against Morse being involved, but taken as a whole, the theory has so many astronomical coincidences, that is is statistically improbable.

The coincidence that Mrs. Borden allowed herself to be tricked into walking outside with a stranger, allowing someone to sneak into her home,
The coincidence that though every other coming and going from the home was witnessed that day, the killer sneaked IN the house without anyone seeing.
The coincidence that though every other coming and going was witnessed, the killer sneaked OUT of the house unseen.
The coincidence that once in the house neither Lizzie nor Bridget saw the killer.
The coincidence that once they killed Mrs. Borden, they sat for an hour and a half without getting caught.
The coincidence that when Mr. Borden came in and lay down, NO ONE else but the killer was downstairs to see him,
The coincidence that while killing Mr. Borden, Lizzie didn't come back in, and catch him.
The coincidence that Bridget didn't come downstairs, and catch the killer.
The coincidence that after killing Mr. Borden, the killer found the door which needed a key to get in OR out of the house, unlocked.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd put the odds of that scenario happening at about 8 million-to-1 against.

[pld0128]

Hi everyone. I'm new here to the forum but have been reading all your posts for quite a while. I've done some studying on my own about the case and recently visited the Borden house in Fall River. I've also been fortunate to be able to buy a copy of Rebello's book a few weeks ago and have started to delve into it. I would like to make comment and I hope it can be taken in a positive light (by most of you). After reading all the posts for the last few months and experiencing the dynamics among the members……... has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Franz is getting just a little too much enjoyment out of the negative attention he seems to be seeking. He pointedly ignores what he doesn't choose to address but then seems to revel in every one's frustration in trying to interact with him. I've held off posting my feelings but he really keeps the flames going in a not-so-constructive manner. Please let me know if I am WAY off-base.

[twinsrwe]

Hi everyone. I'm new here to the forum but have been reading all your posts for quite a while. I've done some studying on my own about the case and recently visited the Borden house in Fall River. I've also been fortunate to be able to buy a copy of Rebello's book a few weeks ago and have started to delve into it. I would like to make comment and I hope it can be taken in a positive light (by most of you). After reading all the posts for the last few months and experiencing the dynamics among the members……... has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Franz is getting just a little too much enjoyment out of the negative attention he seems to be seeking. He pointedly ignores what he doesn't choose to address but then seems to revel in every one's frustration in trying to interact with him. I've held off posting my feelings but he really keeps the flames going in a not-so-constructive manner. Please let me know if I am WAY off-base.

Hi pld0128, welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy the interesting topics and information you encounter here.

No, you are not way off-base. I happen to agree with you; Franz does seem to get a kick out of the attention he has been getting. He completely ignores questions that are directed to him, as well as any disagreement against his theory; and he has a way of taking the most insignificant fact and blowing it out of proportion.

It is very unfortunate that a couple of long-term members have left the forum due to their frustrations with Franz and his theory.

[Franz]

I'm going to repeat this since Franz chose to ignore it.

Speaking psychologically, We all tend to hang on to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against. We ALL hate to give up our beliefs, True, there is no one bit of evidence against Morse being involved, but taken as a whole, the theory has so many astronomical coincidences, that is is statistically improbable.

The coincidence that Mrs. Borden allowed herself to be tricked into walking outside with a stranger, allowing someone to sneak into her home,
The coincidence that though every other coming and going from the home was witnessed that day, the killer sneaked IN the house without anyone seeing.
The coincidence that though every other coming and going was witnessed, the killer sneaked OUT of the house unseen.
The coincidence that once in the house neither Lizzie nor Bridget saw the killer.
The coincidence that once they killed Mrs. Borden, they sat for an hour and a half without getting caught.
The coincidence that when Mr. Borden came in and lay down, NO ONE else but the killer was downstairs to see him,
The coincidence that while killing Mr. Borden, Lizzie didn't come back in, and catch him.
The coincidence that Bridget didn't come downstairs, and catch the killer.
The coincidence that after killing Mr. Borden, the killer found the door which needed a key to get in OR out of the house, unlocked.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd put the odds of that scenario happening at about 8 million-to-1 against.

