Lizzie’s reactions could be those of an innocent

[Franz]

Allen, if you "exclude the possibility of an intruder", this implies that the Borden case has been solved for you.

For the overnight, we can let it alone. I told you that I am rethinking about (not abandoning) my theory. Without discussing for the moment how the intruder entered in the house, but the hiding place for one hour and a half after Abby's murder, there was one: the guest room itself: neither Lizzie (with my theory I assume certainly Lizzie was innocent), nor Bridget went in that room. I am not at all the first who considers the gust room as the hiding place for the intruder. A number of members had expressed the same idea.

[Aamartin]

I believe for Allen is has been solved.

[Aamartin]

In my opinion......

Lizzie had plenty of money to mount her defense-- including hiring private investigators to ferret out any clues the police missed-- or simply quit looking for after her arrest. Nothing was found.

This little tidbit is what makes me the most interested in the notes/files held by the law office...

[Franz]

I believe for Allen is has been solved.

Not only for her, I suppose...

[Yooper]

Would there have been a reason to keep it quiet if Lizzie had hired an investigator to further pursue the matter? My best guess is that even if it was unsuccessful, it would still appear to imply innocence. It might have been less expensive to simply demand that the police continue the search, but that was not done. Lizzie could have been tried as an accessory to murder if something was discovered which somehow indicated that, so maybe there was incentive to not continue the search.

[Franz]

Allen, you said: "They make up their own facts as they go. Like Lizzie being out in the barn masterbating. " Please notice that all I expressed up to now are only my own, my personal opinions and conjectures, nothing of what I said is considered by myself as fact. This forum is a public place created for discussion of the case. In majority of the cases, the members express only their opinion. Whoever convinced for Lizzie's guilt must assume that Lizzie cleaned up quickly herself and hid the weapon in those very few minutes, is there any proof to support such a speculation?

[Franz]

I exclude the possibility of an intruder using common sense. Lizzie was acquitted yes. That does not mean she was absolutely without a doubt innocent. Her acquittal means nothing.Guilty people get away with murder all the time. They even get acquitted after a trial. The reasons are varied but it happens. There was no way anyone got into that house and hid out for over an hour without being seen. After going over all of the known evidence for years, gathering my own documents surrounding the case, and visiting the house, I see how improbable it is that anyone got into that house. There simply was no opportunity. There was no way someone could hide out in a house full of locked doors and other members of the household and not be seen for over an hour . Let alone overnight. The idea of that is just completely implausible. My common sense tells me I can exclude it. It also serves no purpose to argue the merit of a theory that has absolutely no proof. It was all made up in someone's head and has nothing to back it up except opinion. They make up their own facts as they go. Like Lizzie being out in the barn masterbating. There is no proof what so ever of this. There is more proof to the contrary. But this is a main idea of this theory. And that John Morse let someone spend the night in the house. There was nowhere for that someone to hide at all. Because Abby had already been upstairs to that guest room, and Bridget had already been down cellar.But this is still argued that John Morse let someone in the house that night.Reading the source documents does not show an understanding of what the information implies. Unless it can be twisted to fit the theory. So I am through arguing the whole idea that John Morse let someone spend the night in the house to murder Abby in the guest room, after he sent a note knowing she'd go right up to that room (for the second time that day), and if she didn't it was OK to kill Lizzie and Bridget, when the murders were committed so Lizzie and Emma could have the money in the first place, all done while he knew that Lizzie would be in the barn masturbating and Bridget was washing windows so nobody would hear the murder, then the killer luckily found the note in Abby's pocket and took it, then slipped downstairs to kill Andrew because he could hear from a second floor bedroom with the door closed that it was ok to come down. Then Lizzie couldn't remember anything an hour after the murders, or show any emotion, due to morphine she was not taking, already knowing she was a suspect before anyone else, and social standing. Arguing a constantly changing theory with no proof is an exercise in futility.

