I was just sitting here thinking about the Borden case for the millionth time and wondered how much of it could have been planned in advance? Abby’s trip to the spare room wasn’t planned was it? So it couldn’t have been planned that she would be killed at that time in that place, she probably didn’t even know herself that she was going to the guest room until she actually decided to.
Also Andrew didn’t know he was going to arrive home when he did either, he felt ill so that’s why he headed off home earlier, so the murderer didn’t know when he would arrive back home, if he’d come back an hour later would he have been killed? The more I’ve read about this case the more it seems to me that it was a spur of the moment rage of a decision, that by pure chance and police stupidity led the killer to go undetected, it’s been noted that Abby told a lie the morning of the murders, telling Lizzie she had a note and had to go out, but she was really going to meet Andrew to sign papers about a will, could this be true? And if so spurred Lizzie to kill? but then it will be asked why didn’t Andrew confront Lizzie about Abby’s whereabouts in a more suspicious way when he arrived home? Well maybe he did and that’s why he died, maybe Andrew was told about Abbys demise by the murderer (Lizzie) and then was killed himself. However far fetch this sounds I just think the whole story about the murders being planned a bit suspect. How can you plan something like this in advance that all leads to chance encounters? If they were going to meet such grizzly ends and it was planned why not chop em’ up as they slept in the middle of the night, when you know exactly where they will be? I wonder how many on this forum truly believe that the crimes were planned in advance? Admittedly in other ways it’s a good day for a killing, for starters almost the entire Police force was out of Fall River (I’m sure this was common knowledge?) Emma was away, Uncle Morse had left, leaving two woman alone in the house waiting for Andrew to come home, also if it’s planned in advance why didn’t Lizzie go out, unless that’s exactly what she intended to do when Andrew came home early? I also think that Lizzie looked more guilty for not having blood on her dress, in her own words she said she came in from the barn and saw her father on the sofa, but she didn’t run into the room and touch him to see if he was still alive, where she would have gotten blood on her clothes if she had held her beloved father in her arms waiting for a doctor. instead she calls the maid to get a doctor then stands outside until a neighbour comes along, that’s suspicious action number 1, the second is her mention of thinking she heard Abby come home, but only remembers this when Abby is mentioned by somebody else, Christ somebody has been murdered and you think you heard another person come home and you don’t call out for them? Those two things alone in my mind point a huge finger of suspicion onto Lizzie as the murderer; ok we can say that she got somebody else to do the deed, but who? And why would they help? And again if somebody else has done the deed for her that would have had to have been planned, what did she say “come on over and sit in the closet, hopefully Abby will go to a room alone and Papa will come home early!” How much Bridgett knew or heard is up for suspicion as indeed is Uncle Morse returning and staying around like he did, but I think those are the three suspects with Lizzie as the prime number one candidate. even if we cross these three off the list it’s still all down to chance encounters, you cannot plan to assassinate someone when those themselves do not know where they will be at any given time. Oh, pshaw, glad I got that off me chest, now I can go and have some Mutton broth!
Were the Borden Murders planned?
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
jamfaws
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 pm
- Real Name: Aaron
- Location: London
- Contact:
-
Bob Gutowski
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:44 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New York City
-
jamfaws
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 pm
- Real Name: Aaron
- Location: London
- Contact:
But Abby had already made up the guest room and come back downstairs with no harm done to her, she only went back up to the room again to put some slips on the pillows, I don't know maybe Lizzie was correct in that she saw the door closed, the murderer could have stayed in that room with Abby lying dead before sneaking out to kill Andrew on there way down the stairs and out of the backdoor.
-
Smudgeman
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:51 am
- Real Name: Scott
- Location: Atlanta, GA
But was it just a guess that Abby would be making up the guest bed? She might have ordered Bridget to do it. I do not think it was planned either, because Mr. Borden came home early and unexpected. If it was planned, then why not kill them as they sleep? Another thing that bothers me is the positions of the bodies when found. There had to be some clean up, and the bodies looked arranged if you will. Papa looks like he was placed on the sofa, and Abby looks like she was turned over face down. For such a violent attack, somebody definitely had to do some cleaning up. I suspect Bridget had a hand in that, carrying her bundles right under the police's noses!
-
jamfaws
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 pm
- Real Name: Aaron
- Location: London
- Contact:
I think there is another post on the forum somewhere where the position of the bodies are discussed, I think it was mentioned that it was possible they were moved slightly before being photographed, Abby may have been tidied up a bit, skirt pulled into shape etc, not sure where I read this, but thought it was on the forum somewhere? either way they look kind of odd, but i'm in two minds of how much Bridgett knew, sure she could have taken the weapon clothing with her when she ran out of the house, and she could have killed both elder Bordens as much as Lizzie could in the time that was allocated, but there is no motive that we know of, unless the Bordens knew of her alleged dark past? but it's not impossible for her to have known/seen things she did not tell.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It was noted that Lizzie was inside the screen door when help first came. Then she was sitting on the interior steps of the staircase to Andrew's room, then she was in the kitchen sitting on the rocker and then she was in the dining room on the lounge and then she went to her room, alone. (Sorry, I got carried away.) Anyway, I will always remember this, because she didn't run screaming from the house. She never left the house. (I thought that was creepy- if there was a killer around).
If Abby's murder was not pre-meditated, then where did the weapon come from? If it was a hatchet, then it's not quite like one was kept in the guest room. Granted, it would be hard to judge where any family member would be at any given time- but how much harder for an intruder?
