The intruder theory is not absolutely impossible.

[Franz]

The Borden murders could have been committed by an intruder, extremely lucky that fatal morning.

The intruder had to wait the good moment to enter the house without being sure if he could. The chat between Bridget and the neighbour’s maid or her domestic occupation offered him the opportunity, because if the intruder had slipped into the house through the side door off the kitchen while Bridget was either chatting with the Kelly girl or cleaning the sitting-room windows, Bridget would not have seen anything (he was lucky for the first time). This moment coincided approximately with Abby’s death time. In the house he was not detected before finding his first target, Abby (he was lucky for the second time). He killed Abby just in the guest room, in my opinion the best place to hide himself (he was lucky for the third time). When Abby was attacked, she was probably kneeling on the carpet for some domestic work, this could have weakened a lot the noise of the falling of Abby’s body (he was lucky for the fourth time). After Andrew’s return, the intruder left the guest room to kill him, and for the second time he wasn’t detected when moving in the house, because Bridget was in her room, Lizzie was outside to do something that she couldn’t confess at any price (he was lucky for the fifth time). When he found Andrew, the later was having a nap, he could have killed him with the very first blow without making more noise (he was lucky for the sixth time). That morning Emma was not in Fall River and Uncle Morse went out for a visit. Their absence reduced the risk to be detected that the murderer had been running all that morning (he was lucky for the seventh and eighth time). When he sneaked off the house and escaped, finally, this time he wasn’t lucky as he had been so all the morning: he was seen by somebody: Ella Eagon.

The Borden case was an extremely particular one, I would not be surprised at all if the intruder were really so lucky.

If there were really an intruder, who was it? William Borden? Brown’s theory, in my opinion, merits our attention: 1. The motive: if William Borden was effectively Andrew’s son and was not recognized by him, he could do such a thing to avenge this gross injustice. 2. It’s true that there are female killers using axe or hatchet as murder weapon, but we all agree that such a weapon is more for men than for women. 3. Brown’s theory explains well, in my opinion, why the murderer killed only Abby and Andrew. William was a “good” killer, he wanted to kill only the persons who merited the death (according to him): Abby, because she usurped her mother’s position; Andrew, because he was a cruel and inhuman father. Lizzie and Bridget were “innocent” for William: they had nothing to do with his misery.

Lizzie was lucky for having not met William that morning, she survived the murders. But she was unlucky too (if I can say so): if she met him and was killed too, now no one would doubt her innocence.

[Franz]

Oh my god! Always 0 reply? Does it mean that my post isn't worth refuting, or simply it isn't worth discussing?

What do you think about Ella Eagon's testimony? I haven't read the book of A. Brown, I just knew it from a documentary. Do those "guitists", so convinced for Lizzie's guit, consider simply and automaticly her testimony unreliable? It is so crucial indeed!

[NancyDrew]

Hi Franz: I've had posts with 0 replies for a while; don't take it personally; I think that a lot of this stuff has been discussed before and newcomers like us forget that we may be treading over old ground.

I agree with you; the intruder theory is not absolutely impossible, but it's certainly improbably given the facts we know. And for that reason, I think we don't know enough facts..Bridgette knew more than she revealed in court, imo. Also, all these stories about vagrants in the neighborhood; has anyone ever broken them down, one by one? I read about them hear and there...this woman claims she saw a vagrant, that one says a disheveled man was running from the house. Certainly the prosecution couldn't find anyone to testify to such. (If I am wrong on this point, someone please correct me.)

The one intruder theory I'm inclined to give some credit is from LIzzie hersef..the week she died, when she supposedly told Ruby Cameron, her nurse, that her boyfriend, Dave Anthony killed her step-parents.

The time between the 2 murders is always what bothers me about an intruder. Killing Mrs. Borden was a nasty business...18 blows, all to the head. It was a grisly sight. For someone to wait around for 1-1 1/2 hours, probably covered in some blood and/or gore, after having just committed such an atrocity is difficult for me to swallow. That person's adrenaline would have been screaming through his/her body. And they calmly hid in a closet? Hmmm. Unless they were psychotic, or sociopathic and had virtually no physical reaction to the first murder...OR they were much closer together than we have been led to believe.

