All About Andrew

[Catbooks]

twins, thanks. pretty scary reading that kind of stuff. makes the world feel like a very random and sometimes frightening place. i doubt i'd want to read about the murders or look at the crime photos, even if it had happened 3000 miles away, though. same as i can't deal with reading about the jack the ripper murders. just too horrific.

i was watching a few youtubes on manson. or rather, his 'family.' i tried watching some of two interviews he gave - charlie rose, geraldo. he's too crazy to watch for very long, mostly just a bunch of ranting and blahblahblah. but i did find this one interesting, with a profiler watching and giving her thoughts about him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMM5Gm0sgg

curryong, would you say your cute koala avatar has a look of a stunned mullet? he or she looks to me like someone said or did something shocking, mid-leaf munching :D

You’re welcome, Catbooks. I hope I have not posted anything that you find offensive; if I have, I apologize. I lived through the 60’s, and remember the Tate-LaBianca Murders very well. These murders scared the h___ out of me, and I have lived all of my life in Wisconsin! (Please excuse my language). I can’t image being in your shoes, and living so close to where those murders took place.

YouYube does have some very good videos on Manson and the family. I haven’t watched the video you posted, but I intend to – thanks for posting that link.

Personally, I think Manson is a lunatic. I found the following article when I did a Google search regarding Charlie’s mind. Although, it is interesting article, I still think he is a lunatic, no matter what Leslie Van Houten says.

Check out this article: https://medium.com/extraordinary-lives/a27cdfa5da42

no, i'm okay, but thank you for your thoughtfulness.

i think it was that video that mentions that the tate-labianca murders was responsible for a shift in everyone becoming frightened about what was happening in the world, that manson was responsible for it. or maybe it was the geraldo interview. whichever it was, that's true. didn't matter if you were living 10 miles away or 3000. it was horrific.

i too think manson was and is insane. i don't care what she says either. no one who's sane could do what he did, and feel no remorse at some point, and no one can keep up a 'crazy act' for this many years. i think he's a sociopath, and extremely manipulative.

it was interesting, though, hearing the comments of that profiler. according to her, he's delusional, but not without some grip on reality.

it was also interesting hearing susan atkin's attorney speak on the geraldo show youtube. all of these years i'd thought what i'd heard was right about sharon tate's baby, which is a good part of why this was so horrific. so i guess that makes it somewhat less awful, although still unspeakably awful.

in comparison to lizzie, manson and his family make her look like a choir girl. if she did it (and i believe she did), there were some rational reasons for it, and she killed them quickly. with manson and his 'family,' it was for thrills and those people suffered in ways i can't even think about.

[Curryong]

Eucalypts (and I know there are many varieties) are commonly known as 'gum trees' in Australia. There's a well-known song that starts off 'Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree...' Just don't ask me to sing it!

[Catbooks]

oh, lol! surprisingly, i know that song. we used to sing it in girl scouts.

laugh kookaburra, laugh kookaburra, gay your life must be.

[Curryong]

Fancy you knowing that song! It truly is a small world isn't it?

If I had sung that at a Girl Guides (Scout) camp or anywhere else all the animals and birds (including kookaburras) for miles around would have gone off to find themselves a new home for the night! I must be the most tone-deaf person on the planet!

[PossumPie]

Manson's "success" was a result of a perfect storm. The 60's were a time when strange and weird were good. The stranger the clothes, the poetry, the ideas, the better they were accepted. Manson seems to be Schizophrenic. He believed that the devil was going to rise up out of the bottomless pit, and the devil was going to make Manson in charge after the black people were killed. Paranoid and grandiose ideas, but the young people of the day adopted him and the ideas. He told them he loved them, and gave them a home, and they loved him back- enough to kill for him. His interviews, even today, are full of paranoid delusions, jumping from topic to topic, and echolalia. Someone may say "Charlie, why did you kill?" And he replies "Kill, kill, thrill spill. for the thrill of the kill." This echolalia and 'clanging' response is not uncommon in people with schizophrenia.

I had a bit of a debate in another thread several months ago with Allen, who insisted that anyone who would murder was "crazy" "insane" etc. I insisted that very sane people do murder, but indeed there must be some imbalance there. To kill your own biological father must take some break with emotions, some lack of empathy with others, but the person can still be 'sane' in that they know what they are doing and have control over their actions. The difference is that some people do have serious enough mental illnesses that they are NOT responsible for their own actions, but it is much fewer than defense attorneys would like us to believe...

[Curryong]

Does anyone know whether the McNaghten Rules were used as a definition of insanity in Massachusetts at the time of Lizzie's trial? As I understand it, the test for criminal liability under them was stringent.

The accused person had to be almost gibbering in the dock or staring in a completely vacant manner when medically examined for a verdict of 'guilty but insane' to be even considered. Lizzie's defence team might have had a bit of a problem on appeal if she'd been found guilty and they decided to go that route!

[twinsrwe]

Curryong, can we come to visit you?

Seriously, though, it has been so cold that the kids have not been outside enjoying the snow; they tend to stay inside. I don’t know if the skiers have been out or not, since I don’t ski.

Usually, after it snows, the temperature tend to rise, but this year, that has not been happening. If anything, after it snows, the temperatures have decreased! Luckily, the temperatures are now beginning to rise into the 40’s!

[Curryong]

Well, you will soon be enjoying summer while here we will be going into winter. Although we don't get snow or ice (except in the mountains where there are ski resorts. (I don't ski either.) It does get pretty cold, and it often rains in the winter in Victoria, (the State I live in.)

[Catbooks]

curryong, i was wondering why it was sung here in the states in my girl scout (guide) troop, and look what i found. it is indeed a girl guides/scouts thing!