I was thinking lately (a hint from John Douglas) that when Lizzie said Morse didn't do it, nor Bridget, nor anyone who worked at the farms, maybe instead of seeming to be heroic in her loyalty in that she really believed none of them did it, she wasn't really trying to divert attention from them- but rather draw attention to them?
I hadn't looked at it that way before because there was always someone trying to make me believe the opposite!
I don't know either if Andrew came home "early." I have heard that a lot as well. It wasn't a sure thing that Andrew would go out that day at all. However, Lizzie did give him a letter to Emma to mail and so he did go out and he did go to the Post Office:
Inquest
Lizzie
(59/16)
Q. What was the next thing that happened after you got down?
A. Maggie went out of doors to wash the windows and father came out into the kitchen and said he did not know whether he would go down to the post office or not. And then I sprinkled some handkerchiefs to iron.
I don't know the sequence of events. I don't know if Lizzie's letter got Andrew to go out, or if even tho he had her letter he might have said he still might not go to the PO.
If it was the same killer of both Abby and then Andrew, then we must account for the weapon being at hand in the guest room, and we must know that Andrew's murder at the least was premeditated because of the wait- the time-lapse between killings.
If one was slaughtered within 5 minutes of the other, the second one would still be pre-meditated, I believe.
We have questions here about the "dark past" snippet thrown out in the video about Bridget. Anyone know anything- any source? Bridget was asked about boyfriends and past jobs. It's possible- but what exactly?
If Abby's murder was not pre-meditated, then where did the weapon come from? If it was a hatchet, then it's not quite like one was kept in the guest room. Granted, it would be hard to judge where any family member would be at any given time- but how much harder for an intruder?
I was thinking lately (a hint from John Douglas) that when Lizzie said Morse didn't do it, nor Bridget, nor anyone who worked at the farms, maybe instead of seeming to be heroic in her loyalty in that she really believed none of them did it, she wasn't really trying to divert attention from them- but rather draw attention to them?
I hadn't looked at it that way before because there was always someone trying to make me believe the opposite!
I don't know either if Andrew came home "early." I have heard that a lot as well. It wasn't a sure thing that Andrew would go out that day at all. However, Lizzie did give him a letter to Emma to mail and so he did go out and he did go to the Post Office:
Inquest
Lizzie
(59/16)
Q. What was the next thing that happened after you got down?
A. Maggie went out of doors to wash the windows and father came out into the kitchen and said he did not know whether he would go down to the post office or not. And then I sprinkled some handkerchiefs to iron.
I don't know the sequence of events. I don't know if Lizzie's letter got Andrew to go out, or if even tho he had her letter he might have said he still might not go to the PO.
If it was the same killer of both Abby and then Andrew, then we must account for the weapon being at hand in the guest room, and we must know that Andrew's murder at the least was premeditated because of the wait- the time-lapse between killings.
If one was slaughtered within 5 minutes of the other, the second one would still be pre-meditated, I believe.
We have questions here about the "dark past" snippet thrown out in the video about Bridget. Anyone know anything- any source? Bridget was asked about boyfriends and past jobs. It's possible- but what exactly?
-
lydiapinkham
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:01 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: new england
-
Bob Gutowski
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:44 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New York City
Bridget didn't "do" the second floor at all, did she?
And we only have the pillow sham story from...? Jam, I think you're throwing us a lot on one thread. Many of these questions are probably better dealt with each in its own place.
Really, for all we know, Abby did finish the bed, and came back downstairs, only to have Lizzie tell her there was something she wanted to show her up there...or WHATEVER, if you follow me. We're never really going to know, you realize! It's part of the challenge, and part of the fun.
And we only have the pillow sham story from...? Jam, I think you're throwing us a lot on one thread. Many of these questions are probably better dealt with each in its own place.
Really, for all we know, Abby did finish the bed, and came back downstairs, only to have Lizzie tell her there was something she wanted to show her up there...or WHATEVER, if you follow me. We're never really going to know, you realize! It's part of the challenge, and part of the fun.
-
jamfaws
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 pm
- Real Name: Aaron
- Location: London
- Contact:
Funny enough I do realize the case will never be solved! As for the thread, I was only writing what I felt at that moment and wondered what others felt about it being planned. Mostly everything about this case has been discussed on this forum, it took me a long time before I could pluck up the courage to begin writing bits and pieces and replying to others threads, I guess people can reply or ignore as they wish. I wouldn’t like to feel that I was spoiling anybody’s fun, or intruding in a forum where I felt I wasn’t welcomed.
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:14 am
- Real Name:
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Certainly don't hesitate to post whatever you wish to. There are lots of aspects of the case that continue to come up time and again in different threads. There's nothing wrong with rethinking things.
Right now, well since Halloween eve, we've got a whole new batch of members who are likely to to provoke new thoughts and add new perspectives. It's all for the good.
As far as the main question, I have to agree with Kat that there must be at least enough premeditation to get a hatchet upstairs into the guest room. They were generally in the cellar and Bridget states that she only brought wood to the kitchen stove that was precut. It would seem hatchets wouldn't have a use outside of the cellar or barn.
Something may have been planned for whenever the best opportunity came. If killing Abby was the primary goal, having Emma out of town, Bridget washing windows outdoors and Andrew off on his rounds would seem like a pretty good time to strike.