It would have been much hotter upstairs than downstairs...that, and the fact that everyone's constitution is different, could have been the reason that Abby's blood was congealed and Andrew's was still dripping..maybe it was closer to 1/2 hour between the two?

Thoughts?

[Allen]

In the theory of an intruder getting in the side door, they had to walk past Lizzie in the kitchen where she claimed to have been most of the morning. The hallway from the side door leads directly into the kitchen. And there is no other way to get to the rest of the house with the the doors locked on the second floor. Any way he went was pretty much a straight shot past Lizzie if she was indeed where she said she was that morning.

[Yooper]

An intruder also has to have entered the house sometime before 9:30 to kill Abby, according to the time of death established for Abby.

[Franz]

When was Bridget chatting with the Kelly girl? If I am not mistaken, that moment approximately matched well with Abby's death time, or am I wrong?

[PossumPie]

I hold to an intruder hypothesis only to the extent that they had "inside" help meaning Bridget or Lizzie was in on it. The inordinate amount of time between murders points almost certainly to either Lizzie or Bridget as the killer, or an outsider who was hidden in the house by Lizzie or Bridget. I am currently re-reading trial transcripts and am having a harder time believing that Lizzie had enough time to kill father, clean up, dispose of the weapon somewhere and sound the alarm...but I think she was in on it. As for the 0 responses, The annoying practice of having to wait until each of my posts is "approved" makes immediate response impossible. Be patient, most posts are responded to.

[snokkums]

Oh my god! Always 0 reply? Does it mean that my post isn't worth refuting, or simply it isn't worth discussing?

What do you think about Ella Eagon's testimony? I haven't read the book of A. Brown, I just knew it from a documentary. Do those "guitists", so convinced for Lizzie's guit, consider simply and automaticly her testimony unreliable? It is so crucial indeed!

don't feel bad. I've been on the board for awhile and I've had posts no one has answered. I think with this case anything is possible. I wonder with the intruder theory is that Lizzie and Bridget were left alive. The intruder had to have known they were in the house, after all, they both were in and out of the house. So, why leave them living so they can identify him.

[Franz]

I think with this case anything is possible. I wonder with the intruder theory is that Lizzie and Bridget were left alive.

Hey Snokkums. I am happy to know that you too think that with this case anything is possible. One can be a "guiltist" or "innocentist", but in my opinion, this idea (anything is possible in Borden's case) should be kept in mind by all the members of the forum.

If there were an intruder, why did he leave Lizzie and Bridget alive? In another post I expressed my interest for Brown's theory. If Andrew had really a illegimate son named William and if he were the killer, there could be an explanation: William was a good killer, he wanted to kill only the persons who merited the death: Abby, because she usurped her mother's position; Andrew, because he didn't want to recognize William. William tried to kill the least persons that day, in the best case, only Andrew and Abby, because Lizzie and Bridget were strangers to his misery. And he succeeded.

I always think that if there were an intruder, his best hiding place should be the guest room. Fortunately neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered in that room. In the contrary case, the police would have found more thant two bodies that day.

[stargazer]

An intruder would have to also know that Ms. Churchill wasn't home. She could have been looking from her windows had she been. I'm still puzzled about the so called note that Abby got.With such a high profile event, surely a legit source might have come forward saying "Yes, we sent for Mrs Borden." I suppose we each have our own favorite "gotcha" angles on the case. An intruder could have, yes, but how convenient that 2 young women were spared the carnage.

[Yooper]

I think with this case anything is possible. I wonder with the intruder theory is that Lizzie and Bridget were left alive.

Hey Snokkums. I am happy to know that you too think that with this case anything is possible. One can be a "guiltist" or "innocentist", but in my opinion, this idea (anything is possible in Borden's case) should be kept in mind by all the members of the forum.

If there were an intruder, why did he leave Lizzie and Bridget alive? In another post I expressed my interest for Brown's theory. If Andrew had really a illegimate son named William and if he were the killer, there could be an explanation: William was a good killer, he wanted to kill only the persons who merited the death: Abby, because she usurped her mother's position; Andrew, because he didn't want to recognize William. William tried to kill the least persons that day, in the best case, only Andrew and Abby, because Lizzie and Bridget were strangers to his misery. And he succeeded.