Marion Sinclair was a music teacher at Toorak College, a girls' school in Melbourne she had attended as a boarder. In 1920, she began working with the school's Girl Guides company.[citation needed]

One Sunday morning in 1932, Sinclair had a sudden inspiration in church and dashed home to write down the words to "Kookaburra". In 1934 she entered the song into a competition run by the Girl Guides Association of Victoria, with the rights of the winning song to be sold to raise money for the purchase of a camping ground, eventually chosen as Britannia Park. The song was performed for the first time in 1934 at the annual Jamboree in Frankston, Victoria, at which the Baden-Powells, founders of the Scouting and Guiding movements, were present.[1]

Despite its "Aussie-ness", the song is well-known and performed around the world, particularly in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, where the Girl Guide movements in those countries have adopted it as a traditional song.

i know nothing about the mcnaghten rules. possum might.

i found watching and listening to mansion pretty boring after the first 5 or so minutes. a lot of near-gibberish, rage, victimhood, delusions. same song and verse. it was slightly amusing watching the interviewers ask him questions - often the same ones - and seem to have some expectation that they'd get any kind of lucid answer. rather like asking the same sorts of question of a seal, or a spoon; it just ain't gonna happen.

it was more interesting to me watching that manson 'family reunion' on geraldo. it's on youtube, in 4 parts, if anyone here is interested.

possum, out of curiosity, what do you make of jim jones? npd, sociopath?

[Curryong]

Why on earth did they keep interviewing the creep, Manson I mean, and giving him publicity. Surely to goodness it would be much better to just let him rot. He has nothing to impart to society, just nothing! He's exactly like that Norwegian mass killer who glories in the sound of his own voice every time he gets an opportunity.

I suppose 'Kookaburra' is a very suitable and cheerful song for the children of all nations to sing, really, isn't it? Especially round a camp fire. The Baden-Powells would have enjoyed it. Lord Baden Powell would have been quite elderly in 1934 but still travelled all over the place.

[Catbooks]

i loved singing it :). even though i don't have the best voice in the world either, it is such a fun, cheerful song. we used to sing it in rounds, which made it more fun.

yesterday i read somewhere, probably on youtube, that they stopped allowing these interviews sometime in the 90s. probably for that very reason - it gives these criminals publicity.

[twinsrwe]

Curryong and Catbooks, is this the song you two are talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQU7_uT4I_M

[debbiediablo]

The McNaghten Rule is Common Law meaning it has historical legal precedence but isn't part of Statute or Code. But it's recognized as law just as much as if it were written. Much of United States law (and probably Australia, too) originated from English Common Law. Essentially McNaghten means that a perpetrator is insane in the eyes of the court only if they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they totally believe the dog barking in the next yard is possessed by a demon telling them to shoot people (David Berkowitz aka Son of Sam), if they know shooting people is wrong then they're not insane.

[Curryong]

Thanks twinsrwe for posting this, yes I'm afraid it is!

Yes, debbie, I suppose English Common Law is followed in most parts of most English-speaking countries, and some other Commonwealth countries as well. Australia certainly does. South Africa adapted the Dutch system and I'm not so sure about places like Quebec and Louisiana, for instance.
Going off on a tangent again! I was just thinking, with regard to Lizzie, if she had been found guilty, whether her legal team could have played the insanity card.

[twinsrwe]

twins, thanks. pretty scary reading that kind of stuff. makes the world feel like a very random and sometimes frightening place. i doubt i'd want to read about the murders or look at the crime photos, even if it had happened 3000 miles away, though. same as i can't deal with reading about the jack the ripper murders. just too horrific.

i was watching a few youtubes on manson. or rather, his 'family.' i tried watching some of two interviews he gave - charlie rose, geraldo. he's too crazy to watch for very long, mostly just a bunch of ranting and blahblahblah. but i did find this one interesting, with a profiler watching and giving her thoughts about him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMM5Gm0sgg

curryong, would you say your cute koala avatar has a look of a stunned mullet? he or she looks to me like someone said or did something shocking, mid-leaf munching :D

You’re welcome, Catbooks. I hope I have not posted anything that you find offensive; if I have, I apologize. I lived through the 60’s, and remember the Tate-LaBianca Murders very well. These murders scared the h___ out of me, and I have lived all of my life in Wisconsin! (Please excuse my language). I can’t image being in your shoes, and living so close to where those murders took place.

YouYube does have some very good videos on Manson and the family. I haven’t watched the video you posted, but I intend to – thanks for posting that link.

Personally, I think Manson is a lunatic. I found the following article when I did a Google search regarding Charlie’s mind. Although, it is interesting article, I still think he is a lunatic, no matter what Leslie Van Houten says.

Check out this article: https://medium.com/extraordinary-lives/a27cdfa5da42

no, i'm okay, but thank you for your thoughtfulness.

i think it was that video that mentions that the tate-labianca murders was responsible for a shift in everyone becoming frightened about what was happening in the world, that manson was responsible for it. or maybe it was the geraldo interview. whichever it was, that's true. didn't matter if you were living 10 miles away or 3000. it was horrific.

i too think manson was and is insane. i don't care what she says either. no one who's sane could do what he did, and feel no remorse at some point, and no one can keep up a 'crazy act' for this many years. i think he's a sociopath, and extremely manipulative.

it was interesting, though, hearing the comments of that profiler. according to her, he's delusional, but not without some grip on reality.

it was also interesting hearing susan atkin's attorney speak on the geraldo show youtube. all of these years i'd thought what i'd heard was right about sharon tate's baby, which is a good part of why this was so horrific. so i guess that makes it somewhat less awful, although still unspeakably awful.

in comparison to lizzie, manson and his family make her look like a choir girl. if she did it (and i believe she did), there were some rational reasons for it, and she killed them quickly. with manson and his 'family,' it was for thrills and those people suffered in ways i can't even think about.