Whether Andrew was earlier than usual or not in returning home, it's possible that if he had arrived at home considerably later that morning, he'd have found Lizzie gone out, Bridget resting upstairs and no sign of his wife. He may very well have survived.
If Lizzie killed Abby--and I'm not stating that as fact--she may have planned on leaving before Andrew returned to give herself an alibi. Or she may have decided that Andrew had to die and that she'd better do it before somebody discovered the body upstairs.
If we believe the time difference between the times of the murders, Andrew's murder, at least, had to have even more premeditation than Abby's, because the killer had to have waited a considerable time to get Andrew.
Darn. I hate spotting a typo as I hit the submit button.
Right now, well since Halloween eve, we've got a whole new batch of members who are likely to to provoke new thoughts and add new perspectives. It's all for the good.
As far as the main question, I have to agree with Kat that there must be at least enough premeditation to get a hatchet upstairs into the guest room. They were generally in the cellar and Bridget states that she only brought wood to the kitchen stove that was precut. It would seem hatchets wouldn't have a use outside of the cellar or barn.
Something may have been planned for whenever the best opportunity came. If killing Abby was the primary goal, having Emma out of town, Bridget washing windows outdoors and Andrew off on his rounds would seem like a pretty good time to strike.
Whether Andrew was earlier than usual or not in returning home, it's possible that if he had arrived at home considerably later that morning, he'd have found Lizzie gone out, Bridget resting upstairs and no sign of his wife. He may very well have survived.
If Lizzie killed Abby--and I'm not stating that as fact--she may have planned on leaving before Andrew returned to give herself an alibi. Or she may have decided that Andrew had to die and that she'd better do it before somebody discovered the body upstairs.
If we believe the time difference between the times of the murders, Andrew's murder, at least, had to have even more premeditation than Abby's, because the killer had to have waited a considerable time to get Andrew.
Darn. I hate spotting a typo as I hit the submit button.
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
-
jamfaws
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:29 pm
- Real Name: Aaron
- Location: London
- Contact:
I wish I’d never sent the message now; I don’t want to feel that I’m some kind of moaning Minnie without a sense of humour! I guess I should think twice before replying, I guess I read it the wrong way, sorry Bob, I take on board what is said and if I post again I’ll try and keep it neat and sweet! Sorry to all, many thanks Aaron
-
Bob Gutowski
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:44 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New York City
My bad!
Oh dear! I, too, am sorry for not remembering that you can't hear "tone of voice" in a post. I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings (and thanks to my friends here who said that before I had a chance to!). I think I felt blindsided by all of your thoughts and questions, but I should've replied with much less of an edge, to be sure!
Deeply sorry! Of course this is the ONLY place (this excellent site) to air your views on all things Borden.
Your cyber-colleague,
Bob G.
Deeply sorry! Of course this is the ONLY place (this excellent site) to air your views on all things Borden.
Your cyber-colleague,
Bob G.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
RE
Well I can go along with Victoria Lincoln's theory that when Lizzie said she went down cellar in the morning, she brought up the axe with her. Then she carried it upstairs with her concealed in the pile of laundry she said she carried up to her room.She makes a good point ,I think, that Lizzie offers alot of details to try to conceal details of the murder that no one even questioned.She wasn't an inventive liar, so if she mentioned something, there had to be a reason for explaining it away.So many little details, like explaining that she put a "stick" on the fire, which could've been the handle to the axe after she broke it off. Saying she burned a paper, to disguise the paper that was really burned...because it was observed that there were some type of rolled up papers burned in the stove because it still held its shape...will? deed to the farm?...oh well..now I'm getting carried away..and off the subject...
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
I think Lizzie had planned to kill Abby, but was waiting for the
perfect opportunity to present itself.I also agree that she didnt plan to kill Andrew. I think she killed him because he knew what she'd done to Abby, or she was scared he would know.
perfect opportunity to present itself.I also agree that she didnt plan to kill Andrew. I think she killed him because he knew what she'd done to Abby, or she was scared he would know.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Well, if Lincoln wrote that Lizzie burned a paper or claimed she burned a paper, that is not in testimony anwhere, I don't think, and not true.
Also, the handle to the hatchet was supposedly in the cellar, in the box where the HH was found.
I think it was determined that that handle would be hard to burn, but I have not any experience with that.
A rolled-up looking pile of ashes in a cylindrical shape couldn't be the handle, but could be some sort of papers, possibly.
Also, the handle to the hatchet was supposedly in the cellar, in the box where the HH was found.
I think it was determined that that handle would be hard to burn, but I have not any experience with that.
A rolled-up looking pile of ashes in a cylindrical shape couldn't be the handle, but could be some sort of papers, possibly.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
papers
Ok, I checked out the cylindrical form of papers, seems it just comes from Lincolns book as far as I could tell so far. I'm wondering where she got that herself? But it was observed that some papers appeared to have been burned in the fire in the kitchen stove.In the Witness Testimony in a passage attribute to Daugherty and Harrington.
"The Doctor then said " it does not amount to anything", and taking the lid of the kitchen stove , he dropped the pieces in. There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there."
"The Doctor then said " it does not amount to anything", and taking the lid of the kitchen stove , he dropped the pieces in. There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there."