I recently just saw a rerun of the television show on the case that implied Lizzie and Bridget were lovers. There is no evidence of this either. Or that Andrew molested Lizzie. But national television shows can run it and not even call it fiction. I get disgusted with baseless theories being introduced on the premise that just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. I'm here for a serious discussion on the case.

Allen, I repeat, I am rethinking about my theory (I even said that I withdrow it for the moment). Please don't doubt my seriousness because my theory, in some points, is in contradiction with some known facts. I should have been more careful, it's true. But I have no intention at all to deny some knows facts and creat some my own "facts".

Many people don't believe Lizzid did it (certainly, they are very fewer than those who believe so), and proposed a number of theories, Brown's is one of them. Brown had no proof, he himself admitted this. I can disagree with him, but I don't think he was not serious because he had no proof. I never read his book, in that video about his theory, there is a scene in which William entered in the sitting room and had a violent dispute with Andrew, is this a detail of his theory? If so, I think it is highly unlikely, because Bridget should have heard such a conversation. But I don't doubt his seriousness.

Allen, I don't deny that according to those known facts, Lizzie seemed the suspected n° 1 of the murders. If you are convinced for her guilt, it's Ok, you have already your own conclusion. But if someone, like me, is not convinced for her guilt, could he / she propose any suggestion, even without new proof? Who can offer new proof, after 120 years, if there is not new discoveries?

[Aamartin]

Franz, you should post your theories and ideas. Do not take it personally when you are disagreed with. This is an emotional case-- and people may tend to get passionate about their beliefs and theories.

You have certainly breathed new life into the forum-- which is a very good thing.

[Franz]

Franz, you should post your theories and ideas. Do not take it personally when you are disagreed with. This is an emotional case-- and people may tend to get passionate about their beliefs and theories.

You have certainly breathed new life into the forum-- which is a very good thing.

Don't worry, Aamartin, I don't take it personally. On the contrary, the opposite opinions can make me think much more than an agreement, and improve my ideas - if they can be improved.

[Aamartin]

I believe Lizzie had plenty of time to clean up and dispose of the weapon. We underestimate the time it takes to do things all the time. I am a very organized and methodical person. I have a very large home and I am one who pays attention to detail. (tons of decor and the like). I can completely dust and vacuum the entire first floor of my house in less than 20 minutes. This includes setting up the vacuum with water and emptying it afterwards and cleaning the basin. I have 4 dogs. I have a lot of dog hair to remove!

My point is-- we say things like "give me 5 minutes!" if someone is waiting for us-- but try being the one sitting out in the driveway waiting for someone to come to the car for 5 full minutes. It seems like an eternity.

Without hurrying-- I can accomplish a great deal in 3-4 minutes if I am focused on the task. And if I had just killed someone and wanted to hide/dispose of the murder weapon-- AND wash my hands and face--- I could do it in minutes. Literally.

*edit* -- One of my pups is a Jack Russel-- they shed a lot!!!

[Allen]

Franz, I have already explained what I think about the blood being cleaned up many times. The proof of someone being able to clean themselves up quickly after the murders so that no blood was seen is self evident. Because it applies to anyone who might have committed them. Not just Lizzie. A person who actually left the house was even more likely to be seen if they were covered in blood. And they had even less time than Lizzie did. And nobody was seen in or around the house that day, on that busy street, covered in blood. Therefore, yes, that too me is evidence it's possible. Because somebody did do just that, and that's not just a hypothesis or opinion. They were murdered and the killer got away without being seen covered in blood. Unless they were beamed up by the the Star Trek Enterprise the clean up had to be pretty quickly done. And you can accomplish a good deal in a short period of time. There also was an alleged Pinkerton detective hired by the sisters. Orinton M. Hanscom was hired by Andrew Jenning's on the sister's behalf. Hanscom is the person Alice Russell first told about the dress burning incident. For whatever reason, he only lasted about two or three weeks and was put off the case. He just left town and never made his findings known. In Emma's trial testimony she says he was hired by her and Lizzie. He's also mentioned by some of the officers as being present as they searched, and by Alice Russell as she talked about the dress burning. Two or three weeks seems a short period of time to search for a killer. Newspapers accounts say he didn't even last that long. They also hinted that he was put off the case because he started to suspect an inside job. But those are just newspaper accounts and not proof.

