Morse's motive

[Franz]

After I posted my Morse’s guilty theory, many of you asked me what Morse’s motive was. Here is my answer (not definitive one): nothing but my speculation.

1. Morse had confidence of Andrew, and the later often talked with Morse about, among other subjects, his financial affairs. Before murders occurred, maybe a few months ago, Andrew told Morse that he was considering to make his will, and this will was very in favour of Abby, Borden sisters were largely and unfairly neglected– at least according to Morse.

2. Morse and Andrew were in good relations, it’s true. But this good relationship could have been no much more than that (normal) one between two brothers-in-law. Andrew somewhat overestimated his intimacy with Morse. Morse had blood relation only with Emma and Lizzie --- daughters of his sister, not with Andrew and Abby. In addition, Morse secretly didn't like Abby at all: he couldn't stand that the woman who took the place of Sara would receive much more than his two nieces.

3. Andrew’s decision irritated very much Morse: no, he said to himself, this should not happen, in the name of my dear and dead sister, I would never permit such a thing happen. Morse secretly planned his double murder: Abby must die first, Andrew second, before this later could have made his will: only in this case Borden sisters would have all the wealth of the family. Morse continued to be (falsely) kind with Andrew and Abby, neither Andrew nor Abby (or Borden sisters) suspected nothing.

4. Many people think the first motive for murder is money. Morse might have killed (helped by his accomplice) for money. Morse didn't gaine nothing, it's true, but his two nieces did. Morse had a pretty good relation with Emma. He killed more for his (beloved?) sister than for two nieces.

P.S.: I think it could be possible as well that Andrew didn't talk about the will with Morse, but this later somehow knew it.

[Curryong]

So, Franz, John and his accomplice (who was presumably paid) killed Abby out of family sentiment for his dead sister? Did Morse, during all those months Lizzie was incarcerated, waiting for her trial, have any trace of sentiment towards a niece who might hang for what he and his accomplice had done? Or wasn't he bothered, because he didn't have much of a relationship with Lizzie anyway?

[Aamartin]

If the girls were close enough to Morse for him to have done this-- wouldn't Lizzie at the very least stepped into the sitting room the night before to greet him?

[Franz]

Hey Curryong and Anthony, thank you for your interest.

Morse was an eccentric man, at least it was and is believed so. He could be apparently not very near to his two nieces, especially to Lizzie. But you know, many men don't express their tenderness openly. Morse was a buchter, a horse dealer, a farmer, a bachelor, with no family life and no child. Could it be possible that Morse liked or even loved his two nieces in the depth of his heart? And, in the end, they were daughters of Sara, and Sara was his sister.

The note: in my theory Morse and his accomplice invented the note, one of the reasons is to avoid Lizzi's involvement. In this Morse was lucky.

The overkilling: might be intentional in order to avoid Lizzie (and Bridget) of being suspected. In this Morse was not lucky: Lizzie was suspected. I have no idea: within my theory and if Lizzie were convicted, Morse would confess or not. But it could be possible that he was pretty more positive that Lizzie would be acquitted.

[Curryong]

Yes, I do think that Lizzie's relationship with her Uncle John left a lot to be desired! Perhaps she looked down on his countrified ways and lack of hygiene. Even Emma's warmth towards him consisted of an occasional accompanying him to the Swansea farm and a few letters a year.
(While I am sure John had tender feelings in his turn for his nieces I just don't feel it would have been sufficient.)

Hardly enough, you would have thought, for John Morse to risk all on getting involved in murder, even if it was supposedly for Sarah's sake. Supposedly John never saw his nieces again after the trial. (Though surely he would have called in on them at least once or twice with him going to Fall River to see other relatives.)

It just doesn't strike me as much of a motive. I can't believe that Andrew would leave his 'girls' poor anyway, even if he and Abby had had children.

[Franz]

So Curryong, you are very positive that Lizzie could have killed for (her own and Emma's) money, but you are not positive that Morse could have killed for the money of his two nieces. Do I understand well?

P.S.: You said: "I can't believe that Andrew would leave his 'girls' poor anyway, even if he and Abby had had children." So you think Lizzie could have killed, even though her father would not leave her and Emma poor anyway, right?

[Curryong]

Oh, Franz, sorry I haven't time to debate this thoroughly until later cos I have to go to work, but I do believe, as you know, that Lizzie killed Andrew as a consequence of killing Abby, not the other way around!
I do think that Lizzie was driven by greed too, because she wanted a better life, but I do believe that she absolutely hated Abby and something happened that day that drove her to fury.