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Here is Phillip Harrington at the Preliminary:
393+
A. I then went down stairs through the front hall, through the sitting room and into the kitchen. As I entered the kitchen, I saw several officers, I cannot recollect them now, because I did not pay much attention to them, being so accustomed to see them around, one of them I think was Devine again. Dr. Bowen stood there close by the stove. I walked by him to the east---
Q. This does not in any way effect Dr. Bowen. For any reason did you look in the stove?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all? What did you see in the stove?
A. I was going to tell what he had in his hand. When he took the cover off the stove, the fire was very low, and there appeared to be, or there was, rather larger coal, or larger remains of something that appeared to be burnt paper, and it was quite large. I should say quite large judging from the size of the stove, comparatively speaking.
Q. Why did you say it looked like burnt paper?
A. Because I have seen burnt paper before, that is all the reason.
Q. Where was it?
A. On the back part of the fire place, or the fire part, whatever you call it, the fire part of the stove.
Q. You mean the place where the fire is?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What sort of a fire was it that there was there?
A. I could not swear that, but there was a small red spot down in the center.
(Mr. Adams) Not a blood spot.
A. A small spark of fire there that looked to me like coal, but that I would not swear to.
Q. You could not tell whether it was a coal or wood fire?
A. No Sir; but that is the impression I had at the time, it was coal.
393+
A. I then went down stairs through the front hall, through the sitting room and into the kitchen. As I entered the kitchen, I saw several officers, I cannot recollect them now, because I did not pay much attention to them, being so accustomed to see them around, one of them I think was Devine again. Dr. Bowen stood there close by the stove. I walked by him to the east---
Q. This does not in any way effect Dr. Bowen. For any reason did you look in the stove?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all? What did you see in the stove?
A. I was going to tell what he had in his hand. When he took the cover off the stove, the fire was very low, and there appeared to be, or there was, rather larger coal, or larger remains of something that appeared to be burnt paper, and it was quite large. I should say quite large judging from the size of the stove, comparatively speaking.
Q. Why did you say it looked like burnt paper?
A. Because I have seen burnt paper before, that is all the reason.
Q. Where was it?
A. On the back part of the fire place, or the fire part, whatever you call it, the fire part of the stove.
Q. You mean the place where the fire is?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What sort of a fire was it that there was there?
A. I could not swear that, but there was a small red spot down in the center.
(Mr. Adams) Not a blood spot.
A. A small spark of fire there that looked to me like coal, but that I would not swear to.
Q. You could not tell whether it was a coal or wood fire?
A. No Sir; but that is the impression I had at the time, it was coal.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Trial
Harrington
568
Q. Now then, what did you do with that paper?
A. I asked him again what they contained, and he said, "Oh, I think it is nothing. It is something, I think, about my daughter going through somewhere." He then turned slightly to his left and took the lid from the stove and threw the papers in, or the pieces in.
Q. Now then, did you observe anything as he lifted the lid from the stove?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go on and state what you did and what you observed.
A. I noticed the fire box. The fire was very near extinguished. On the south end there was a small fire which I judged was a coal fire. The embers were about dying.
Page 568
It was about as large as the palm of my hand. There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.
Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well, I should say it was about that long. (Indicating) Twelve inches, I should say.
Q. And how large in diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches.
--Well, he is more sure and more specific in June of 1893.
Harrington
568
Q. Now then, what did you do with that paper?
A. I asked him again what they contained, and he said, "Oh, I think it is nothing. It is something, I think, about my daughter going through somewhere." He then turned slightly to his left and took the lid from the stove and threw the papers in, or the pieces in.
Q. Now then, did you observe anything as he lifted the lid from the stove?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go on and state what you did and what you observed.
A. I noticed the fire box. The fire was very near extinguished. On the south end there was a small fire which I judged was a coal fire. The embers were about dying.
Page 568
It was about as large as the palm of my hand. There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.
Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well, I should say it was about that long. (Indicating) Twelve inches, I should say.
Q. And how large in diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches.
--Well, he is more sure and more specific in June of 1893.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Thanks Kat 
...and yes he does seem to become more sure of what he saw. It does seem to be big enough to have been some kind of rolled up document.Which brings me back to my earlier question? But it's very hard to speculate about what it is and why it was burned, when we really cannot even say who burned it in the first place.
...and yes he does seem to become more sure of what he saw. It does seem to be big enough to have been some kind of rolled up document.Which brings me back to my earlier question? But it's very hard to speculate about what it is and why it was burned, when we really cannot even say who burned it in the first place."He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Yes, when you mentioned the stick Lizzie put on the fire- that could possibly be to hide something else burned- to explain the ashes.
If she had anything to do with all this ...
Wouldn't one think she would have stirred that up after it burned, even just to make sure whatever it was was all burned?
That could have been something she could have checked after sending Bridget away.
But she didn't.
It almost seems like someone did not have the chance to do that- maybe someone in a hurry to leave?
If she had anything to do with all this ...
Wouldn't one think she would have stirred that up after it burned, even just to make sure whatever it was was all burned?
That could have been something she could have checked after sending Bridget away.
But she didn't.
It almost seems like someone did not have the chance to do that- maybe someone in a hurry to leave?
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Interesting necro post touching some of our current talks, even the pillow cases.
Reading through it gave me a couple thoughts.
1) If Abby goes up to the guest room, just before Morse leaves,
he see’s her in the front hall area, does hear her go upstairs, he then follows her to get his hat and unlock the front door (possibly with Lizzie’s help) then he leaves using the back door and comes around to re-enter, this might explain his selective hearing issues.