You’re welcome.

I just finished watching the link your posted titled: The Mind Of Manson. I also found this video interesting. You are correct, this is the video that mentions the Tate-Labianca murders as being responsible for a shift in everyone becoming frightened about what was happening in the world, and that Manson was responsible for it.

Personally, I don’t think Manson was totally responsible for everyone becoming frightened about what was happening in the world. There were a lot changes that took place in the 60’s, which changed the world, Manson was just a part of those changes. The following link pretty much sums up the many changes which caused the lost of innocence.

The 60’s: The Age of Innocence… Guess Again!
http://rcrumple.hubpages.com/hub/The-60 ... uess-Again

Yes, I agree, these murders were definitely horrific, but I also believe that the way in which Susan, Patricia, Leslie and Charlie acted in court made these murders even more shocking. (Tex Watson was tried separately).

I also agree with your comparison of the Tate-Labianca verse Borden murders.

[twinsrwe]

Thanks twinsrwe for posting this, yes I'm afraid it is! ...

You're welcome. It's certainly a catchy little tune!

[twinsrwe]

Well, you will soon be enjoying summer while here we will be going into winter. Although we don't get snow or ice (except in the mountains where there are ski resorts. (I don't ski either.) It does get pretty cold, and it often rains in the winter in Victoria, (the State I live in.)

OH, well, I guess I'll stay in Wisconsin!

Thanks for posting this information, it's interesting to read about deferent parts of our world.

[debbiediablo]

Yes, it is indeed interesting. I seem to be limited in perspective. My first three thoughts about Australia are kangaroos, koalas and Crocodile Dundee...:-) My first three thoughts about Iowa are cold; colder than Barrow, Alaska; and coldest damn place ever.

[Curryong]

The U.S. has certainly suffered a very long, very cold winter. Anyone ever feel like pulling up sticks and moving to Florida or California?

[twinsrwe]

I have thought about it, but I would suffer greatly in the summer heat, especially in Florida. Wisconsin gets plenty hot for me.

[debbiediablo]

Thanks twinsrwe for posting this, yes I'm afraid it is!

Yes, debbie, I suppose English Common Law is followed in most parts of most English-speaking countries, and some other Commonwealth countries as well. Australia certainly does. South Africa adapted the Dutch system and I'm not so sure about places like Quebec and Louisiana, for instance.
Going off on a tangent again! I was just thinking, with regard to Lizzie, if she had been found guilty, whether her legal team could have played the insanity card.

Louisiana's laws are based on the Napoleonic Code, the only state that doesn't follow English common law. Once Lizzie was found guilty, she could not appeal based on new evidence, only on what had already been introduced. So to the gallows she would go unless her attorneys could persuade the State Supreme Court (or whatever it's called in Massachusetts) that Blaisell shouldn't have heard the case because he was biased having heard Lizzie's testimony without legal representation at the inquest. Both he and Dewey could have been expected to recuse themselves.

[Curryong]

Thanks for that info, debbie. It looks as if Lizzie would have been scuppered then, no retrial on basis of insanity. Of course, her sister, own doctors might have made a case for a discreet incarceration in a private asylum after a medical examination before the trial finished if it looked as if it was going badly. The Commonwealth may have cooperated.

Judge Dewey was certainly heavily criticised by some with regard to his Charge to the jury, wasn't he? Judge Davis, a fellow judge on the Massachusetts Bench asserted that Dewey was, in his opinion, unconsciously overcome by bias and prejudice in favour of Lizzie Borden.

[Curryong]

I was just thinking about the murders last night, and one thing did strike me that I'd wondered about before. If we believe Bridget (and in my opinion no reason not to) Lizzie was behind her on the stairs when she gave that chortle as Bridget was struggling with the door. That was about 10:45 am (approximately.)

If we say that Abby was killed at about 9:30am (maybe a little earlier) that leaves about 75 minutes to clean up after Abby's murder. Surely to goodness it wouldn't take that amount of time, would it, even if Lizzie sat down to have a long think or stole downstairs and deposited the hatchet in the dining room ready for the next act? It wasn't as if she had to clean up the guest bedroom to any great extent. What WAS she doing up there, presumably in her bedroom for some of the time?

Why not clean up thoroughly, hide whatever bloodied clothes needed to be concealed, and then (changed into a smart dress and hat) trot off down the street, establishing some sort of an alibi? If Lizzie had done that while Bridget was still outside, leaving by the front door and making sure she was home before her father was expected, it would have looked a great deal better for her than tying herself in knots at the Inquest with "I was upstairs sewing...I was downstairs reading.." and all the other nonsense she came up with when they were trying to establish where she was after Abby's death and just before her father came home!

[Catbooks]

examining all of the screens??

i never have been able to figure out how one would fix a screen with a piece of lead.

i think she did thoroughly clean up, but she still had to off andrew when he got home. i do wonder what those 75 minutes were like though. what thoughts were going through her head after she cleaned up and was waiting.

[twinsrwe]

...i never have been able to figure out how one would fix a screen with a piece of lead.

Actually, it was a piece of tin to fix the screen; the lead was for sinkers.

[Catbooks]

...i never have been able to figure out how one would fix a screen with a piece of lead.

Actually, it was a piece of tin to fix the screen; the lead was for sinkers.

oh

still, not much better. how do you fix a screen with a piece of tin? shove it over the hole (providing it's in a corner)?

at least the lead for sinkers made sense to me.

[Curryong]

Who knew that Lizzie was such a practical and handy woman!