[Franz]

Oh, Franz, sorry I haven't time to debate this thoroughly until later cos I have to go to work, but I do believe, as you know, that Lizzie killed Andrew as a consequence of killing Abby, not the other way around!
I do think that Lizzie was driven by greed too, because she wanted a better life, but I do believe that she absolutely hated Abby and something happened that day that drove her to fury.

Yes, this is possible and even probable. Many people have the same opinion.

[Franz]

Morse, in August 4th, the day of the murders, asked the policeman J. Fleet if he "suspected that the murderer could have been concealed in the house last night." (Witness statement, p. 3). He could have been trying to know the very first opinion of the police, and meanwhile, he could have been trying to insinuate that he didn't suspect the two women present in the house --- Lizzie and Bridget. He could have been trying to direct the police's suspicion towards an intruder, in order to protect Lizzie (and Bridget). Certainly he could have known nothing about the murderer, but, in my opinion, it could be possible as well that he did so because he knew that the killer was not Lizzie but some one else.

[Curryong]

Couldn't he, as a very chivalrous 19th century Yankee gentleman, have simply been trying to protect two women who weren't just his nieces but alone in the world with their father gone? Men did feel that way about women in those days. I don't believe for a minute that her uncle suspected Lizzie of doing anything dreadful.

In his testimony at the trial he mentions that he tested the spring lock on the front door which wasn't closing properly. He probably did think that somehow the door locks hadn't worked properly and somebody had got in. The whole town of Fall River was in an uproar and anxious that the mad assassin should be caught and I believe that John was as keen as anyone else that this 'fiend' should be apprehended.

[PossumPie]

Franz, your motive for Morse is so full of contradictions.
1. Morse genuinely liked Andrew but hated him so much he had him killed.
2. Morse loved his nieces, but didn't visit with them much, only Andrew. Lizzie and Emma basically ignored Morse. and from all accounts they never saw each other after the trial.
3. Morse loved Lizzie so much he killed for her, but allowed her to go through a year of hell in jail and the trial.
4. Morse killed to prevent a will from giving all to Abby, yet no will was ever found, no rough draft, nothing to indicate that he ever got around to writing one.
5. Morse's motive was money yet he got NO money. Lizzie got a HUGE amount of money but she had NO motive...?

I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of that. No one has EVER come up with a legitimate reason for Uncle Morse to mastermind the murders.

[Franz]

Franz, your motive for Morse is so full of contradictions.
1. Morse genuinely liked Andrew but hated him so much he had him killed.
2. Morse loved his nieces, but didn't visit with them much, only Andrew. Lizzie and Emma basically ignored Morse. and from all accounts they never saw each other after the trial.
3. Morse loved Lizzie so much he killed for her, but allowed her to go through a year of hell in jail and the trial.
4. Morse killed to prevent a will from giving all to Abby, yet no will was ever found, no rough draft, nothing to indicate that he ever got around to writing one.
5. Morse's motive was money yet he got NO money. Lizzie got a HUGE amount of money but she had NO motive...?

I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of that. No one has EVER come up with a legitimate reason for Uncle Morse to mastermind the murders.

PossumPie, I am not here to try to make anyone to believe anything. I expressed here what I thought. It's all.

1. I never said "Morse genuinely like Andrew." I said: "Morse and Andrew were in good relations". By my unserstanding, "in good relations" could mean people act one to another in friendly, polite, nice manner. Am I friendly, polite, nice with you? I personnally think we two in the forum we are in good relations, but this doesn't mean necessarily that I like you. Please don't misrepresent my position.

2 and 3. For these two points, I copy here what I said above: "many men don't express their tenderness openly. Morse was a buchter, a horse dealer, a farmer, a bachelor, with no family life and no child. Could it be possible that Morse liked or even loved his two nieces in the depth of his heart?"

4. You said: "Morse killed to prevent a will from giving all to Abby, yet no will was ever found, no rough draft, nothing to indicate that he ever got around to writing one." If you had read carfully my thread, you would have realized that I speculated that Morse tried to kill andrew before he would have made a will. So why must a will be found afterwards? You yourself used the word "prevent", and then you said: "no will was ever found." I dont' understand you.

5. Being daughter of a rich man doesn't mean necessarily, automatically that it must be her who killed father for money (certainly possible, but not a "must"). If you woud not kill anyone so that someone else can gaine the money and yourself nothing, this doesn't mean that in this world no one would never do such a thing.

I am more convinced for Lizzie's innocence, but meanwhile, I always think Lizzie could be the killer. If you think there is absolutely no possibility for Morse's guilt, it's your affair, not mine.