2) This favors the single visit to guest room by Abby view, but may give you guys some different visuals on what Lizzie says about the guest room that morning as in the door being closed, seeing Abby making or fixing the bed.
I don’t favor the theory I presented. it’s nothing new as far as I know, just seeing if you guys have anything click, as far as John primarily.
Reading through it gave me a couple thoughts.
1) If Abby goes up to the guest room, just before Morse leaves,
he see’s her in the front hall area, does hear her go upstairs, he then follows her to get his hat and unlock the front door (possibly with Lizzie’s help) then he leaves using the back door and comes around to re-enter, this might explain his selective hearing issues.
2) This favors the single visit to guest room by Abby view, but may give you guys some different visuals on what Lizzie says about the guest room that morning as in the door being closed, seeing Abby making or fixing the bed.
I don’t favor the theory I presented. it’s nothing new as far as I know, just seeing if you guys have anything click, as far as John primarily.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Andrew remained in the house after Morse left via the side door. In your #1, is John hiding somewhere outside (where) waiting for AJB to leave? I think it should be assumed that AJB and Abby had some version of a goodbye or a 'I'm leaving' communication. John can't wait long because Abby isn't going to take a nap in the guest room. Matter of fact, Morse hasn't got a clue (I don't think) how long she will be up there. The longer he waits to reenter the house and do his thing, the more difficult the Emery, etc. corroboration statements will be to not contradict the theory. If the Emery's, etc. lied, then we are back in large conspiracy land.
Further stretching this thought, did he also come back earlier than we think and kill AJB? I think we've covered that idea a couple times.
Morse had 'selective hearing' because he recalled hearing someone going up the stairs at 9pm the prior evening, but didn't notice the same at 8:30am that day? Andrew was in the sitting room with him on both occasions. If would seem very normal if the front door opened late at night and folks in a conversation would stop and identify (at least audibly) who had entered. Abby going into the foyer would have been background movement and noise. AJB and John wouldn't have paused their conversation. In one instance he is actually concentrated on what is happening in the front lobby and in the other its background movement/noise.
At least that's how I would expect those instances to have played out.
Did you guys work through why Abby wouldn't have entered the parlor thru the door in the sitting room itself vs. going out into the foyer and using that door?
Further stretching this thought, did he also come back earlier than we think and kill AJB? I think we've covered that idea a couple times.
Morse had 'selective hearing' because he recalled hearing someone going up the stairs at 9pm the prior evening, but didn't notice the same at 8:30am that day? Andrew was in the sitting room with him on both occasions. If would seem very normal if the front door opened late at night and folks in a conversation would stop and identify (at least audibly) who had entered. Abby going into the foyer would have been background movement and noise. AJB and John wouldn't have paused their conversation. In one instance he is actually concentrated on what is happening in the front lobby and in the other its background movement/noise.
At least that's how I would expect those instances to have played out.
Did you guys work through why Abby wouldn't have entered the parlor thru the door in the sitting room itself vs. going out into the foyer and using that door?
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
I was thinking maybe Abby entered by the hall parlor door since by my estimate it couldn’t be seen by John.
I suppose Lorcan might agree if the floor plans are accurate.
If John did sneak back in. I don’t think there was any waiting, it had to be fast in my opinion, and would require Lizzie’s help for when Andrew left the sitting room.
You have a good question, since there’s no testimony of Abby entering the parlor by the sitting room door.
If Abby was doing her dusting and cleaning, it wasn’t in the dining room or kitchen, that leaves the parlor and guest room since Morse mentioned her coming in and out.
The parlor would be a good place for John to hide, but it would cut into his Emery visit, so if there’s any truth to John sneaking back in, the parlor doesn’t seem right.
I suppose we have to choose wheather John was not paying attention or listening for the staircase footsteps or if there’s any clue there.
If the two trip visit by Abby is true, it appears she (Abby) was the one who shut the door, as Lizzie said, since Lizzie said she saw her in there making the bed. Lizzie wouldn’t have known about the pillow shams upon coming down to breakfast and seeing Abby making the bed.
That would mean Abby came down and the door was shut behind her.
Obviously if Lizzie killed Abby, she (Lizzie) left the door open afterwards, but Lizzie said the door was closed upon her trip to sew a piece of tape on a sleeve. (I think)
Does this indicate Lizzie had gone upstairs just prior to Abby second visit snd saw the guest room door closed?
Wheather Lizzie opened the guest room door and waited. or went to her room and waited for Abby is not known.
The fact that Lizzie saw the door closed puts her closer to Abby’s murder because it could only be seen shut right before Abby made her second trip to the guest room.
In this view, Abby hasn’t made her second trip up yet, because Lizzie wouldn’t know Abby had shut the guest room door unless she preceded Abby.
Of course one could believe Lizzie’s testimony that Abby told her it was all closed up to keep the dust out.
Do we know how John left the guest room door?
I suppose Lorcan might agree if the floor plans are accurate.
If John did sneak back in. I don’t think there was any waiting, it had to be fast in my opinion, and would require Lizzie’s help for when Andrew left the sitting room.
You have a good question, since there’s no testimony of Abby entering the parlor by the sitting room door.
If Abby was doing her dusting and cleaning, it wasn’t in the dining room or kitchen, that leaves the parlor and guest room since Morse mentioned her coming in and out.