I always think that if there were an intruder, his best hiding place should be the guest room. Fortunately neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered in that room. In the contrary case, the police would have found more thant two bodies that day.

This makes William's motive for killing Abby exactly the same as Lizzie's motive. Furthermore, William had nothing to gain from the murders, Lizzie did. There is no proof that William was Andrew's son, but even if there were, I would suspect Lizzie first. Lizzie had a better reason to spare herself and Bridget than William did!

[Franz]

I think with this case anything is possible. I wonder with the intruder theory is that Lizzie and Bridget were left alive.

Hey Snokkums. I am happy to know that you too think that with this case anything is possible. One can be a "guiltist" or "innocentist", but in my opinion, this idea (anything is possible in Borden's case) should be kept in mind by all the members of the forum.

If there were an intruder, why did he leave Lizzie and Bridget alive? In another post I expressed my interest for Brown's theory. If Andrew had really a illegimate son named William and if he were the killer, there could be an explanation: William was a good killer, he wanted to kill only the persons who merited the death: Abby, because she usurped her mother's position; Andrew, because he didn't want to recognize William. William tried to kill the least persons that day, in the best case, only Andrew and Abby, because Lizzie and Bridget were strangers to his misery. And he succeeded.

I always think that if there were an intruder, his best hiding place should be the guest room. Fortunately neither Lizzie nor Bridget entered in that room. In the contrary case, the police would have found more thant two bodies that day.

This makes William's motive for killing Abby exactly the same as Lizzie's motive. Furthermore, William had nothing to gain from the murders, Lizzie did. There is no proof that William was Andrew's son, but even if there were, I would suspect Lizzie first. Lizzie had a better reason to spare herself and Bridget than William did!

I don't agree that "This makes William's motive for killing Abby exactly the same as Lizzie's motive". The two cases were very different: for Lizzie, Andrew married Abby only after her mother's death, Abby had no culpa for her mother's death; but for William, Abby became Andrew's second wife, her mother didn't, even though Abby had no culpa directly for the bad luck of Wlliam's mother, it should not be difficult to understand Wlliam's anger against Abby. If William were Andrew's son but wasn't recognized by his natural father and if he were the killer, in my opinion, he killed mostly for delivering his anger: Abby, you usurped my mother's positon, Ok, I kill you; father, you gendered me but you don't love me, you don't even recognize me, Ok, I kill you. Both of you merit the death. So, Yooper, what else do you want William to gain?

[Yooper]

What would William gain at all? Does this force Andrew to marry his mother post mortem? Does this force Andrew to recognize him? Show us some proof that William was Andrew's son, until then this is a fantasy!

Lizzie and Emma hated Abby for taking their mother's place. This escalated when Andrew bought a half share in the Whitehead residence for the benefit of Abby's family. This may have been taken, no matter whether correctly or incorrectly, as a direct threat to Lizzie and Emma and their expectations of inheriting Andrew's estate. The contention that William killed Abby for usurping his mother's place presupposes that Andrew had intentions of marrying William's mother, again, show us the proof. The resentment for both the Borden sisters and William would have been due to the fact that Abby had taken their mother's place, and the Borden sisters had the added consideration of inheritance which William would not have.

There is no reason to think that William was Andrew's son, so this is all really pointless.

[Franz]

What would William gain at all? Does this force Andrew to marry his mother post mortem? Does this force Andrew to recognize him?

Yooper, do you really mean that a murderer's motive must be a very concret one, must have a realistic interest? How many lovers, abandoned by their beloved persons, killed them? In William's mind: father, you really don't want to recognize me? Ok, I kill you! it's all!

Generally speaking, I think that sometimes a theory not supported by sufficient evidence could have the chance to be the truth (even though we can't prove it). Yooper, do you agree with me? If not, we are different at the very departure point. in another word, we are different "methodologically".

[Yooper]

Ya think?

[Aamartin]

Brown's conspiracy theory is worthy of a Jesse Ventura special! That many people kept that many secrets all those years? Highly unlikely.