[Franz]

...
1. Morse genuinely liked Andrew but hated him so much he had him killed.
...

I never said that Morse hated Andrew, the word "hated"doesn't appear at all in my thred. What I actually said is "Andrew’s decision irritated very much Morse". If my brother for some reason irritated me, this doesn't mean that I must hate him afterwards. Many people are killed, this doesn't mean that the killers hate their victims. They kill for money, for love, for sex, for pleasure, for no reason ...and, certainly, for hate. But I never said Morse hated Andrew.

[MysteryReader]

[quote="Franz"]

PossumPie, I am not here to try to make anyone to believe anything. I expressed here what I thought. It's all.


This is all we're doing- expressing what we think. Just remember, the person you're talking to (this is for all of us and not just for one person) can't hear your tone of voice nor see your expressions or body language.

[Franz]

You are right, MysterReader, we can only read what is written. We might even misunderstand our face-à-face interlocutor, so imagine in a forum...

[MysteryReader]

You're right and it's what I tell myself while reading these.

[PossumPie]

...
1. Morse genuinely liked Andrew but hated him so much he had him killed.
...

I never said that Morse hated Andrew, the word "hated"doesn't appear at all in my thred. What I actually said is "Andrew’s decision irritated very much Morse". If my brother for some reason irritated me, this doesn't mean that I must hate him afterwards. Many people are killed, this doesn't mean that the killers hate their victims. They kill for money, for love, for sex, for pleasure, for no reason ...and, certainly, for hate. But I never said Morse hated Andrew.

Sorry..."Morse genuinely appeared to get along well with Andrew, but was 'irritated' with him so much he had him killed.

[PossumPie]

Morse was NOT overly interested or involved in his nieces' lives. By all the evidence we have availible, he spoke cordially to them, but did not go out of his way to interact. This is seen by Lizzie coming home, hearing Morse's voice talking to Mr. Borden, and she didn't even pop in to say "hello" she just went to her room. Morse didn't wait for Lizzie to come down to breakfast to say hello, but he left before she got up. Neither Lizzie's nor Morse's actions seem consistent with someone who would kill to make sure they got Andrew's money.

Love is not about words, but actions. Morse may not have openly expressed 'tendernesses' to his nieces...but NEITHER did his actions display that he had much love for them either. I don't use many mushy words to my wife, but my actions of being with her, doing things with her and for her show the depth of my love. I find it a stretch to imagine a man who didn't express or show much love for his nieces, but who killed for them, risking death himself.

It isn't that I am NOT open to other possible killers- I am. Just that I have never seen one shred of evidence that Morse would kill Andrew and Abby so violently and viciously. He was calm and civil to Andrew the night before, and he apparently never talked to either niece after the murders!!!!!

[Franz]

Morse was NOT overly interested or involved in his nieces' lives. By all the evidence we have availible, he spoke cordially to them, but did not go out of his way to interact. This is seen by Lizzie coming home, hearing Morse's voice talking to Mr. Borden, and she didn't even pop in to say "hello" she just went to her room. Morse didn't wait for Lizzie to come down to breakfast to say hello, but he left before she got up. Neither Lizzie's nor Morse's actions seem consistent with someone who would kill to make sure they got Andrew's money.

Love is not about words, but actions. Morse may not have openly expressed 'tendernesses' to his nieces...but NEITHER did his actions display that he had much love for them either. I don't use many mushy words to my wife, but my actions of being with her, doing things with her and for her show the depth of my love. I find it a stretch to imagine a man who didn't express or show much love for his nieces, but who killed for them, risking death himself.

It isn't that I am NOT open to other possible killers- I am. Just that I have never seen one shred of evidence that Morse would kill Andrew and Abby so violently and viciously. He was calm and civil to Andrew the night before, and he apparently never talked to either niece after the murders!!!!!

PossumPie, I agree almost every word you said here, and understand well you objections.

There are a number of theries about the Borden case. The mine is not a total new one: ages ago, even immediately after the murders, Morse was suspected for the crime.

The case is not solved, and this means that every theory has its "holes", or something not very convincing. And in this case, every one chooses the most convincing theory for him/her (or does not make any choice), based on presonal experience of life, methods of thinking, sensibility, intuition, etc. Therefore there is a variety of opinions in the forum and out of it, and it's fun.

Today I am more convinced for Morse's guilt, tomorrow I could be much more, or less, or could change radically my opinion (maybe because of a very irrelevent detail that didn't draw my attention enough before). Who knows?