[Franz]

Aamartin and Allen, what we talk about is if there was any proof that Lizzie cleaned up herself. In my opinion, that theorically she could have cleaned up is not a proof. For example, if someone testified that he saw Lizze wash her face at 11:00, this could be a proof.

[Allen]

Someone cleaned up after the murders. Very quickly. Because nobody was seen covered in blood. There were two murders. Fact. Someone got away without being noticed covered in blood. Fact. Nobody was seen around the house or in the house covered in blood. Fact. That's not theoretical. It actually happened. So, yes, it's proof.

[Yooper]

There is no proof that cleanup was necessary.

[Franz]

In the JonBenét case it was thought at first that an intruder was impossible (the police was very certain of this), and therefore her parents were suspected.

Yes, JonBenét case was not Borden case. But it demonstrates that such a mistake is possible.

[Franz]

There is no proof that cleanup was necessary.

There is no proof that cleanup was not necessary as well.

[Allen]

No, there isn't any proof that clean up was necessary. I have stated this as well if you check my previous posts. Many times. In my opinion, whatever clean up was needed was done quickly. Probably due to lack of blood spatter in the first place. But any clean up that was done was done quickly. And the proof lies in the fact that somebody did get away with the murders, and nobody was seen in or around that house covered in blood. And an intruder had less time to make himself presentable than Lizzie did. It cannot be disputed that somebody got away with killing them, and got away with no noticeable blood on their person. This is a fact or we would have nothing to even discuss.

[Franz]

Someone cleaned up after the murders. Very quickly. Because nobody was seen covered in blood. There were two murders. Fact. Someone got away without being noticed covered in blood. Fact. Nobody was seen around the house or in the house covered in blood. Fact. That's not theoretical. It actually happened. So, yes, it's proof.

But all this doesn't prove that the murderer must be Lizzie. "Nobody was seen around" doesn't prove that there was nobody who escaped from the house. The trip from the side door to one of the streets around needs only some seconds. No one was staring at the two entries of the house without interruption in order to be sure that nobody entered or left the house. I think so, and I don't care of that so called "argument on ignorance".

[Yooper]

No, there isn't any proof that clean up was necessary. I have stated this as well if you check my previous posts. Many times. In my opinion, whatever clean up was needed was done quickly. Probably due to lack of blood spatter in the first place. But any clean up that was done was done quickly. And the proof lies in the fact that somebody did get away with the murders, and nobody was seen in or around that house covered in blood. And an intruder had less time to make himself presentable than Lizzie did. It cannot be disputed that somebody got away with killing them, and got away with no noticeable blood on their person. This is a fact or we would have nothing to even discuss.

That's right, whatever was necessary was done by someone in whatever time was available. There is no proof necessary for that, it is self evident. There is nothing "theoretical" about it.

[Aamartin]

I have always contended that the murderer could have learned a great deal about blood splatter, or lack thereof after the first killing.... When he/she had plenty of unsupervised time to clean themselves up. So that the 2nd time-- blood splatter might not have even been a problem.

I can safely theorize that Lizzie burned that dress to hide evidence-- because we know a dress was burned. I suppose I could theorize there was an unseen intruder-- but I don't have any facts to back that up.

[Yooper]

Someone cleaned up after the murders. Very quickly. Because nobody was seen covered in blood. There were two murders. Fact. Someone got away without being noticed covered in blood. Fact. Nobody was seen around the house or in the house covered in blood. Fact. That's not theoretical. It actually happened. So, yes, it's proof.

But all this doesn't prove that the murderer must be Lizzie. "Nobody was seen around" doesn't prove that there was nobody who escaped from the house. The trip from the side door to one of the streets around needs only some seconds. No one was staring at the two entries of the house without interruption in order to be sure that nobody entered or left the house. I think so, and I don't care of that so called "argument on ignorance".