PossumPie, I don't understand why you repeatedly say that I ignore this, I ignore that. I have replied in another post, and saying: I believe that, no matter who was the real killer, a number of coincidences occured that morning and these coincidences created the most mysterious murder case of the American history.

[Franz]

Hi everyone. I'm new here to the forum but have been reading all your posts for quite a while. I've done some studying on my own about the case and recently visited the Borden house in Fall River. I've also been fortunate to be able to buy a copy of Rebello's book a few weeks ago and have started to delve into it. I would like to make comment and I hope it can be taken in a positive light (by most of you). After reading all the posts for the last few months and experiencing the dynamics among the members……... has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Franz is getting just a little too much enjoyment out of the negative attention he seems to be seeking. He pointedly ignores what he doesn't choose to address but then seems to revel in every one's frustration in trying to interact with him. I've held off posting my feelings but he really keeps the flames going in a not-so-constructive manner. Please let me know if I am WAY off-base.

Hi pld0128, welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy the interesting topics and information you encounter here.

No, you are not way off-base, I happen to agree with you; Franz does seem to get a kick out of the attention he has been getting. He completely ignores questions that are directed to him, as well as any disagreement against his theory; and he has a way of taking the most insignificant fact and blowing it out of proportion.

It is very unfortunate that a couple of long-term members have left the forum due to their frustrations with Franz and his theory.

Hello pld0128, welcome to the forum.

As a member of a forum, I certainly wish to be well accepted by others, but I don't seek negative attention, why? Among those who believe that Lizzie was probable innocent, I am the unique one for the moment to post actively, and many questions asked by many members are directed to me and I am alone, I have answered a lot of them, I think. someintmes, in order to avoid the accusation, I am obliged to post, forr example, that about Morse's motive (speculation about some business ennemy) I have been thinking about it for months but didn't want to discuss it here, but I was obliged to do so because PossumPie has been continuously asking me the same question: what was Morse's motive? And from my prevuious reply directed to PossumPie, you can see that it was my reply that was ignored. PossumPie posted a thread entitled "Problems with the Morse consipracy theory" I have copied it and I will reply poitn by point. But here I want to anticipate something. His first point is:

1. Franz believes that b/c Morse said "My God, what happened here?" that that indicates the first time Morse heard of the murders.
Answer- NO. It just could mean that he wanted more details about it.

I invite PossumPie to tell me in which post I quoted Morse's that phrase and speculated that "that indicates the first time Morse heard of the murders"? I don't think I have said such a thing, becasue 1) I don't need that phrase to speculate anything, because Bridget and Sawyer tesfitied explicitely to have told Morse the murder news, 2) "My God, what happened here?" is directed to Sawyer, I never thought that he told Morse the first time the murder news. I always think that Bridget told him first, and then, Sawyer told him a second time. I invite PossumPie to tell me why he wrote his first point in this manner.

In another post, NancyDrew asked me as well why I ignored thoses facts. (please see two murdered people...nothing stolen?), I have replied by explaning that I don't ingore them, what I have been doing here is just discussing many of those points.

Me too I think "it is very unfortunate that a couple of long-term members have left the forum", I have expressed my regret in a previous reply to twinsrwe.

[Franz]

I'm going to repeat this since Franz chose to ignore it.

Speaking psychologically, We all tend to hang on to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against. We ALL hate to give up our beliefs, True, there is no one bit of evidence against Morse being involved, but taken as a whole, the theory has so many astronomical coincidences, that is is statistically improbable.

The coincidence that Mrs. Borden allowed herself to be tricked into walking outside with a stranger, allowing someone to sneak into her home,
The coincidence that though every other coming and going from the home was witnessed that day, the killer sneaked IN the house without anyone seeing.
The coincidence that though every other coming and going was witnessed, the killer sneaked OUT of the house unseen.
The coincidence that once in the house neither Lizzie nor Bridget saw the killer.
The coincidence that once they killed Mrs. Borden, they sat for an hour and a half without getting caught.
The coincidence that when Mr. Borden came in and lay down, NO ONE else but the killer was downstairs to see him,
The coincidence that while killing Mr. Borden, Lizzie didn't come back in, and catch him.
The coincidence that Bridget didn't come downstairs, and catch the killer.
The coincidence that after killing Mr. Borden, the killer found the door which needed a key to get in OR out of the house, unlocked.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd put the odds of that scenario happening at about 8 million-to-1 against.