P.S.: Only one word: you said: "...Morse would kill Andrew and Abby so violently and viciously". In my opinion the murders being so violent (it's true) could be "artificial", could be a mise en scène (for the motive I have explained). Even if we suppose that Lizzie did it, to what extent you are really convinced that Lizzie could be so violent not only with her stepmother, but with her natural father as well?

[Franz]

Sorry..."Morse genuinely appeared to get along well with Andrew, but was 'irritated' with him so much he had him killed.

Thank you, PossumPie. Yes you are right, it could seem contradictory, indeed. But I invite you to consider the motive for which Morse might have been irritated: Andrew was a very very rich man. It could have been a huge sum of money. Many believe Lizzie did it because she might have known that father was considering to make a will very very unfair for her and Emma. So, you see, the motive of my theory, in its essential, is the same of some Lizzie did it theories, the difference is only in the executors: 1) for money Lizzie did it; 2) for money Morse did (mindmastered) it for his nieces.

P.S.: It's true that Lizzie killed and had money, Morse killed but had no momeny. But it is true as well that Lizzie killed her stepmother and her father, but Morse killed (only) an ex brother-in-law and his second wife

[Franz]

Couldn't he, as a very chivalrous 19th century Yankee gentleman, have simply been trying to protect two women who weren't just his nieces but alone in the world with their father gone? Men did feel that way about women in those days. I don't believe for a minute that her uncle suspected Lizzie of doing anything dreadful.

In his testimony at the trial he mentions that he tested the spring lock on the front door which wasn't closing properly. He probably did think that somehow the door locks hadn't worked properly and somebody had got in. The whole town of Fall River was in an uproar and anxious that the mad assassin should be caught and I believe that John was as keen as anyone else that this 'fiend' should be apprehended.

I agree.

1. If Morse was not involved at all in the murder, he most probably didn't suspect his niece.

2. His testimony about the front door locks could be an attempt to make the intruder theory more probable (so in favor of Lizzie), rigardless if Morse was involved or not in the crime.

[Curryong]

Yes, I think that was so, Franz.

[PossumPie]

Franz, I have tried to come up with a plausible motive for Morse. The ONLY one I could come up with would be that IF Andrew was abusive to the girls (Physically, emotionally, or sexually) and Morse knew about it, then perhaps he had the Bordens killed. The major hole in that theory was that both girls were adults and could have moved out to escape his abuse long ago. That bothers me also with the theory that Lizzie killed them b/c of some abuse. Abused women who grow up in a household where fathers/step fathers abuse them tend to move out at a very early age to escape. Neither Borden girl did this.

I'm sorry, but I just can't grasp that Morse was sufficiently motivated by anger, revenge, irritation, or anything else to have them killed. He just didn't show enough interest or investment in them. You are correct, it would have to have been a "mise en scène" or staged killing b/c if he hired two men, neither would have had enough anger to kill so violently. I don't want you to think I'm picking on your theory. I just am obsessed with the idea that there is no evidence anywhere that Morse had motive. By the way, your argument that the theory is plausible b/c others have believed it in the past is another fallacy of logic. "The Argument from Antiquity Fallacy" -- that something is correct b/c the idea has been around for a long time.

[Franz]

1. PossumPie, I privately discussed with a member this possibility (of abuse) as a motive for Morse, indeed. But we had no proof. On the contrary, Andrew did talk about his financial affairs with Morse, this is a fact. So...

2. Your replies are always welcome.

3. For the antiquity fallacy: With what I said I meant that I was not defending my theory, but a theory that existes always. I didn't mean that this theory might be more plausible because old. Lizzie's guilty theory is as old as Morse's, indeed, but I don't think it is more convincing than others for this reason.

[Franz]

The major hole in that theory was that both girls were adults and could have moved out to escape his abuse long ago. That bothers me also with the theory that Lizzie killed them b/c of some abuse. Abused women who grow up in a household where fathers/step fathers abuse them tend to move out at a very early age to escape. Neither Borden girl did this.
...

If Andrew did abuse them --- I am not positive for this ---, do you think it might be so easy for the Borden sisters to leave at that time? If they did leave, they most probably would lose everything, wouldn't they? Don't you think that it should be better to remain in house in order to cover better the family scandal? (If they left, not for the marriage, what would FV people think about?). To ramain at home and to try to protect themselves, being already adults, this is more probable for me. But, I repeat, I am not positive for abuse theory, on the contrary, it should be leggitime to speculate that for a so rich man as Andrew in his 70's, it might be the moment to consider his will.