Leaving the house is only a part of the intruder absurdity. An intruder before leaving the house would have to enter undetected, kill Abby undetected by Lizzie and Bridget, hide for an hour and a half, then kill Andrew, selectively avoiding Lizzie and Bridget, then leave also undetected. Arguing the point of leaving undetected by itself is futile.

[Franz]

No, there isn't any proof that clean up was necessary. I have stated this as well if you check my previous posts. Many times. In my opinion, whatever clean up was needed was done quickly. Probably due to lack of blood spatter in the first place. But any clean up that was done was done quickly. And the proof lies in the fact that somebody did get away with the murders, and nobody was seen in or around that house covered in blood. And an intruder had less time to make himself presentable than Lizzie did. It cannot be disputed that somebody got away with killing them, and got away with no noticeable blood on their person. This is a fact or we would have nothing to even discuss.

That's right, whatever was necessary was done by someone in whatever time was available. There is no proof necessary for that, it is self evident. There is nothing "theoretical" about it.

Yooper, you said "by someone", very good. but there is no proof that this someone who cleaned up was Lizzie. My point was that there was not proof that Lizzie cleaned up herself. That Lizzie cleaned up herself and hid the weapon is only a speculation.

[Aamartin]

Someone cleaned up after the murders. Very quickly. Because nobody was seen covered in blood. There were two murders. Fact. Someone got away without being noticed covered in blood. Fact. Nobody was seen around the house or in the house covered in blood. Fact. That's not theoretical. It actually happened. So, yes, it's proof.

But all this doesn't prove that the murderer must be Lizzie. "Nobody was seen around" doesn't prove that there was nobody who escaped from the house. The trip from the side door to one of the streets around needs only some seconds. No one was staring at the two entries of the house without interruption in order to be sure that nobody entered or left the house. I think so, and I don't care of that so called "argument on ignorance".

Leaving the house is only a part of the intruder absurdity. An intruder before leaving the house would have to enter undetected, kill Abby undetected by Lizzie and Bridget, hide for an hour and a half, then kill Andrew, selectively avoiding Lizzie and Bridget, then leave also undetected. Arguing the point of leaving undetected by itself is futile.

I agree. Assuming Lizzie's TOTAL innocence of the crimes -- she'd of have a better chance of winning the lottery than all of these variables falling into place...

[Franz]

Someone cleaned up after the murders. Very quickly. Because nobody was seen covered in blood. There were two murders. Fact. Someone got away without being noticed covered in blood. Fact. Nobody was seen around the house or in the house covered in blood. Fact. That's not theoretical. It actually happened. So, yes, it's proof.

But all this doesn't prove that the murderer must be Lizzie. "Nobody was seen around" doesn't prove that there was nobody who escaped from the house. The trip from the side door to one of the streets around needs only some seconds. No one was staring at the two entries of the house without interruption in order to be sure that nobody entered or left the house. I think so, and I don't care of that so called "argument on ignorance".

Leaving the house is only a part of the intruder absurdity. An intruder before leaving the house would have to enter undetected, kill Abby undetected by Lizzie and Bridget, hide for an hour and a half, then kill Andrew, selectively avoiding Lizzie and Bridget, then leave also undetected. Arguing the point of leaving undetected by itself is futile.

Can you say all this is impossible?

[Yooper]

I have always contended that the murderer could have learned a great deal about blood splatter, or lack thereof after the first killing.... When he/she had plenty of unsupervised time to clean themselves up. So that the 2nd time-- blood splatter might not have even been a problem.

I can safely theorize that Lizzie burned that dress to hide evidence-- because we know a dress was burned. I suppose I could theorize there was an unseen intruder-- but I don't have any facts to back that up.

Unsupervised if the perpetrator was Lizzie. If it was an intruder, then they had to get around Lizzie and Bridget to clean up after killing Abby.

[Yooper]

Can you say all this is impossible?

I can reasonably doubt it.

[Aamartin]

I cannot say impossible.... What is possible or impossible?

However, I CAN say improbable.