PossumPie (and others), I decide to reply point by point your post:

1. The coincidence that Mrs. Borden allowed herself to be tricked into walking outside with a stranger, allowing someone to sneak into her home,
The messenger's gentleman aspect (and the name of her friend) could have deceived Mrs. Borden. The consiprators, if they wanted to earn Abby's confidence, must perform their best job. For this point I even add this obersavation (I don't avoid any problem for me): this happened just before Mary appeared and had a conversation with Bridget. this is another coincidence.

2. The coincidence that though every other coming and going from the home was witnessed that day, the killer sneaked IN the house without anyone seeing.
This is indeed a coincidence. But please refresh my memory: did anyone witness when Morse went out the house that morning? We are not sure if Lizzie went in the barn, but we are sure - why not? - that Bridget left the house and went into the barn to fetch water and brush handle (and then she went in and out several times). Did anyone witness her coming out of the house to go to the barn?

3. The coincidence that though every other coming and going was witnessed, the killer sneaked OUT of the house unseen.
I would like to know how other members consider Ellan Eagan's testimony.

4. The coincidence that once in the house neither Lizzie nor Bridget saw the killer.
I think we should exclude Bridget's name, because (in my theory), she was in the barn at that moment (certainly, this is a coincidence as well).

5. The coincidence that once they killed Mrs. Borden, they sat for an hour and a half without getting caught.
Morse invented the note story just for this purpose, and the guest room is maybe the place that Lizzie (and Bridget) had the least possibility to enter. And I add another coincidence here PossumPie: Morse invented the note story, he wanted to prepare as good as possible his murder plan, but he could not be sure that the note message would be told by Abby to Lizzie. But this happened (in my theory). This is another coincidence.

6. The coincidence that when Mr. Borden came in and lay down, NO ONE else but the killer was downstairs to see him,
To be honest I don't understand well. When (and after) Andrew came in Lizzie and Bridget both met him, and when he lay down, Lizzie was there. In my theory, at those first moments after Andrew entered, the killer probably was still hiding in the guest room, to hear the noise of the house, to wait all would be silent, to wait the best moment to go out, go downstairs and to kill.

7. The coincidence that while killing Mr. Borden, Lizzie didn't come back in, and catch him.
Lizzie was in the barn. This is indeed a coincidence.

8. The coincidence that Bridget didn't come downstairs, and catch the killer.
This observation is valid as well if Lizzie was the killer.

9. The coincidence that after killing Mr. Borden, the killer found the door which needed a key to get in OR out of the house, unlocked.
In my theory the killer escaped from the side door.

PossumPie, you said: "I'd put the odds of that scenario happening at about 8 million-to-1 against." I don't know how to calculate. I think a nember of coincidences could happen all together (I am speaking generally). The Borden case is the most mysterious murder case of the american history, if the killer by any chance was not Lizzie, there should be a reason why the case was so mysterious.

And, if the killer was Lizzie, there should be a number of coincidences that all this happened.

(It's very difficult to win a lottery, in many cases the chance is less than 800 million to 1 against. Much more difficult. But there is always some fortunate person to win. The next could be me, you, anyone... Good luck!)

[Allen]