[PossumPie]

The major hole in that theory was that both girls were adults and could have moved out to escape his abuse long ago. That bothers me also with the theory that Lizzie killed them b/c of some abuse. Abused women who grow up in a household where fathers/step fathers abuse them tend to move out at a very early age to escape. Neither Borden girl did this.
...

If Andrew did abuse them --- I am not positive for this ---, do you think it might be so easy for the Borden sisters to leave at that time? If they did leave, they most probably would lose everything, wouldn't they? Don't you think that it should be better to remain in house in order to cover better the family scandal? (If they left, not for the marriage, what would FV people think about?). To ramain at home and to try to protect themselves, being already adults, this is more probable for me. But, I repeat, I am not positive for abuse theory, on the contrary, it should be leggitime to speculate that for a so rich man as Andrew in his 70's, it might be the moment to consider his will.

A few years ago, I owned a Counseling Practice. We specialized in Trauma Counseling which included women who were abused. It is a very complex issue with many women choosing to stay with abusers out of mis-placed love and some out of fear. While it is true that Andrew COULD have been abusive in some way that Morse found out and had him killed, I just don't see any hard evidence. Women abused by fathers/stepfathers tend to leave home at the first opportunity, either to marry, or get their own place. They were both over the age of 30 and whispered rumors at the time were NOT about Andrew being abusive, rather they were about the girls being "mean and spiteful'" to Abby. It always struck me that witnesses said that there was a strained relationship in the household. Almost to a person, each said that things were cold, strained, tense. It is very dangerous to ever accuse anyone (alive or dead) of being abusive. It could be construed as slander without evidence. Heck, I could say my theory is that Morse had the Bordens killed b/c he discovered that they were satanic high-priests who conducted black mass in their basement. They are dead and can't defend themselves, and there is no evidence for this so it is not even a theory, just a wild speculation. I strongly believe a theory should start with a collection of facts and piece them together like a puzzle into a theory...NOT start with a theory and then cut and twist the facts into the shape you need them to be in to fit the theory.

[Franz]

PossumPie, I repeat, the abuse is not a part of my theory.

[Franz]

...I strongly believe a theory should start with a collection of facts ...

Yes, I strongly believe so, too. But unfortunately sometimes it's impossible to collect any evidence, and this is not the fault of anyone.

PossumPie, if you think Lizzie did it for money, so for her motive, except the fact that she was the daughter of Andrew (a fact that Lizzie herself could not do nothing against it because she was born in this rich family) -- have you collected any other evidence to support your theory about Lizzie's motive? As you yourself said in another post: "non will was ever found."

[PossumPie]

...I strongly believe a theory should start with a collection of facts ...

Yes, I strongly believe so, too. But unfortunately sometimes it's impossible to collect any evidence, and this is not the fault of anyone.

It is not the fault of anyone, but that doesn't mean we can make up "pretend facts" like Morse was gay, or he wanted to make sure his nieces had money.

Look at the theory of a naked Andrew and Morse chasing Abby around the room with a hatchet b/c she caught them 'in the act' There is NO evidence for this, yet someone (I assume) seriously believes it. I have used the theory that the Pope had them executed (No, I really DON'T believe it) and challenged anyone to prove me wrong. No one did. A theory without any supporting evidence is worthless. I am not 100% convinced Lizzie did it, but the evidence that she did kill them is somewhat convincing. Did she gain anything from them being dead? Yes Did she have the opportunity/ was she nearby? Yes.
When we start talking about illegitimate sons, Morse, Mrs. Whitehead, Naked Andrew, or Emma, now we have problems. No evidence, they were not around at the time of the murders, no evidence that they gained anything positive so it is all wild speculation. Could any of the above theories be correct? yes. Are they likely to be correct given what we know? Not very likely...

[Franz]

It is not the fault of anyone, but that doesn't mean we can make up "pretend facts" like Morse was gay, or he wanted to make sure his nieces had money.

...

So far as I know, no one in the forum is trying to make up "Morse was gay" or "he wanted to make sure his nieces had money" as "pretend facts". Everyone is saying that these are speculations.

I have no other words to add.

[Franz]

... I am not 100% convinced Lizzie did it, but the evidence that she did kill them is somewhat convincing. ...

Maybe you wanted to say: the evidence that she did kill them is, in my (PossumPie) opinion and in that of many others, somewhat convincing... Right?

[PossumPie]

... I am not 100% convinced Lizzie did it, but the evidence that she did kill them is somewhat convincing. ...

Maybe you wanted to say: the evidence that she did kill them is, in my (PossumPie) opinion and in that of many others, somewhat convincing... Right?