The parlor would be a good place for John to hide, but it would cut into his Emery visit, so if there’s any truth to John sneaking back in, the parlor doesn’t seem right.
I suppose we have to choose wheather John was not paying attention or listening for the staircase footsteps or if there’s any clue there.
If the two trip visit by Abby is true, it appears she (Abby) was the one who shut the door, as Lizzie said, since Lizzie said she saw her in there making the bed. Lizzie wouldn’t have known about the pillow shams upon coming down to breakfast and seeing Abby making the bed.
That would mean Abby came down and the door was shut behind her.
Obviously if Lizzie killed Abby, she (Lizzie) left the door open afterwards, but Lizzie said the door was closed upon her trip to sew a piece of tape on a sleeve. (I think)
Does this indicate Lizzie had gone upstairs just prior to Abby second visit snd saw the guest room door closed?
Wheather Lizzie opened the guest room door and waited. or went to her room and waited for Abby is not known.
The fact that Lizzie saw the door closed puts her closer to Abby’s murder because it could only be seen shut right before Abby made her second trip to the guest room.
In this view, Abby hasn’t made her second trip up yet, because Lizzie wouldn’t know Abby had shut the guest room door unless she preceded Abby.
Of course one could believe Lizzie’s testimony that Abby told her it was all closed up to keep the dust out.
Do we know how John left the guest room door?
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Reminder to everyone, compose your long posts outside the forum form of copy the contents before hitting submit to avoid risking losing your work. The forum is a bit buggy, still. I was just saved by this method for this post.
My answers will, by definition, be full of speculation. These are just my current guesses based on what I've read about the case so far. Feel free to correct my mistakes. No offense will be taken. I know I have a lot more to learn about the case and at my near 1 year anniversary investigating it, I now know why people take decades investigating this case.
From Camgarsky: "Did you guys work through why Abby wouldn't have entered the parlor thru the door in the sitting room itself vs. going out into the foyer and using that door?"
My assumptions are:
1. If the front parlor-sitting door were opened she would have gone right in.
2. Morse wouldn't say I saw her going into the front hallway.
3. Bridget said both parlor doors were shut. Every mention of Morse socializing, it was the sitting room or dining room. Sounds like close family like Morse weren't put into the front parlor, which was probably rarely used. I think the first gathering there mentioned in the trial was when the mayor came over. If it's like some of my friends' parents houses growing up, they kept one really formal room that was rarely used and it was usually closed off.
On to the main question of the thread - were the murders planned?
I don't think that is a sufficiently specific question:
Q1. Did the killer have a specific plan prior to that morning and then executed it as planned?
A1. Almost certainly not. All indications are too many variables and a crime of opportunity.
Q2. Was the method of murder planned?
A2. I think a hatchet was chosen somewhere between 24 hours and 24 seconds before Abby was attacked. Not earlier than 24 hours. It also indicates, to me, having sparred in karate classes against men and women of all ranges of size and skill, Abby as a 64 year old, seriously overweight woman, would have been killed in a manner similar to the Jack the Ripper murders by a healthy, strong, larger attacker. For all the outdoor attacks of Jack the Ripper, swiftness and silence were required since all of those murders were done on the street/back yard surrounded by windows, many, many, windows (except Mary Kelly). Jack's first move was strangulation. A properly administered blood choke takes mere seconds for unconsciousness. A man the size of Uncle John or even the theoretical illegitimate son of Andrew, and finally any hired, professional killer - if they were already within arm's reach of Abby, would simply strangle her unconscious, lower her to the floor, and slit her throat or stab her heart. It would be silent and all the blood could be blocked with a towel, pillowcase, a portion of the bedspread, etc. We have to consider what type of killer would poorly aim a standoff weapon like a hatchet? I say it's someone who isn't sure they couldn't immediately physically dominate a 64 year old, 5 ft tall, overweight woman.
Q3. Are there signs of planning at all?
A3. For Lizzie, yes. If she really visited two pharmacies in New Bedford and one in Fall River looking for Prussic Acid. If the story of blue and pink&white striped dress material was a lie. If there stories of Andrew's enemies to Alice were setting the stage. So, retrospectively, there are things that might not have ever seemed suspicious prior to the murders and would probably passed unnoticed if there were no murders, can be put into a framework of suspicion and look like planning. I think Lizzie might be the victim of a bit of me being so suspicious of her, I can look at things she did and said and retroactively shade them as suspicious. I try not to, but it is hard not to when so many things Lizzie did and said just pile on over and over and over again. If she is innocent, this case is a flagship case study for all prosecutors and judges and potential jurors to warn us of how once we start to suspect guilt how much it can shade our views of events.
Q4. Assuming Lizzie is guilty what was planned and when?
A4. I think poison of Abby was the original plan and something happened more than just the opportunity to kill Abby. I think there had to be some sort of deadline or pressure. I think she had no intention of killing Andrew until he came home early and she was trapped. I do not think Lizzie thought she could lie her way out of it face to face with Andrew. I think Lizzie thought she was smarter than the police, but I think Andrew was her kryptonite as far as that goes, especially after the daylight robbery and him leaving the key on the mantle. I think that key was a reminder and a tough love threat to Lizzie that she had run out of times that daddy would cover for her and send the police away.
My answers will, by definition, be full of speculation. These are just my current guesses based on what I've read about the case so far. Feel free to correct my mistakes. No offense will be taken. I know I have a lot more to learn about the case and at my near 1 year anniversary investigating it, I now know why people take decades investigating this case.