This is the last time I will post any replies to this theory. No matter how much of gentleman this stranger made himself out to be Abby is not going to go down to the sidewalk by the fence and be pulled away from her house. Criminals can be charming also. They kept the doors locked inside their own home. Abby thought someone was trying to poison her or harm her. She is not walking down to meet a stranger in the street. Morse brought nothing but the clothes on his back. Abby knew this. What could he have forgotten in his room? It is thought that Ellen Eagen was not called to testify because it was decided after hearing her testimony she was not even in the Borden yard. That she mistook what yard she was in. Otherwise I think the defense would have called her as a witness don't you? She's putting a strange man directly in the Borden yard? If the killer snuck in the side door Lizzie would have seen him. She was back and forth between the kitchen and the dining room, but mostly sitting in the kitchen. The killer had to go directly into the kitchen before he went to any other part of the house. He would have been seen as soon as he came in. If she was in the dining room, since the sitting room door was closed that morning, he either had to go through the dining room where Lizzie was also going in and out, or open the sitting room door which I'm sure Lizzie would have seen or heard. You can plainly see a person standing at the sitting room door from the dining room. The door to the sitting room is right outside and the intruder would be standing in the doorway to the dining room to open it. The killer cannot judge while sitting upstairs on the second floor through a closed door when the best time to come downstairs to kill someone would be. In your theory the killer escaped from the side door right around the time Hyman Lubinski drove by and was looking into the yard and allegedly saw a woman walking. And by Lizzie's own testimony she stood looking out the window at the side door, eating some pears. (I know you will say Lizzie lied about why she was in the barn she was smoking a cigar and would rather die than tell anyone.)Thomas Bowles took a carriage from Mrs. Churchill's yard over to Hall's stable after having washed it around that time. He said it would take about 2 minutes to get from Mrs. Churchill's house to Hall's stable. Where there were quite a few people around outside. There were men working in the yard behind the house so he couldn't go over the back fence that had barbed wire on top of it. The guest room is not a place where Lizzie had the least possibility to enter. This was used as the sitting room for the girls upstairs. They kept things in there. They entertained in there. Lizzie would have thought nothing of going into that room. And again Morse brought no personal belongings of any kind with him so it wasn't like she'd feel as if she was snooping around into anything. And there would be far less coincidence involved if Lizzie was the killer. Nobody had to see her enter or exit the house she was already there. She wasn't a stranger she could roam around the house at will she did not have to hide. She knew where all the locks were and what room she could get to Abby in without going through them. She had access to water and other tools for cleaning herself up so no blood was seen on her person. And for keeping herself covered to prevent blood spatter in the first place. She didn't have to wait in the guest room for over and hour and a half and listen for sounds through a closed door on the second floor. She didn't have to sneak behind Abby at a recessed front door facing a busy street.

[Allen]

Witness statements:

Louis L. Hall No. 81 Second street. “Was standing on Second street in front of my office, in view of the Borden house, for some time before eleven o’clock, until Mrs. Churchill ran down and told of the murder. I generally observe whoever is on the street, and am most positive I would notice any
suspicious character.”

Alexander H. Coggeshall No. 143 Second street. “Was on Second street opposite the Borden house at 11.45 saw no suspicious person around.”

Robert Nicholson, No. 147 Second street. “Drove up the street between 11.10 and 11.15 o’clock. Saw nothing strange. Met Charles Sawyer, A. H. Coggeshall, and several others. Fixed the time by consulting my watch when I arrived at my office.”

Fredrick A. Pickering. No. 8 Forest street. “Was on Second street in view of the Borden house from 10.40 until I saw officer Allen come up the street.”

Mark Chase. “Was around the Express Company’s stable, opposite the Borden house all forenoon. Was back and forth from the stable to V. Wade’s store several times between 10.30 and 11.15. Saw nothing suspicious.

Leander A. Winslow, No. 95 Second street. “Had been standing at the store door for sometime when a lady named Mary Wyatt told me of the murder.”

Carrie E. Rogers, No. 25 Cherry street. “Was on Second street at eleven o’clock. Saw nothing strange.”

John Eagan, No. 20 Pearl street. “Drove up and down Second street several times between 10.30 and 11.15.”

Sarah Gray, No. 103 Second street. “Was in the store, not busy; saw nothing strange. Think I would notice a person if there was anything remarkable about him.

Macy C. Macomber, Westport. “Stood in front of Wade’s store from ten to twenty minutes talking to several persons. I then drove down the street to Louis L. Hall’s, and was standing there when Mrs. Churchill ran down.”

Harry Pearce, No. 25 Third street. “Was on Second street in front of L. L. Hall’s for sometime before Mrs. Churchill came.”

William L. Hacking, No. 10 Hartwell street. “Passed the Borden house at about 10.30. Went to A. Riche’s, and remained there until 10.55.”