I give up. I like you Franz, you are a welcome poster here and you are always a gentleman. Let's just let it drop, I can't get you to understand what I'm trying to say...

I am not trying to convince anyone that Lizzie is guilty, there is not enough evidence to prove it. I'm saying that there must be SOME SMALL AMOUNT of documented, supported evidence before ANY theory can be respected. An old thread here discusses Morse and Andrew romping naked in the spare room, caught by Abby, and then they killed her. Could it happen? yes. Is there a shred of evidence for any of it??? Not a bit. I've read and re-read your theory on Morse having them killed. Your theory is 100% possible, but there is not a shred of evidence to back up his reason/motive for doing it, or anyone who came forth saying he tried to hire them to kill the Bordens. Possible? YES! any evidence supporting it? Not that I see...

If a letter became available written by Morse stating he disliked Andrew and was worried about the girls future if Andrew didn't leave money to them....wow! that would be evidence pointing to a possible motive. NOT proof, but at least we would have evidence of a possible motive. Alas, we have not a shred of evidence like that. Nothing has ever surfaced that would put the suspicion on strange old Morse.

I think I will just drop the subject..

[Franz]

... there must be SOME SMALL AMOUNT of documented, supported evidence before ANY theory can be respected...

PossumPie, thank you for your friendly and touching words.

I guess that you certainly consider Lizzie's guilty theroy is a respectable one, right? Well. Please, besides this theory, could you tell me what other theory or theories can be respected according to your standard?

(I anticipate here my own answer to my own question: in my opinion, for an unsolved case so particular as the Borsen case, all possible theories deserve respect.)

[PossumPie]

... there must be SOME SMALL AMOUNT of documented, supported evidence before ANY theory can be respected...

PossumPie, thank you for your friendly and touching words.

I guess that you certainly consider Lizzie's guilty theroy is a respectable one, right? Well. Please, besides this theory, could you tell me what other theory or theories can be respected according to your standard?

(I anticipate here my own answer to my own question: in my opinion, for an unsolved case so particular as the Borsen case, all possible theories deserve respect.)

This is a summery of evidence for each of the main characters...doesn't prove anything, just supportive evidence for or against. NO SPECULATION AT ALL.

1. Lizzie: Evidence--- Motive: she got A LARGE sum of money. Witness statements that she disliked Mrs. Borden. No evidence that she disliked her father so that is a weakness. She was within arm's length of both Abby and Andrew moments before their deaths.

2. Anonymous man who argued with Andrew before the murders. Evidence--- Witness statements that they argued. Motive: Revenge/anger at Andrew. We don't know his whereabouts during the murders so that is a weakness.

3. Bridget: Evidence ----No known motive. She was within arms length of both Mr and Mrs. Borden moments before their murders. No evidence that she disliked either Mr. or Mrs. Borden, so big weakness.

4. Emma: Evidence---Motive she got a LARGE sum of money. Witness statements that she disliked Mrs. Borden. She was NOT anywhere near Mr. Mrs. Borden during the murders, so that is a weakness. She could have hired someone but there is NO evidence for this.

5. Morse: Evidence---Motive: NONE known. Witness statements that Morse had friendly relations with both Mr. and Mrs. Borden. He was NOT near Mr. Mrs. Borden during the murders. He could have hired someone to kill them, BUT there is no evidence of this so very weak theory.

6. The Pope: Evidence--- Motive: Unknown The Pope was nowhere near the murders at the time. He could have hired someone to kill them, BUT there is no evidence of this so it is a Very weak theory.

[Franz]

PossumPie, I agree with you for almost every word you wrote here.

However, I permit me to add a word: in my opinion, the first 5 theories have all their chance to be the truth.

[Curryong]

Surely, under (3) Possum, Bridget wasn't at arm's length from Abby (and I'm not being pedantic or nit-picking, I hope.) She was seen outside the house at the time the murder must have occurred by both Mrs Churchill and the Kelly's maid. Of course, she could have quickly nipped inside to finish Abby off and then returned, but that action would depend on whether Lizzie locked the side door or not after their conversation. My guess is she did, at least temporarily.

[Franz]

I am not talking about politics. This is only an example.

It is known that there have been and there are many many spies in the world, but the real idendity of only a small number of them has been discovered, the rest, a huge number of spies have never been caught, and for many of them, no evidence at all. But I imagine that none of us could be so naif to believe that the only and unique spies are those whose cover has been blown and nobody else.

Let's return to the Borden case. Every day, always, from the very first day the men were born on earth, many people are killed, but only very few murder cases remain so mysterious as the Borden case. And I think there should be a reason, a very particular one.