[debbiediablo]

I was just thinking about the murders last night, and one thing did strike me that I'd wondered about before. If we believe Bridget (and in my opinion no reason not to) Lizzie was behind her on the stairs when she gave that chortle as Bridget was struggling with the door. That was about 10:45 am (approximately.)

If we say that Abby was killed at about 9:30am (maybe a little earlier) that leaves about 75 minutes to clean up after Abby's murder. Surely to goodness it wouldn't take that amount of time, would it, even if Lizzie sat down to have a long think or stole downstairs and deposited the hatchet in the dining room ready for the next act? It wasn't as if she had to clean up the guest bedroom to any great extent. What WAS she doing up there, presumably in her bedroom for some of the time?

Why not clean up thoroughly, hide whatever bloodied clothes needed to be concealed, and then (changed into a smart dress and hat) trot off down the street, establishing some sort of an alibi? If Lizzie had done that while Bridget was still outside, leaving by the front door and making sure she was home before her father was expected, it would have looked a great deal better for her than tying herself in knots at the Inquest with "I was upstairs sewing...I was downstairs reading.." and all the other nonsense she came up with when they were trying to establish where she was after Abby's death and just before her father came home!

Maybe to protect against Bridget coming upstairs unexpectedly to wash windows and finding the body before she had a chance to kill Andrew, too. Also she probably had the hatchet up there with her to keep it from being discovered.

[debbiediablo]

Thanks for that info, debbie. It looks as if Lizzie would have been scuppered then, no retrial on basis of insanity. Of course, her sister, own doctors might have made a case for a discreet incarceration in a private asylum after a medical examination before the trial finished if it looked as if it was going badly. The Commonwealth may have cooperated.

Judge Dewey was certainly heavily criticised by some with regard to his Charge to the jury, wasn't he? Judge Davis, a fellow judge on the Massachusetts Bench asserted that Dewey was, in his opinion, unconsciously overcome by bias and prejudice in favour of Lizzie Borden.

I would say unconsciously overcome by bias and prejudice in favor of Lizzie's attorney, but the end result was the same.

[Curryong]

Of course Dewey was the father of three daughters, all in their late 20's, all no doubt impeccably middle class young ladies! No doubt he thought of them while he was preparing his charge in the hotel as his two fellow judges scuttled for their homes. His personal fatherly feelings with regard to the young 'lady' in the dock, therefore undoubtedly played a part.

Before the trial began Knowlton could have objected to Dewey because of the Robinson connection. Afterwards, he could have also used Dewey's charge to the jury as possible grounds for a mistrial but he didn't. Knowlton didn't want to be prosecutor in the Borden case at all. After the trial he probably went away greatly relieved it was all over, and it was a case of 'let sleeping dogs lie.'

[debbiediablo]

Something about that picture has always bothered me. His posture is unnatural. If he were laying down, he would have taken off his boots (It was reported that Lizzie said she had helped him off with his shoes, so we know it was his habit to remove them) and had his feet up. It looks like he was just preparing to lay down. his butt is right in the center of the couch. His coat sleeves and pants cuffs are all riding up, This happens when you raise your arms above your head or extend them full-out in front of you, Riding up like that is a very uncomfortable feeling which he would have remedied if he were positioned comfortably. I think he saw the killer enter, and was attempting to rise off the couch when hit. Both hands are clenched in a defensive posture suggesting he wasn't hit without warning. The boots still on also suggest he hadn't gotten comfortable in his nap-time position yet. People have suggested he was lying down with eyes closed and was hit without warning, but these observations suggest otherwise. That position of his spine would have been very uncomfortable for an elderly man...Whatever else we say, I don't believe that was the position he intended to be in for any length of time.

I posted a semi similar observation sometime back. Sit down and twist yourself into that position and see if it's conducive to sleeping. You are so right. It hurts.

Andrew isn't in a position that looks remotely natural, and the fists really bother me. I've tried to imagine someone attacking me with a hatchet, and I think my hands would go up with fingers extended trying to block as much of my face and head as possible. (This might be a female response; perhaps a male would be less likely to cower and more likely to fight back????) But if we were having a verbal altercation, I might clench my fists in either suppressed anger or else with the intention of punching.

Could he have risen from the sofa in anger, and suddenly the person he's confronting pulls out a hatchet and smashes him in the head. Or he sees the hatchet and prepares to strike the first blow. Once hit, he falls backwards and slumps sideways onto the pillow. This would seem to require an attacker taller than Lizzie or else incredibly quick.

Or, as you suggest, he is seated and angry, clenches his fists to fight. Perhaps moves to stand up or maybe never gets that far. The first blow is struck to the left front side of his face; the force knocks him sideways to the right.

I watch History Channel a lot while working from home. When alligator hunters shoot the alligators, the huge claws relax and extend. Humans may not be like alligators, but I don't see his hands clenching into tight fists as he dies. I think he clenched them for a reason while still conscious.

But...the above scenario begs the question: if Lizzie was the murderer and she wore his coat to cover herself, was she wearing his coat and holding the hatchet as he saw her approaching? Did he wake up? Were they fighting? Or did she sneak attack for the first blow, then go put on the coat and bash his face into pulp?

I still wonder if the assailant sneaked in when Lizzie came home from Miss Russell's and spent the night in Emma's room. Then killed Abby, by chance or purpose, after which he hid in the barn until Lizzie appeared to say her father was alone in the house.

Pondering this causes me to rethink about David Anthony, whether he was Bridget's "horrible man" who became enraged and murdered both Andrew and Abby. Or was there a different man who was horrible?