[PossumPie]

Back to the original premise of this post....I just can't hold to the idea that a stranger/intruder could "hide out" in that house for over an hour. I have seen the floor plan, and the house is much smaller than mine- and There is no way anyone could hide in my house for that long. Even in a closet, with the risk of being caught with people coming and going, upstairs and down, and a body laying on the floor the whole time?????

[Yooper]

What would William gain at all? Does this force Andrew to marry his mother post mortem? Does this force Andrew to recognize him?

Yooper, do you really mean that a murderer's motive must be a very concret one, must have a realistic interest? How many lovers, abandoned by their beloved persons, killed them? In William's mind: father, you really don't want to recognize me? Ok, I kill you! it's all!

Generally speaking, I think that sometimes a theory not supported by sufficient evidence could have the chance to be the truth (even though we can't prove it). Yooper, do you agree with me? If not, we are different at the very departure point. in another word, we are different "methodologically".

Specifically speaking, I think a theory not supported in fact is a fantasy. It therefore has all the likelihood of being true as any other fantasy. The primary source documents were transcribed with a great deal of time and effort expended, and I don't think that was done so that we could ignore them. It was done so that forum members could frame their arguments with the facts of the case and refutations could also have a basis in fact. Deductive reason begins with a fact and then proceeds to other facts without ever abandoning the first. Inductive reasoning takes an idea and proceeds to grab at any straws which may support it while ignoring any facts which may refute it. Are you aware of the difference?

[PossumPie]

Agreed...we could postulate any crazy thing - aliens from mars came down killed them, and left in a spaceship. Without a string of evidence a 'theory' is just a fantasy. I have seen the postulates about an 'illegitimate son' but there is NO evidence of its truth. Fact is there were many, many Bordens listed as living in and around Fall River. It was one of the most common local surnames.

[PattiG157]

I know a lot of people think that Arnold Brown's book about William Borden being the killer is ridiculous, but perhaps it isn't. I've read tons of books and articles about Lizzie, then I read Arnold Brown's book. Now I'm re-reading some of the books I've already read, and when you consider the possibility of William being the murderer, it makes sense.

Of course I'm not 100% convinced that he is the killer; but his killing the Bordens would explain a few things. I think IF he was the killer, Lizzie either helped him, or just thought he was going to speak to the Bordens and didn't know he was going to kill them. The theory that she agreed to take the blame also makes sense -- I'm sure she never even thought she'd be indicted, much less go to trial.

As I said, I'm not convinced William is the killer -- and I don't believe everything in Brown's book -- but I do think it is a possibility.

Just a thought ...

[NancyDrew]

It is so nice to have you here, Patti...more ideas and opinions--yay!

The Brown book was the first one I ever read regarding this case. It has been years since I looked at it, so maybe you can help me here...

1. What proof is there that William WAS the son of Andrew? How did William find out? How did Andrew find out?
2. If William were the killer, he would have known that being caught and convicted would result in his own death--by hanging (nasty.) Why was he willing to risk losing his life? Further, he would have had to possess virtually NO belief in God or a higher power, since all the most popular religions at that time forbade murder, and made it clear that anyone who committed such an act would burn in hell for eternity. Was he of sound mind?
3. Building on the previous questions, IF he was the killer, and he knew that punishment for getting caught would be death, AND further, he had no fear of an after-life and eternal punishment, but STILL decided to to kill 2 people in cold blood, how was he able to commit these horrible deeds completely undetected? No one saw him before or after the murders anywhere near the house. He made no attempt to contact Lizzie, Emma or anyone else. Was he a spectator in the courtroom? Does anyone know?
4. It seems as if there are a lot of "if's" to this theory, and they contradict each other. His motive was purely emotional: he was hurt and angry. That was why he killed. The extreme irrationality of that decision doesn't fit with the precision, careful planning, and stealth behavior that allowed him to commit two grisly murders completely undetected.

Lizzie's motive was much stronger, in my opinion. MONEY. Since man has walked the earth, money has been the motive for all sorts of disgusting behavior. While I do agree that the timelines was extraordinary (ie: killing Andrew and then quickly cleaning herself up and disposing of the weapon, all done extremely well, since eye-witnesses reported she looked 100% pristine; not a hair out of place, no smudges on her clothes, her hands lily-white. ) I've considered every theory I could think of...have been studying this case for over 30 years, and I come back to Lizzie as murderer every single time.