[Allen]

John J. Cunningham, who carries papers, was going by Hall's stable, says Mrs. Churchill and several men were talking very serious. He asked them what the matter was, and a boy by the name of Albert Pierce that someone had been stabbed at the A.J. Borden house. Cunningham says he went right into Mr. Gorman's store, corner of Second and Borden streets, and telephoned what he heard, first to the city Marshal, then to the Daily Globe office. By the clock in Mr. Gorman's store it was ten minutes to eleven; but that may not have been right.

Factor into this the other people who were at Hall's stable, Hyman Lubinksi driving by on the street, Dr. Handy being on that street, Mrs. Kelly walking, Mrs. Churchill walking, Ellan Eagen walking, the Kelley maid in their yard, Bridget in their yard, the men working in the yard behind the Borden house, Thomas Bowles in Mrs. Churchill's yard before driving his buggy to Hall's stable, and any other traffic to the different stores, businesses, and doctors on that street and to me it does not seem that the street was not a busy one.

[Franz]

Allen, thank you for all your replies to my theory, and your patience.

[NancyDrew]

Wow. I think we have exhausted all the possibilities regarding Franz's theory.

It was not possible. There is no evidence at all of intruders. Not a shred, not an iota. And the circumstances of the house, the family, the physical layout of the scene, not only do NOT support the theory of intruders, they strongly indicate it would NOT be possible.

Give it up Franz...it takes a real gentleman to admit when he has been beat.

[Aamartin]

Do we know how long Mrs Bowen sat watching for her daughter?

[Franz]

Do we know how long Mrs Bowen sat watching for her daughter?

We know that she was sitting there "until 10:55 A.M." (Witness Statments, p. 8), but we don't know when she began to sit there (to wait her daughter who would arrive with the forenoon train).

[Curryong]

When PossumPie started this thread back in November it was to discuss the likelihood of poisons in the Borden case. Unfortunately it seemed to veer off after a few posts into arguing Franz's theory, involving Abby being lured from her front door and Lizzie doing scandalous things in the barn and what is and is not proof. It was a very lively and amusing and argumentative debate, but it wasn't about poisons!

What I've found in previous threads whenever the question of Lizzie having attempted to poison her parents came up quite a few posters stated that they thought an attempt was made and it failed.

If it was a failed attempt, however, where did the poison come from? Did Lizzie only want to get rid of Abby (under the guise of summer sickness) and then hope for another opportunity later to have a go at her father? I'd love to know what you guys think about the poison theory.

[Miranda]

I think if Lizzie had wanted to poison her parents, there were much easier ways. I don't believe the poison story was true. It just doesn't make sense to me. One of the reasons murder (and suicide) by poison was so common in those days, was that poison was so easily available in household stuff.

http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/me ... oison.aspx
/quote
Wallpaper, beer, wine, sweets, wrapping paper, painted toys, sheep dip, insecticides, clothing, dead bodies, stuffed animals, hat ornaments, coal, and candles—all contained arsenic.

White arsenic—simply called arsenic—was the poisoner’s first choice owing to its easy accessibility and its mimicry of the common gastrointestinal illnesses of the day, including cholera. Poverty-stricken parents used arsenic to rid themselves of excess children; wives used it against husbands and husbands against wives; children used it against parents. The new life-insurance industry added to the temptation: one woman, Mary Ann Cotton, murdered her mother, three husbands, a fiancé, and many of her 15 children and stepchildren for insurance payouts. Given in small quantities over a period of time, arsenic produced a gradual decline in the health of the sufferer and symptoms easily attributable to natural illnesses.(unquote)

The anger necessary to bash someone 19 times with a hatchet must have been horrendous. To do that again just an hour or so later (not to mention your own father) just makes me shudder. It would have been much easier to poison them, but then she could never have tried to make the police think some stranger came in and did it (even though that would have been possible I suppose)

[debbiediablo]

I'm inclined to think something hastened the process...that Lizzie moved up the timeline for some reason. Most women kill others and themselves by means that are less violent than hatchets.

[Curryong]

Yes, I do think Lizzie was perhaps thinking poison, hence her little scouting excursion to Bence's pharmacy, which failed. I agree that the schedule for murder was hastened, we don't know why, overheard talk about property, future wills perhaps.