For sure it's a leap to step into the psychopathic mind (although we all fall on the continuum of psychopathy even if we're at .00001 on a scale of 0-10) so maybe this is my inability to see from the Lizzie's eyes if she was the murderer. I find it probable to believe Andrew saw the killer and knew he was in danger; I find it almost impossible to believe that his daughter looked him in the eyes prior to butchering him.

Even if she knew there was no other choice once Abby was dead.




Lizzie: You're not my mother. You've never been my mother. My mother is dead. Father just married you to have a free house maid and nanny. He loves me, not you.
Abby: Then I wonder why he's leaving me almost his entire estate except a piddling $25,000 for each of you girls. He understands what putting up with your abuse all these years is worth.

*Three minutes later Lizzie reappears with the hatchet.*

or

Abby: Eeek! David Anthony, what are you doing in the upstairs of my house? Lizzie, did you have this man in your room all night? Wait 'til I tell your father. The $25,000 he's planning to leave you when he dies will be a big fat zero when he knows the truth of your whoring. Get! Get out! Get out! Both of you!

*Three minutes later David reappears with the hatchet.*

[Curryong]

I've always seen Abby as a rather timid and mild sort of person, not a firebrand. Would she, even if she was shocked and horrified, confront her stepdaughter and a strange man in the bedroom section of the house, knowing she was alone and Bridget was not within earshot? Even if Lizzie was insulting I just can't visualise Abby shouting out details of Andrew's proposed will, especially in front of a stranger (or near-stranger if she knew David by sight.) But then you know I don't go for the David Anthony scenario, anyway!

How do we know that Andrew was only going to leave $25,000 to each of his sole blood heirs, anyway? He seems to have done a lot of soothing of his daughters' feelings with regard to property. As they proved to be unenthusiastic landlords I can well believe that he would be considering leaving them stocks and bonds not property, but I certainly don't think he would have left his 'girls' such an unequal share of his estate.

[PossumPie]

A couple of things...Any theory that puts too many "what if's" together is not very plausible. Occam's Razor is a principle of logic which says given several possibilities, usually the simplest one is the correct answer. If after a thunderstorm you go into the field, see a dead cow under a tree that is blackened and smoking, you would think it was struck by lightning NOT an alien spacecraft fired a heat ray at the cow and the tree. Neither have proof of being correct, but the simplest most plausible is usually correct. Theories that entail a SUPPOSED lover, SUPPOSEDLY sneaking into a house, not being seen for an extended period of time, killing Mrs, then hanging out for an hour and a half, then killing Mr., then sneaking out without anyone seeing them has strayed so far into the "What if" area that it has no evidence. Not that it COULDN'T have happened...that is the infuriating thing with good ol' Franz's theory. None if it was technically impossible, but strung together was so implausible that it was unlikely. We have no evidence for a lover, just a sweet old lady's word. My argument with Franz about someone hiding in the guest bedroom for an hour-and-a-half without being seen was that they had no way of knowing that someone could come up at any moment and find them.

About the fists, I know that the peripheral nervous system of a human may react to a blow on the head by contracting the fingers/hands, but it does look like he was making fists, so I'm really not sure about it.

As for Lizzie being upstairs after Abby's death...I don't think Lizzie would have left to give a partial alibi. She wanted to be very near the body b/c if Andrew came home early, she would have to kill him before he discovered his wife's body. I think Lizzie killed Abby, cleaned up, and was up and down those stairs many times keeping 'guard' over the body so it wasn't discovered. Hence trying to get Bridget to go shopping at the sale...keep her out of the way. When Bridget refused, but said she was going up to the third floor to rest, that was the next best thing for Lizzie, and she immediately took the opportunity.

[Curryong]

Yes, although if Lizzie managed to get home before eleven, when Andrew apparently used to see business people, it wouldn't have been too much of a risk. If Andrew was in the habit of taking a nap for a few minutes when he got home that's what he would probably do, rather than race around looking for Abby.

I don't know whether Lizzie knew that Uncle John was coming home to share the midday meal. If she did, then the risk of the body being discovered would of course be higher. Better that though than her muddled and contradictory explanations to the police (and at the Inquest) about her whereabouts that morning. It almost certainly helped lead to her arrest.

[debbiediablo]

Occam's Razor is a principle of logic which says given several possibilities, usually the simplest one is the correct answer. If after a thunderstorm you go into the field, see a dead cow under a tree that is blackened and smoking, you would think it was struck by lightning NOT an alien spacecraft fired a heat ray at the cow and the tree. Neither have proof of being correct, but the simplest most plausible is usually correct.

My understanding of Occam's Razor is slightly different. As a principle of logic, Occam's Razor postulates the that simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data is the most likely acceptable theory. However, science has repeatedly demonstrated that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data becomes available.

The problem with Occam's Razor in Lizzie's case is that we know for absolute certain there is more data, lots more; we just don't know what that data is and how it might effect the ultimate factual explanation for the Borden murders. And some of the data we do have was contaminated during the investigation to the point where it may be partially or totally incorrect. This is like trying to put together a 1,000 piece puzzle with only 159 pieces, some of which have the picture blacked out.

On a similar note there is Hickam's Dictum which essentially refutes Occam with regard to parsimony, particularly in the medical diagnosis of patients. Hickam says. "Patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please." To me, the extrapolation of this means the truth in the Borden case may be accurately determined by what little we know or the truth may be a result of incredible complexity with unknown players and motives. Just as when my daughter presented with low thoracic back pain thought to be a heavy lifting injury. However the injury, which did exist, was compounded by a blocked bile duct and a calcified spleen.

[twinsrwe]

...i never have been able to figure out how one would fix a screen with a piece of lead.

Actually, it was a piece of tin to fix the screen; the lead was for sinkers.

oh

still, not much better. how do you fix a screen with a piece of tin? shove it over the hole (providing it's in a corner)?

at least the lead for sinkers made sense to me.