And I think it's useless to add any other word to make me understood.

(P.S.: Please don't misunderstand me, I am not speaking for my theory, but for the Borden case as a whole.)

[debbiediablo]

Franz, your motive for Morse is so full of contradictions.
1. Morse genuinely liked Andrew but hated him so much he had him killed.
2. Morse loved his nieces, but didn't visit with them much, only Andrew. Lizzie and Emma basically ignored Morse. and from all accounts they never saw each other after the trial.
3. Morse loved Lizzie so much he killed for her, but allowed her to go through a year of hell in jail and the trial.
4. Morse killed to prevent a will from giving all to Abby, yet no will was ever found, no rough draft, nothing to indicate that he ever got around to writing one.
5. Morse's motive was money yet he got NO money. Lizzie got a HUGE amount of money but she had NO motive...?

I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of that. No one has EVER come up with a legitimate reason for Uncle Morse to mastermind the murders.

From what I can discern the only legitimate reasons for Morse to have killed Abby and Andrew are 1) he was seriously psychologically unbalanced...in and out of psychosis for which we have zero evidence 2) he saw the sisters being abused by Andrew while Abby stood by and did nothing...for which was also have zero evidence although some innuendo. This still doesn't explain what seems to have been an ironclad alibi.

[debbiediablo]

P.S.: Only one word: you said: "...Morse would kill Andrew and Abby so violently and viciously". In my opinion the murders being so violent (it's true) could be "artificial", could be a mise en scène (for the motive I have explained). Even if we suppose that Lizzie did it, to what extent you are really convinced that Lizzie could be so violent not only with her stepmother, but with her natural father as well?

Great love and great hate are the flip sides of the same passionate coin.

[debbiediablo]

I just finished reading the book Through the Window by Diane Fanning which is a crime bio of serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells. He picked his victims at random, killed entire families, crawled into houses in the night and killed the children leaving the sleeping adults to be blamed. There was no ritual involved and his victims were men, woman, children and a newborn infant. For all the logical and rational reasons why the killer could not have been a deranged stranger, after reading about this guy's incredible crime spree (he may have killed over 50 people while staying completely off police radar) the idea that the killer would have been brazen enough to hide in a closet for 90 minutes or simply walk in and back out seems much less improbable. Sells picked his victims due to proximity and in one case he killed an entire family because the mother was impolite to him at the convenience store where she worked. Maybe the reason this case makes no sense is because the killer had absolutely no logical or rational reason whatsoever to kill them.

[Franz]

I noticed an interesting thing.

It seems to me that everyone agrees that there are some oddness with Morse. Those who believe that Morse had nothing to do with the murder, when the oddness (suspicion for some people) of Morse is under discussion, very often they say: oh, because Morse was an eccentric man, nothing else.

I wonder, why seldom, if not never, they say: I personally think Morse had nothing to do with the murder, however, I think it could be possbile that he was guilty, because some doubt about his guilt could be explained by his being eccentric?

I think most probably Morse was guilty. You questioned: if Morse killed for Lizzie and Emma's benefits, why hadn't he a more closed relationship with the Borden sisters before the murders? why didn't he care at all of Lizzie when she was in the jail? why, after the trial, didn't he contact any more with his nieces? Well, why didn't you almost never place yourselves in the position of Franz, and give an answer for helping Franz: all this maybe because Morse was an eccentric man?

What does "open mind" mean to you? what does "double standard" mean to you? When you want to justify Morse's oddness (suspicion IMO) and his innocence, you say: oh, because he was eccentric; but when you want to question Morse's guilty theory, it seems to me that you forget immediately and miraculously that Morse was eccentric!

[Curryong]

Franz, please don't be annoyed. I know it must be very hard when you seem to be in a lone corner fighting your case. It must be enormously frustrating. Personally, I was very pleased when CuriousMind joined us with his theory because it would be good for the two of you to bounce ideas off each other about Morse. Please come back and post, CuriousMind, and join in the debate!

For myself, Franz, the killer cannot be Morse because he had an airtight alibi, which the police checked. If he hired a hit-man there is no evidence of it and there are the usual objections of that individual keeping quiet for the rest of his life.
Not all of us believe Lizzie did it. debbie and Catbooks started the David Anthony thread to explore that premise. MysteryReader doesn't believe Lizzie did it. Possum has said that at times he has had doubts that Lizzie is the guilty one. But there must be something to grab onto, Franz. Otherwise, it's just grasping at straws.