It isn't impossible, for instance-- that the administrator of this forum will become best friends with a particular woman in Arizona. But I bet nearly 100% of the participants in this forum will say it is highly improbable. Thus, perhaps-- accepting it as fact.

[Aamartin]

I have always contended that the murderer could have learned a great deal about blood splatter, or lack thereof after the first killing.... When he/she had plenty of unsupervised time to clean themselves up. So that the 2nd time-- blood splatter might not have even been a problem.

I can safely theorize that Lizzie burned that dress to hide evidence-- because we know a dress was burned. I suppose I could theorize there was an unseen intruder-- but I don't have any facts to back that up.

Unsupervised if the perpetrator was Lizzie. If it was an intruder, then they had to get around Lizzie and Bridget to clean up after killing Abby.

exactly.

[Franz]

Can you say all this is impossible?

I can reasonably doubt it.

So you can't say that all this is impossible, right?

[Franz]

I can safely theorize that Lizzie burned that dress to hide evidence-- because we know a dress was burned. I suppose I could theorize there was an unseen intruder-- but I don't have any facts to back that up.

Unsupervised if the perpetrator was Lizzie. If it was an intruder, then they had to get around Lizzie and Bridget to clean up after killing Abby.[/quote]

exactly.[/quote]

What does mean "get around"? He could have cleaned up in the guest room, he could cover himself with a cloth, and covered by the same cloth he could kill Andrew, and put the cloth (and the weapon) in a bag and took it away.

[Aamartin]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

[Franz]

I cannot say impossible.... What is possible or impossible?

However, I CAN say improbable.

It isn't impossible, for instance-- that the administrator of this forum will become best friends with a particular woman in Arizona. But I bet nearly 100% of the participants in this forum will say it is highly improbable. Thus, perhaps-- accepting it as fact.

Yes, me too I think it is improbable. But the difference between me and you, in my opinion, is that I think that for the Borden case even the least probable theory could be the truth, but you don't think so.

[Franz]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Who said that: "There is no proof that cleanup was necessary"?

[Yooper]

Not saying it is impossible does not make it possible. It is possible when there is something to make us doubt that there is a better explanation. Either we have the ridiculous complexity of an intruder, or we have the ridiculously simple explanation that Lizzie did it. Is it any wonder that the police never pursued the case any further?

[Yooper]

I can safely theorize that Lizzie burned that dress to hide evidence-- because we know a dress was burned. I suppose I could theorize there was an unseen intruder-- but I don't have any facts to back that up.

Unsupervised if the perpetrator was Lizzie. If it was an intruder, then they had to get around Lizzie and Bridget to clean up after killing Abby.

exactly.[/quote]

What does mean "get around"? He could have cleaned up in the guest room, he could cover himself with a cloth, and covered by the same cloth he could kill Andrew, and put the cloth (and the weapon) in a bag and took it away.[/quote]

Just use the bowl of water found in the guest room, the one with the bloody water found in it?

[Yooper]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Not with bloody water in it.

[Franz]

I cannot say impossible.... What is possible or impossible?

However, I CAN say improbable.

It isn't impossible, for instance-- that the administrator of this forum will become best friends with a particular woman in Arizona. But I bet nearly 100% of the participants in this forum will say it is highly improbable. Thus, perhaps-- accepting it as fact.

Accepting what as fact? That "nearly 100% of the participants in this forum will say it is highly improbable"? I don't care. My brain is in my own head and my head is on my own shoulders.

[Franz]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Not with bloody water in it.

Who said that: "There is no proof that cleanup was necessary"?

[Yooper]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Not with bloody water in it.

Who said that: "There is no proof that cleanup was necessary"?

You're the one arguing that an intruder cleaned up in the guest room.

[Yooper]

Was that the intruder Lizzie saw in the guest room at 9:00 that morning?

[Yooper]

Hey! There's the answer, Franz! Abby was the intruder! She killed Andrew and went to the guest room and committed suicide! That's it, I'm convinced.

[Franz]

Was that the intruder Lizzie saw in the guest room at 9:00 that morning?