You're right, it isn't any better! It never came up as to where the hole in the screen was or if there really was a hole in the screen. How Lizzie planned on fixing the hole, is other mystery. Wouldn't that have been a job that Andrew would have taken care of?

[PossumPie]

Occam's Razor is a principle of logic which says given several possibilities, usually the simplest one is the correct answer. If after a thunderstorm you go into the field, see a dead cow under a tree that is blackened and smoking, you would think it was struck by lightning NOT an alien spacecraft fired a heat ray at the cow and the tree. Neither have proof of being correct, but the simplest most plausible is usually correct.

My understanding of Occam's Razor is slightly different. As a principle of logic, Occam's Razor postulates the that simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data is the most likely acceptable theory. However, science has repeatedly demonstrated that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data becomes available.

The problem with Occam's Razor in Lizzie's case is that we know for absolute certain there is more data, lots more; we just don't know what that data is and how it might effect the ultimate factual explanation for the Borden murders. And some of the data we do have was contaminated during the investigation to the point where it may be partially or totally incorrect. This is like trying to put together a 1,000 piece puzzle with only 159 pieces, some of which have the picture blacked out.

On a similar note there is Hickam's Dictum which essentially refutes Occam with regard to parsimony, particularly in the medical diagnosis of patients. Hickam says. "Patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please." To me, the extrapolation of this means the truth in the Borden case may be accurately determined by what little we know or the truth may be a result of incredible complexity with unknown players and motives. Just as when my daughter presented with low thoracic back pain thought to be a heavy lifting injury. However the injury, which did exist, was compounded by a blocked bile duct and a calcified spleen.

Occam's Razor DOES say the simplest choice between existing data is USUALLY the correct one. Obviously there is always an exception to that, but the exception doesn't disprove it. If a person presents to a doctor with a cough, the doctor goes initially on the premise that it is bronchitis NOT a cancerous lung tumor. Not that it couldn't be cancer, but generally the simpler answer is more often correct. Often Doctors are blamed when they think a complex illness is something simple, but it doesn't make sense to go on the idea that it is a rare exotic disease every time fairly simple symptoms are stated.

In the Borden case we indeed are missing a lot of data. But we should go on the idea that the data we are missing isn't far-fetched. Sure it could have been a scorned, unknown lover; or a secret illegitimate son. It could have been the President of the United States ordering them killed b/c they were part of a secret organization, but without evidence to support those ideas, the simpler ideas are more likely. It seems that the simplest Idea is that Lizzie did it. The idea that it was someone with a grudge against Mr. Borden is also a simple idea.

Morse being furious at Mr. Borden and hiring two men to distract Abby and gain entrance to the house, hide upstairs, kill her, then wait and kill Mr. Borden and sneak out without being seen is NOT a simple idea. It is complex. As is the idea that Lizzie secretly fell in love with a wild boy, who being angry that Mr. Borden wouldn't give his blessing on a marriage killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden, hiding out and leaving in a meat wagon with the aid of several other people who all kept the whole incident silent their entire lives, except one who told her daughter, who then told someone else, who then posted it on a forum...That is MOST ASSUREDLY NOT SIMPLE!!!

[Catbooks]

I've always seen Abby as a rather timid and mild sort of person, not a firebrand. Would she, even if she was shocked and horrified, confront her stepdaughter and a strange man in the bedroom section of the house, knowing she was alone and Bridget was not within earshot? Even if Lizzie was insulting I just can't visualise Abby shouting out details of Andrew's proposed will, especially in front of a stranger (or near-stranger if she knew David by sight.) But then you know I don't go for the David Anthony scenario, anyway!

How do we know that Andrew was only going to leave $25,000 to each of his sole blood heirs, anyway? He seems to have done a lot of soothing of his daughters' feelings with regard to property. As they proved to be unenthusiastic landlords I can well believe that he would be considering leaving them stocks and bonds not property, but I certainly don't think he would have left his 'girls' such an unequal share of his estate.

i see abby the same way. can't see her confronting lizzie; by all appearances, she was afraid of her. but i wouldn't be surprised if andrew had intended to leave she and emma far less than they used to imagine, when they thought about it.

i'm a fan of occam's razor. there may be a lot of details we're not privy to, but when you look at the overview of the events and 'breaks in the pattern,' everything points to lizzie.

yes, i would like to know if the police found *any* holes in any of the screens! they had to have investigated that.

[debbiediablo]

Then according to Occam, the next simplest answer would be Bridget, if not Lizzie. She was the only other person who had access to Andrew and Abby that morning, plus free run of the house.

Lack of information places Occam at a huge disadvantage here. Remember, we once thought the earth to be flat and the sun to orbit around us. Those were the simple explanations – before new information proved these theories wrong, wrong, wrong.

Also, comparing hyperbole with possibility is confusing.

[debbiediablo]

In the Borden case we indeed are missing a lot of data. But we should go on the idea that the data we are missing isn't far-fetched. Sure it could have been a scorned, unknown lover; or a secret illegitimate son. It could have been the President of the United States ordering them killed b/c they were part of a secret organization,

I'm not convinced about David Anthony or any other unknown intruder being the culprit, but it's important not to taint our thinking by drawing illogical comparisons, even to make a valid point.

We don't know that the data we are missing isn't reasonably far-fetched. A family worth over $12,000,000 in today's currency living without electricity, indoor plumbing or a telephone is significantly far-fetched. Unwillingness to pay for medical care for a family that has been ill for more than a few days is somewhat far-fetched. Having an overnight guest with no luggage or hygiene items is fairly far-fetched. Attempting to buy prussic acid to clean a cape and then denying knowledge of the neighborhood pharmacy itself is pretty far-fetched. Having a judge appointed by a defense attorney is substantively far-fetched. I really don't know why new information in this case could not also be far-fetched.