She had the strongest motive, readily available means, and ample opportunity.

[Darrowfan]

I agree with you, Nancy. It seems to me that there is NO solid evidence that William was even Andrew's son. From what I understand, there were quite of few people in the area with the last name "Borden" who were unrelated to the subject Bordens. Brown's book was an interesting read, with some good background information about the case itself, but his theory was much too speculative. Brown was right about one thing: the prosecution and the Court both seemed to go out of their way to help the defense at certain points. But I don't think, as Brown does, that this means the case was "fixed" to acquit Lizzie.

[Franz]

...

2. If William were the killer, he would have known that being caught and convicted would result in his own death--by hanging (nasty.) Why was he willing to risk losing his life? Further, he would have had to possess virtually NO belief in God or a higher power, since all the most popular religions at that time forbade murder, and made it clear that anyone who committed such an act would burn in hell for eternity. Was he of sound mind?
...

NancyDrew, what do you think about Lizzie for the same issue?

[PattiG157]

Honestly, I think Lizzie was convinced she'd never even be indicted, much less have gone to trial. And I think if it weren't for Alice Russell coming forward with the dress-burning episode, she (Lizzie) may NOT have been indicted.

But again, that's just my two cents ... !!!

[PattiG157]

Ya'll are right, there is no definitive proof that William was Andrew's son, but I've read in more than one book that many Fall River residents suspected this was so. They also claimed that William was a little "touched" - perhaps mildly retarded or suffering from some sort of mental defect. Maybe, as Arnold Brown says, John Morse knew about William and arranged periodical meetings between him (William) and Andrew?

Again, I am not 100% convinced that William killed Andrew and Abby or that William was Andrew's son, but if it is true, it would explain a few things, like Lizzie not having any blood on her person, and Uncle John, when first entering the murder home, allegedly said to Lizzie "how did this happen?" Maybe he arranged another meeting that morning, but didn't know that William was going to kill the Bordens, which is why he asked that question.

I do NOT believe that Lizzie paid off the DA or any other person, for that matter, even though it is not entirely impossible.

So many questions and so many possibilities ... but I tend to believe that either Lizzie committed the crimes, or that there is a possibility of someone who knew the Bordens (such as William Borden) committing the crime. So even though it isn't popular my vote is for either Lizzie or William.

Thoughts?

[leitskev]

Assuming an intruder somehow got in this security conscious house, he could have surprised Abby. It's always thought that Abby knew her assailant because there were no defensive wounds, but this is a rather large assumption. While it does seem likely she knew, it's very possible the assailant acted quickly and decisively, and perhaps Mrs. Borden raised her hands, but not enough. A hatchet seems like a pretty accurate weapon. If Abby closed her eyes at the coming blow, the killer could avoid her hands.

Odds are Lizzie or Bridget would hear it...but they are not impossible odds. If Bridget was outside, and Lizzie was in the cellar(she was ill and did have her period), they would have heard nothing.

Then the killer closed the door and waited in the guest room for Andrew to come home. The guest room would be the perfect place to wait. The main door is just down the stairs.

If Lizzie went to her room, which she must have, she would have walked by a closed door. The killer would have been right behind it, waiting for Andrew. Lizzie would have been lucky to not be killed.

When Andrew returned, the killer would have been able to hear the maid let him in. Lizzie was in her room or on the stairs landing. Once they all cleared out, the killer went hunting for Andrew, leaving the guest room door open.

I don't think it happened this way, but worth considering. The problem is the killer would have had a tricky approach to where Andrew was on the couch. If he came through the door from the hall, Andrew would have likely woken and seen him coming. To avoid that, the killer could go through the parlor and the dining room to get to the kitchen. But that would be a strange path to take for an intruder. It seems unlikely, but as nothing in this case seems to perfectly add up, it can't be ruled out, I don't think.

It leaves the problem of how would the intruder get in the house. The front door seems to have been kept triple locked. That leaves the side door, I guess. Pretty hard for an intruder to get in the side door and avoid being seen by Bridget or Lizzie. But it could happen...if Bridget was on the other side of the house washing windows, and Lizzie was in the cellar taking care of personal needs.