I do agree that a hatchet is a very unusual weapon for a female to use.
Arsenic was certainly the female murderer's poison of choice in the 19th century. Just soak a few fly papers (the moisture was dabbed on the cheeks as an aid to the complexion) and there you have it. However, arsenic was easily traced by autopsy if anything had gone wrong.

I do wonder about Andrew and Abby's sickness on the Tuesday and I'm inclined to the bad fish, 'turned' mutton theory for that one. If it had been actual poison Andrew could well have gone before Abby and that wouldn't have suited Lizzie's plans at all. I do think there was some talk in the home of 'poison' which Lizzie could well have initiated, for her own reasons.

[PossumPie]

When I first started the thread, I was suspicious b/c Lizzie AND Abby kept saying "someone's trying to poison us" That is an awful paranoid thing to say. Stomach sickness was common before the electric refrigerator, people had to quickly eat food before it went bad, and often got food poisoning from eating something that was kept around a few days too long. Despite some poisons being able to be detected back then, many were not. Look at the example I gave of Nicotine. Soaking a pack of cigarettes in water gives enough Nicotine to KILL someone!!! Didn't they find tobacco in Andrew's pocket but he didn't smoke? Hmm... Obviously if poisoning was the original plan, something sped up the time frame and they were killed more expeditiously.

Yea, Franz had a way of pulling me off topic. He had wild theories that couldn't be proven, but couldn't be disproven either, yet he would argue that every suspicious thing Lizzie said or did was simply coincidence.

[Curryong]

Lizzie may have tried to ' set the scene' for what she was thinking of doing in her strange conversation with Alice Russell the evening before the murders.

However, I don't think Abby was suspecting arsenic or Prussic acid etc when she ran over to Dr Borden's that morning. When she started babbling about the bread, the milk and being 'poisoned,' Dr Bowen tried to reassure her by saying (paraphrasing here) that if there had been anything wrong with the baker's bread there 'would have been cases all over town'. As Abby apparently didn't say "No, you don't understand! It's OUR bread or milk that has been poisoned!" it seems pretty clear that it was adulterated food and drink they were talking about. (Adulterated by the baker and the dairy.)

All the same, the Bordens' nauseous episode seems to have given Dr Bowen a few anxious hours. When the investigation was at its height a witness reported to Officer Harrington that Dr Bowen had stopped him in the street and asked him if it was true that Knowlton had found 'another agent of death' ie poison, I suppose, rather than the hatchet. But of course nothing of that sort was found.

[Catbooks]

i go back and forth on this. sometimes i think lizzie first intended to go the traditional woman's route of murder - poison - and that she had to have been the woman who tried to purchase the prussic acid from bence. i don't think he was lying about it happening, but i'm not 100% certain the woman was lizzie. but then you've got lizzie testifying that she didn't even know a pharmacy 1.5 blocks away from the house where she'd lived was there, which i simply cannot believe. so, why did she lie if she wasn't the woman?

then there's both abby and lizzie going on about fearing they were being poisoned. you'd think after living through 60+ summers, abby would know if it were summer sickness due to spoiled food. seems to me she'd have had to have been mightily concerned about it to risk the wrath of andrew by going to dr. bowen. she may well have intimated or said it was about the milk or bread to avoid pointing elsewhere and causing suspicion or incurring more of andrew's wrath. or lizzie's. she knew andrew had covered for lizzie about the daytime burglary.

also makes me wonder if that daytime burglary was related to this. setting up a precedent of someone getting into and out of the house, during the day, unseen? or was it an escalation, and she realized she'd gotten away with that, so could get away with this too?

[Curryong]

Victoria Lincoln apparently said something sniffly about the pharmacy where Bence worked not being the sort of place that Lizzie would have patronised. Well, all the better for the purchase of poison, I suppose. Maybe it was the sort of place where people sat down slurping on coca cola, which would have helped them get high!

All the same, I'm like you, I'm not so sure that Bence's identification of Lizzie was correct. Wasn't there a police officer's wife at the time who resembled Lizzie but was on some sort of crusade that involved poisons that were being sold at pharmacies?