[PossumPie]

I think you all are misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It says given several possibilities, it is USUALLY the most simple. We had the clues the world was round even in the stone age...looking at the shadow the earth cast's on the moon, it is round. Ships disappear keel first and the last thing to disappear over the horizon is the top of the mast. These point to the simple conclusion that the earth is round...BUT we ignored the evidence and went with our "gut" that it "looks flat"
Your mention of "we don't know that the data ISN'T true is yet another logic fallacy...the false idea that one must prove something ISN'T true rather than that one must only prove that something IS true.

We don't know that the facts we are missing are not wildly far-fetched for sure...but the ODDS of that happening are less than the odds that they are reasonable and simple. Debbie, your example about a rich family living without electricity is yet another common logic fallacy. The fallacy that b/c one thing is strange, the remainder of unknowns must also be strange. We all live day to day using faulty logic. It's part of being human. The Mathematically challenged people at the school where I teach go on throwing away $10/week on the lottery. They have 7 times GREATER chance of dying from a gamma ray burst from the next galaxy than winning, but they keep on throwing their money away. We as humans love to pick and choose coincidences, far-fetched facts, and try to make conspiracies. The odds of that though are less than the odds of a mundane explanation. If 6 Billion people around the world have a dream they remember any given night, the odds are astronomically high that at least one of those dreams will come true. This is NOT an example of the supernatural, just the odds that a coincidence will occur if the data set is sufficiently high. No one remembers the almost 6 Billion dreams that did NOT come true, but everyone 'marvels' over the one or two prophetic dreams.

Certainly the real explanation for the Murders could be very strange indeed. I'm just saying that without data supporting the strange, I will go on supporting the mundane. And yes Bridget was there and had opportunity so that theory also is fairly simple. One thing shows like CSI and NCIS have done is taken very strange coincidental crimes, worked the plots backwards, then make the hero's slowly discover the strange details. The more boring fact of the matter is that most murders are easily solved b/c they murderers don't plan ahead, are known to the victim, and the motive sticks out like a sore thumb.

BTW Debbie, you caught MY OWN logical fallacy in the above post. I compared two somewhat implausible solutions to one very very absurd one. That is a an attempt to make the first two seem more implausible, and it is indeed a logic fallacy!!! Nobody is perfect.

[debbiediablo]

For sure, none of us are perfect...:-) I do understand your point, just don't fully agree. My best guess is that the mathematically challenged people where you teach are not just mathematically challenged when it comes to lottery tickets. I'd bet their day-to-day expenditures are made with some of the same illogic. That's because their spending behaviors, or maybe gambling or addictive behaviors, are not independent occurrences; they are sums of the whole, in this case, inability or unwillingness to understand numerical relationships and/or control impulse or compulsion.

The point I'm making about the Bordens is similar. I don't necessarily expect the answers to the Borden case to be simple because by reports this is about a family of significant differences some of which may be severely dysfunctional. Even so, when we move from principle to idiom then I think "where there's smoke, there's fire." So it has to be Lizzie...the simple explanation.

EXCEPT when I look at the damage done to Andrew and especially if the first blow was struck from the front (which I think it was) then Lizzie being the perpetrator flies in the face – no pun intended – of all that we know about female murderers. Since the only other simple choice is Bridget, also female, my focus moves, in part, to more complex scenarios where we meet Billy Borden, David Anthony, John and/or Emma with the best alibi(s) ever, disgruntled business associate, unidentified nutcase on the loose, "that horrible man" and Martians performing hatchet experiments...:-)

You're right...I was thinking don't compare apples with flying saucers, compare them with pomegranates or maybe with caulifower.

[PossumPie]

For sure, none of us are perfect...:-) I do understand your point, just don't fully agree. My best guess is that the mathematically challenged people where you teach are not just mathematically challenged when it comes to lottery tickets. I'd bet their day-to-day expenditures are made with some of the same illogic. That's because their spending behaviors, or maybe gambling or addictive behaviors, are not independent occurrences; they are sums of the whole, in this case, inability or unwillingness to understand numerical relationships and/or control impulse or compulsion.

The point I'm making about the Bordens is similar. I don't necessarily expect the answers to the Borden case to be simple because by reports this is about a family of significant differences some of which may be severely dysfunctional. Even so, when we move from principle to idiom then I think "where there's smoke, there's fire." So it has to be Lizzie...the simple explanation.

EXCEPT when I look at the damage done to Andrew and especially if the first blow was struck from the front (which I think it was) then Lizzie being the perpetrator flies in the face – no pun intended – of all that we know about female murderers. Since the only other simple choice is Bridget, also female, my focus moves, in part, to more complex scenarios where we meet Billy Borden, David Anthony, John and/or Emma with the best alibi(s) ever, disgruntled business associate, unidentified nutcase on the loose, "that horrible man" and Martians performing hatchet experiments...:-)

You're right...I was thinking don't compare apples with flying saucers, compare them with pomegranates or maybe with caulifower.

I think what frustrates me more than anything, is when given a mundane simple explanation or a more dramatic, complicated, interesting one, we humans jump at the more interesting one, then without evidence try to build a case for it bending what evidence we have. I don't want to open a can of worms, but the Kennedy Assassination is a great example. The simplest explanation is that a "wanna-be-a-Russian" loser leaned out a window and shot the president. Period. That is the evidence, the case is simple. YET, for years people formulate complex interesting cases with evil CIA, Cuba, Communists, multiple shooters, the limo driver killing him, strange grassy knoll shadows....etc. These are WAY more interesting than a lone gunman. We pour over photos, documents, and pick and choose bits that support our theory, ignoring the rest, or blaming a government cover-up.