I said more than one time I am rethinking about my theory.

[Franz]

Hey! There's the answer, Franz! Abby was the intruder! She killed Andrew and went to the guest room and committed suicide! That's it, I'm convinced.

No comments!

[Allen]

Franz your arguments, to me, have stopped making any sense. Your theory changes constantly. You keep saying this intruder could have been hiding in the guest room but you can't even tell us how he got there. Putting him in the guest room to hide after Abby's murder makes no sense if there was no way he could have gotten to the guest room in the first place. Please don't say he hid out in the house in the middle of the night after John Morse let him in. Because you can't even give us a hiding place for this intruder all night long. Because there isn't one. You can't even tell us if John Morse could have unlocked the door to let him in. Because can you say the key was left in the lock overnight? There were three locks on the front and back doors. I don't think John had a key to any of them.

[Allen]

Hey! There's the answer, Franz! Abby was the intruder! She killed Andrew and went to the guest room and committed suicide! That's it, I'm convinced.

Yooper you've got it. I never thought of that. After all these years the answer was right there.

[Harry]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Dr. Dolan testified in the Preliminary (p146-147)

"Q. How many times did you wash your hands?
A. I washed them in the kitchen sink before I went up stairs; and I washed them up stairs in the guest room where Mrs. Borden was found.
Q. Was there water there?
A. Not running water; there was a basin and ewer or pitcher.
Q. What did you do with the water?
A. Left it there.
Q. In the basin?
A. Yes sir.
Q. All bloody?
A. Yes Sir."

He doesn't say if it was clean water when he started to wash but I would assume (a dangerous word!) he being a doctor he would not wash his hands in bloody water.

I could not find out how the water basin got there.

[Aamartin]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Dr. Dolan testified in the Preliminary (p146-147)

"Q. How many times did you wash your hands?
A. I washed them in the kitchen sink before I went up stairs; and I washed them up stairs in the guest room where Mrs. Borden was found.
Q. Was there water there?
A. Not running water; there was a basin and ewer or pitcher.
Q. What did you do with the water?
A. Left it there.
Q. In the basin?
A. Yes sir.
Q. All bloody?
A. Yes Sir."

He doesn't say if it was clean water when he started to wash but I would assume (a dangerous word!) he being a doctor he would not wash his hands in bloody water.

I could not find out how the water basin got there.

Thank you Harry. I think is more than likely he would have mentioned finding it bloody to begin with.

[Aamartin]

do we know if there was water in the wash basin in the guestroom or not?

Franz...

I asked this question knowing the answer. Hoping you would go to the source documents and find and cite the testimony Harry did. Then you would be able to say that you knew there was water available in the guest room-- but unable to conclude if there was blood in it before of after the good doctor washed his hands.

See what I mean about the source documents? You might have been able to make a point. That he was never asked if the water was clean when he first used it--- and speculated that it was not. Segwaying into offering a theory the doctor lied to protect someone.... Whoever that may be.

[Franz]

Franz your arguments, to me, have stopped making any sense. Your theory changes constantly. You keep saying this intruder could have been hiding in the guest room but you can't even tell us how he got there. Putting him in the guest room to hide after Abby's murder makes no sense if there was no way he could have gotten to the guest room in the first place. Please don't say he hid out in the house in the middle of the night after John Morse let him in. Because you can't even give us a hiding place for this intruder all night long. Because there isn't one. You can't even tell us if John Morse could have unlocked the door to let him in. Because can you say the key was left in the lock overnight? There were three locks on the front and back doors. I don't think John had a key to any of them.

Allen, I didn't change my theory constantly. After that first version, I didn't post the second (I hope I could). I am thinking about how, when and from where the intruder could have come into the house. Give me some time, please. Fot the overnight, I have said that let's it alone, have not I been clear enough?

[Franz]

Thank you Harry. Unfortunately the Preliminary Hearing in our site is not available to be downloaded for free. I have asked a friend of mine, who lives in US, to ebay one copy for me.