From Camgarsky: "Did you guys work through why Abby wouldn't have entered the parlor thru the door in the sitting room itself vs. going out into the foyer and using that door?"
My assumptions are:
1. If the front parlor-sitting door were opened she would have gone right in.
2. Morse wouldn't say I saw her going into the front hallway.
3. Bridget said both parlor doors were shut. Every mention of Morse socializing, it was the sitting room or dining room. Sounds like close family like Morse weren't put into the front parlor, which was probably rarely used. I think the first gathering there mentioned in the trial was when the mayor came over. If it's like some of my friends' parents houses growing up, they kept one really formal room that was rarely used and it was usually closed off.
On to the main question of the thread - were the murders planned?
I don't think that is a sufficiently specific question:
Q1. Did the killer have a specific plan prior to that morning and then executed it as planned?
A1. Almost certainly not. All indications are too many variables and a crime of opportunity.
Q2. Was the method of murder planned?
A2. I think a hatchet was chosen somewhere between 24 hours and 24 seconds before Abby was attacked. Not earlier than 24 hours. It also indicates, to me, having sparred in karate classes against men and women of all ranges of size and skill, Abby as a 64 year old, seriously overweight woman, would have been killed in a manner similar to the Jack the Ripper murders by a healthy, strong, larger attacker. For all the outdoor attacks of Jack the Ripper, swiftness and silence were required since all of those murders were done on the street/back yard surrounded by windows, many, many, windows (except Mary Kelly). Jack's first move was strangulation. A properly administered blood choke takes mere seconds for unconsciousness. A man the size of Uncle John or even the theoretical illegitimate son of Andrew, and finally any hired, professional killer - if they were already within arm's reach of Abby, would simply strangle her unconscious, lower her to the floor, and slit her throat or stab her heart. It would be silent and all the blood could be blocked with a towel, pillowcase, a portion of the bedspread, etc. We have to consider what type of killer would poorly aim a standoff weapon like a hatchet? I say it's someone who isn't sure they couldn't immediately physically dominate a 64 year old, 5 ft tall, overweight woman.
Q3. Are there signs of planning at all?
A3. For Lizzie, yes. If she really visited two pharmacies in New Bedford and one in Fall River looking for Prussic Acid. If the story of blue and pink&white striped dress material was a lie. If there stories of Andrew's enemies to Alice were setting the stage. So, retrospectively, there are things that might not have ever seemed suspicious prior to the murders and would probably passed unnoticed if there were no murders, can be put into a framework of suspicion and look like planning. I think Lizzie might be the victim of a bit of me being so suspicious of her, I can look at things she did and said and retroactively shade them as suspicious. I try not to, but it is hard not to when so many things Lizzie did and said just pile on over and over and over again. If she is innocent, this case is a flagship case study for all prosecutors and judges and potential jurors to warn us of how once we start to suspect guilt how much it can shade our views of events.
Q4. Assuming Lizzie is guilty what was planned and when?
A4. I think poison of Abby was the original plan and something happened more than just the opportunity to kill Abby. I think there had to be some sort of deadline or pressure. I think she had no intention of killing Andrew until he came home early and she was trapped. I do not think Lizzie thought she could lie her way out of it face to face with Andrew. I think Lizzie thought she was smarter than the police, but I think Andrew was her kryptonite as far as that goes, especially after the daylight robbery and him leaving the key on the mantle. I think that key was a reminder and a tough love threat to Lizzie that she had run out of times that daddy would cover for her and send the police away.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
You had me until the later half of #4.
I think Andrew was an intended victim, along with Abby. Abby wasn't her only hurdle to upgrade her lifestyle, her father was the real roadblock and she knew it.
Abraham has lived to 80+years, so Lizzie would likely assume her father would do the same since he didn't have any known chronic ailments.
I also have not bought into the 'key on the mantle' is a message. I think it was a central, convenient place to put the key so Abby would know where to access it. Since it 'appeared' the 'thief' had jimmied the lock, it would seem that bedroom had always been kept locked. There in lies Andrew's obsession.
Back to the thread topic....my opinion is that the mastermind (aka Lizzie) thought she had a good plan, but it started unraveling mid-day Wednesday and continued to the end. She did a good job of ad-libbing. The murders happened and no one was convicted. So maybe it was all a plan and it worked perfectly.
I think Andrew was an intended victim, along with Abby. Abby wasn't her only hurdle to upgrade her lifestyle, her father was the real roadblock and she knew it.
Abraham has lived to 80+years, so Lizzie would likely assume her father would do the same since he didn't have any known chronic ailments.
I also have not bought into the 'key on the mantle' is a message. I think it was a central, convenient place to put the key so Abby would know where to access it. Since it 'appeared' the 'thief' had jimmied the lock, it would seem that bedroom had always been kept locked. There in lies Andrew's obsession.
Back to the thread topic....my opinion is that the mastermind (aka Lizzie) thought she had a good plan, but it started unraveling mid-day Wednesday and continued to the end. She did a good job of ad-libbing. The murders happened and no one was convicted. So maybe it was all a plan and it worked perfectly.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
There is a different type of thread that I think might be useful, not this one of were the murders planned, in the new thread we are going to assume the murders were planned and the topic what was the original plan and what was improvised. I doubt we can come up with a fully-fledged original plan right off the bat, but playing out some scenarios, maybe we can derive the remnants of the original plan in the chaos of the morning. I'll write up something to kick it off.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
On second thought, I don't think I have enough evidence to reconstruct anything resembling a complete original plan. Perhaps we should approach the question from the opposite direction and consider a scenario involving very little advance planning.