[Catbooks]

i haven't read lincoln again for such a long time. probably should, but then i'd run the risk of mixing up her (often enough) flights of fancy with what i've been reading in original source documents. heck, we don't even know how accurate that is.

but i'm inclined to believe lincoln about the pharmacy. it's that it was *a block and a half away*, so i can't buy lizzie didn't know it was there. didn't patronize it because she thought it was beneath her, or didn't like the place? ok. not know of its existence? sorry, nope.

*briefly wonders what the original coca cola tasted like, and how strong it was*

i didn't read about the lizzie look-alike police officer's wife. how weird.

[Curryong]

About coke. I've always thought that it probably wasn't loaded up with 9/10 ths as much sugar as coca cola is now. Don't know why cos I've never tried cocaine, (too fond of having a decent pair of nostrils) but I can imagine the original drink having quite a leaden sort of taste, mixed with soda water and aniseed perhaps.


You know, I've never known exactly what to make of the daylight robbery. Was it some weird signal to her father about his marriage to a woman she hated? There were papers rifled through as well. Was she looking for a will?

It was an act of sheer vindictiveness towards Abby as sentimental irreplaceable items were taken. Yet Andrew's gold was also taken, his papers were disturbed and those horse tickets were presumably for the use of the family.

Did she think Andrew would never suspect her and therefore she just did it because she could? Kleptomania in full-boom. That certainly back-fired on her if that was the case. Or was it a setting-up for something that never eventuated? I just can't make up my mind.

[Mara]

Makes me wonder if the gold ring Andrew wore every day (according to Emma's testimony) was one she prized very highly and that he ether took from her, or made her give him, in retaliation for the robbery.

[Catbooks]

i suspect she was looking for a will. maybe, having not found what she was looking for, she flew into a rage and pillaged what she could.

didn't lizzie give andrew the ring a long time before the burglary?

[PossumPie]

i haven't read lincoln again for such a long time. probably should, but then i'd run the risk of mixing up her (often enough) flights of fancy with what i've been reading in original source documents. heck, we don't even know how accurate that is.

but i'm inclined to believe lincoln about the pharmacy. it's that it was *a block and a half away*, so i can't buy lizzie didn't know it was there. didn't patronize it because she thought it was beneath her, or didn't like the place? ok. not know of its existence? sorry, nope.

*briefly wonders what the original coca cola tasted like, and how strong it was*

i didn't read about the lizzie look-alike police officer's wife. how weird.

I researched the Pharmacy incident awhile back. It was TOO close to their house for Lizzie to say she never heard of it, or didn't know where it was. Cutting across to the next street it was a long block and a half away. There is no way she didn't know about it.
The 'evidence' that the pharmacist saw her and identified her though is very shaky. She very well may NOT have been the person he saw. He did not know her ahead of time, but said he asked someone after the murders, who said "Oh, that was Lizzie Borden" and he then identified her as the one who was in his shop.

[Curryong]

I believe the police took Bence into Lizzie's house and placed him where he could observe her. Of course he said he was still convinced it was she. I don't believe he confronted Lizzie, though.

It was an odd procedure, though 19th century police did some very strange things on occasion. I remember reading of one case where the main suspect was in hospital. The police walked the witness through the ward and said "Just stop when you see the person who you think committed this crime". He just happened to be the only patient with a uniformed constable stationed at the end of his bed!

[Catbooks]

didn't bence know her from seeing her around the neighborhood before this happened? i thought that's how he knew it was she. then the next day, when he heard about the murders, thought he'd best go to the police with what happened. i think also someone else who was in the drug store said something about that being lizzie.

yes, he did go into the house sometime that day and id her by voice and i guess also seeing her, although she didn't see him.

[Mara]

didn't lizzie give andrew the ring a long time before the burglary?

Ah yes, you're right. Emma's testimony was that Lizzie had given it to him ten or fifteen years earlier. If she'd had a motive in bringing it up, surely it would have been to bolster the argument that Lizzie dearly loved her father and would never want to harm him, so I suppose she might have added a little to the history. If she were going to go that far, though, she would probably have been more precise about the date, and might even have provided an occasion. Too bad. It was a nice theory while it lasted!