As we speak a Malaysian plane has disappeared. The first talk on the news was terrorism. BUT why hasn't any terror group spoke up and taken credit? What kind of dumb group takes down a plane, then is silent? The mundane idea that they had electrical problems has been ignored, or marginally discussed. When it's all said and done, they probably lost communications, tried to go back, getting lost, running out of fuel, and crashing into the HUGELY empty expansive ocean. The simpler explanation isn't always correct, is always more boring, but the odds are in it's favor.

For sure, the ferocity of the attacks on the Bordens, the vicious damage looks at first glace like the work of a man. But that is Misogynous. We can't say a woman wouldn't have the anger or ability to pulverize a man's skull with an ax. It does make me have a doubt though...We can speculate the person had a certain hatred/fury during both attacks, you don't give a beating like that just to kill.

[Curryong]

Popped in from watching an exciting footie game to say that I agree with you 100 per cent about Lee Harvey Oswald, Possum. A lone nutter got lucky and there are still conspiracy theories about it. All these plotters keeping silent unto the grave!
I noticed there has been speculation that the Malaysian airliner may have been flown to Pakistan! What! A very strange terrorist group to have taken over the plane and yet never announced this satisfying event to the international media!

[PossumPie]

Popped in from watching an exciting footie game to say that I agree with you 100 per cent about Lee Harvey Oswald, Possum. A lone nutter got lucky and there are still conspiracy theories about it. All these plotters keeping silent unto the grave!
I noticed there has been speculation that the Malaysian airliner may have been flown to Pakistan! What! A very strange terrorist group to have taken over the plane and yet never announced this satisfying event to the international media!

Exactly, I'm not saying my theory is correct, just the most likely. It is more likely that something mundane happened.
Statistics say only 13% of commercial airline disasters are terrorism related. 87% are pilot error, weather, mechanical failure.
NOT saying that terrorism is impossible, just that the most likely cause is much more mundane.
In cases where no answer is found, the strange conspiracy theories can be hashed about without being disproved.

less than 20% of people killed are killed by strangers. That gives the odds at 4 out of 5 homicide victims knew their killer... since the Borden case hasn't been solved in over 100 years, conspiracy theories have just as much chance of being believed by people as the more mundane.

[Catbooks]

i'm not big on conspiracy theories. which isn't to say there aren't any conspiracies and things aren't necessarily how they appear. but in general they get way too elaborate for my taste, and i get the sense of people lost amongst the trees, looking for the forest.

before the kennedy assassination, people in the u.s. generally believed what we were told - by the government, by the press. it was a time of relative innocence, but also a time of a great deal of secrecy. in the periods afterwards, a lot of secrets began to be revealed. trust was lost, there was a lot of upheaval, a lot of feelings of being betrayed or duped. not surprisingly, a lot more conspiracy theories were born.

but i do think it was most likely oswald, alone.

if the answers to the borden case were that simple, this forum wouldn't be here! we still puzzle over how lizzie could have so brutally murdered two people with a hatchet, how she appeared to be so spotless (ok, one spot discovered) so soon after andrew's murder, what she did with the hatchet, and why, if she was guilty, she wasn't convicted.

[debbiediablo]

For sure, the ferocity of the attacks on the Bordens, the vicious damage looks at first glace like the work of a man. But that is Misogynous. We can't say a woman wouldn't have the anger or ability to pulverize a man's skull with an ax. It does make me have a doubt though...We can speculate the person had a certain hatred/fury during both attacks, you don't give a beating like that just to kill.

I look at a woman committing both of those crimes as a statistical improbability, no different than the statistical improbability of terrorist v mechanical/human failure in the crash of an airplane. The seeming rage underlying the murders also makes the probability of a stranger committing the crime (unless they were seriously mentally unhinged) highly unlikely. Along with motive...I find it difficult to wrap my thinking around a daughter so horrifically killing her father for money. So even though I think Lizzie did it, the motive remains obscure. Greed alone does not invite such personal destruction.

[Curryong]

I don't say there aren't ever conspiracies, especially political ones, look at John Wilkes Booth, Guy Fawkes, the Rasputin assassins for example. And, of course, people do kill 'in company,' especially couples.
I agree too, that the late 1960's (especially in the United States) was a time of extraordinary change and greater freedoms and much more questioning of authority, most of which, I have to say, was, from my perspective, entirely good!
What I do get very tired of, and you see it in forums that are devoted to international events, is that, immediately no 'rational' explanation for some event appears, the 'tin-foil hats' appear, pushing their theories! The age of the Internet has been such a boon for these people, honestly!
Thank goodness we don't get that on this forum! We are all free to put our own scenarios forward and there are discussions and people are free to agree or disagree, as the case may be!
Maybe the plane developed any number of mechanical failures. Maybe it veered off course and crashed in another part of the ocean. Maybe I'm completely wrong and terrorists landed it somewhere! Sooner or later, truth will out!

[Curryong]

Quick question to anyone. Was Bridget supposed to wash the upstairs windows outside, and inside? Because, if she was, that would expose Lizzie to a significant risk, wouldn't it, ie Bridget couldn't be allowed into that guest room!

Bridget only washed the downstairs ones that morning, before her rest, and Thursday was her afternoon off. So maybe she wasn't required to do the outside upstairs windows (perhaps a professional window cleaner?) and Abby and Emma cleaned the bedroom windows inside?

[Mara]

Awesome question. I think it's only in movies that we see Bridget using a ladder. Seems her job involved hurling buckets of water up against the windows from the yard. But surely the upstairs windows would have gotten dirty too. Good topic for research.