I feel upset that we don't have at least a dozen members who could come on the Forum and debate. I think half the problem is that a lot of formerly active members aren't here any more to give you back-up or a good argument. Those members who are active have views that are too well-known to you, and that is a pity.

[PossumPie]

I just finished reading the book Through the Window by Diane Fanning which is a crime bio of serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells. He picked his victims at random, killed entire families, crawled into houses in the night and killed the children leaving the sleeping adults to be blamed. There was no ritual involved and his victims were men, woman, children and a newborn infant. For all the logical and rational reasons why the killer could not have been a deranged stranger, after reading about this guy's incredible crime spree (he may have killed over 50 people while staying completely off police radar) the idea that the killer would have been brazen enough to hide in a closet for 90 minutes or simply walk in and back out seems much less improbable. Sells picked his victims due to proximity and in one case he killed an entire family because the mother was impolite to him at the convenience store where she worked. Maybe the reason this case makes no sense is because the killer had absolutely no logical or rational reason whatsoever to kill them.

Honestly Debbie, Your idea that it was a random sick stranger holds more weight than almost any of the other suspects... I once held that it must have been a stranger except for the facts that the neighborhood was full of nosey people who seemed to see every entrance and egress of persons from the Borden house that entire day, and NO ONE saw a stranger enter or leave. Plus, a stranger once gaining entrance would hear the noises of Bridget and Lizzie, and would be taking a huge risk in just hiding out in the spare room for an hour and a half.
Remember that the very interesting cases you mentioned were at night, when people were asleep. The ONLY famous case I can think of off the top of my head that happened with multiple people awake in a house and ONE killer would be Richard Speck and the Nurses....and he was so sexually excited that he admitted later that he didn't care if he was caught. The Manson murders were all done by 3 or 4 people tag-teaming the killings, and were both late at night when getting seen leaving or entering was unlikely.

[Franz]

For myself, Franz, the killer cannot be Morse because he had an airtight alibi...

1. curryong, that Morse committed the murders with his own hands is certainly out of question. In my theory he planned the murders.

2. Professional killers could very well keep silent. One's intimate, very good friend, or one's lover could as well.

[debbiediablo]

I know it doesn't make sense that someone would hide out in the house – to the sane mind. Sells talked his way into homes during the day although the locations were mostly remote but in one case the victim lived in a Grove Avenue apartment in Charleston, WV.

He used the son's baseball bat to bludgeon parents, a young son and an infant daughter born during the attack on her mother. This happened one afternoon in Ida, Illinois, after they met him at church!

He was executed for the murder for Kaylene Harris. Her friend, Krystal, sleeping over in the upper bunk survived having her throat cut and was able to give an exact description. However, Sells went home covered in blood, threw his clothing in the laundry and his wife didn't even wonder why.

One of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims actually escaped, once, except police believed Dahmer's story about a lovers spat and the man was sent on his way with Dahmer to be killed and eaten.

Crime (or human behavior for that matter) need not make sense. Nor do the powers of human observation. It can be as senseless as Sells showing up at the house of a convenience story clerk and killing her son to get even for her being rude to him. She was convicted of her son's murder and sentenced to life in prison until Sells was connected by confession and knowledge only available to the killer.

BTK spent long hours inside the home of Anna Williams waiting for her to come home so her could kill her. He cut the phone lines, picked out some souvenirs, and waited. And waited. And waited. Finally, many hours later he left. Several months afterward she got a note from BTK: "Roses are red, cattle are wrangled; If you'd come home half an hour earlier, you'd be strangled."

It's comforting to think the world is understandable, that bad things happen for a reason – even if it's not a "good" reason but at least a reason. It's comforting to trust the powers of observation of our friends and neighbors. We feel safer. It's terrifying to contemplate that orderly lives can be destroyed for no other reason than insanity is walking into our work place or into our church or down the sidewalk in front of our house. Or is parked at the gas pump next to us.

This is the long way around to say that something totally inexplicable and unimaginable could have taken place at the Borden's. If it did, we will never know.

[Franz]

... I once held that it must have been a stranger except for the facts that the neighborhood was full of nosey people who seemed to see every entrance and egress of persons from the Borden house that entire day, and NO ONE saw a stranger enter or leave....

No one was told, no one could foresee that a double murders would occur that morning, therefore, everyone said: "Let's stare at every entrance of the Borden's promise in continuation (as today's cameras in every corner) and let's catch the killer."

There must habe been some holes in the time. there must have been.

"...full of nosey people who seemed to see every entrance and egress of persons from the Borden house that entire day"? No, they saw only "every entrance and egress" that have been seen.