What if Lizzie was not attempting to buy poison in New Bedford, and the story about the dress material was true? What if the idea of poisoning Abby and Andrew did not arise until Wednesday, after both of them became violently ill and Abby said that she believed someone had poisoned them? Perhaps that incident first suggested prussic acid to Lizzie, leading to the alleged attempt to obtain it later that morning.
In that scenario, the conversation with Alice Russell might not have been intended to prepare the ground for an immediate murder. It may instead have been an effort to establish that Lizzie feared something was going to happen to her father, creating a useful explanation if a future poisoning attempt succeeded.
Then, during Wednesday night, something changed.
Perhaps Lizzie began fantasizing about life without Abby, and eventually about life without Andrew as well. She was thirty-two years old and had never been fully independent: never entirely free to make her own decisions, control her own household, or live according to her own wishes. She had spent most of her life sharing a bedroom while her father accumulated a substantial fortune. Even the maid had a private door and, until Lizzie exchanged rooms with Emma, a larger bedroom.
The Fourth Street property transfer may have intensified all of this. The importance of that transaction was not merely its financial value. It demonstrated that Abby possessed enough influence to obtain property for her half-sister and that she and Andrew could make consequential financial arrangements while deliberately concealing them from Lizzie and Emma. That realization may have produced both humiliation and fear: humiliation at how little influence the daughters actually possessed, and fear of an uncertain future in which Abby’s power continued to grow while Andrew increasingly kept his decisions secret.
Perhaps that anger built throughout the night. Lizzie may have swung between the exhilaration of imagining complete financial and social freedom and the darker realization that, as long as Abby remained influential and Andrew remained secretive, that freedom might never come.
Under this theory, the murders were not the execution of a carefully developed plan. The poisoning idea may have emerged only on Wednesday, and the decision to kill may not have fully crystallized until sometime during the night or even the following morning.
What if Lizzie was not attempting to buy poison in New Bedford, and the story about the dress material was true? What if the idea of poisoning Abby and Andrew did not arise until Wednesday, after both of them became violently ill and Abby said that she believed someone had poisoned them? Perhaps that incident first suggested prussic acid to Lizzie, leading to the alleged attempt to obtain it later that morning.
In that scenario, the conversation with Alice Russell might not have been intended to prepare the ground for an immediate murder. It may instead have been an effort to establish that Lizzie feared something was going to happen to her father, creating a useful explanation if a future poisoning attempt succeeded.
Then, during Wednesday night, something changed.
Perhaps Lizzie began fantasizing about life without Abby, and eventually about life without Andrew as well. She was thirty-two years old and had never been fully independent: never entirely free to make her own decisions, control her own household, or live according to her own wishes. She had spent most of her life sharing a bedroom while her father accumulated a substantial fortune. Even the maid had a private door and, until Lizzie exchanged rooms with Emma, a larger bedroom.
The Fourth Street property transfer may have intensified all of this. The importance of that transaction was not merely its financial value. It demonstrated that Abby possessed enough influence to obtain property for her half-sister and that she and Andrew could make consequential financial arrangements while deliberately concealing them from Lizzie and Emma. That realization may have produced both humiliation and fear: humiliation at how little influence the daughters actually possessed, and fear of an uncertain future in which Abby’s power continued to grow while Andrew increasingly kept his decisions secret.
Perhaps that anger built throughout the night. Lizzie may have swung between the exhilaration of imagining complete financial and social freedom and the darker realization that, as long as Abby remained influential and Andrew remained secretive, that freedom might never come.
Under this theory, the murders were not the execution of a carefully developed plan. The poisoning idea may have emerged only on Wednesday, and the decision to kill may not have fully crystallized until sometime during the night or even the following morning.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
I think the weakest points for me right now are:
1. I'm trying to give Lizzie a motive that would be strong enough to make her snap and there may not have been one. At least not one that we can trace back accurately to what was actually going on in her mind.
2. It seems like there was planning and a lot of ambiguous "clues" could go either way:
a. The two New Bedford pharmacy witness groups
b. The DR Smith witness group
c. The weirdness about the dress material in New Bedford
d. Emma seemingly wanting to get out of the way
e. Apparently completely avoiding Uncle John and the mutually exclusive stories Lizzie told (I was ill and didn't leave the house that day until I went to Alice's house vs. I was out when Uncle John arrived)
3. There seems to be a high-risk, improvised crime scene, but with a surprisingly well executed blood evidence mitigation strategy with a surprisingly poor consistent alibi construction.
4. Why that day? What was the trigger?
5. If Lizzie was truly a sociopath or psychopath or dissociative split-personality case, why wait until 32 years old for this crime. The most rational motive was strongest age 18 - 25, but at 32, her social window was rapidly closing. Perhaps it was the drift into middle age that was the pressure cooker that eventually exploded?
1. I'm trying to give Lizzie a motive that would be strong enough to make her snap and there may not have been one. At least not one that we can trace back accurately to what was actually going on in her mind.
2. It seems like there was planning and a lot of ambiguous "clues" could go either way:
a. The two New Bedford pharmacy witness groups
b. The DR Smith witness group
c. The weirdness about the dress material in New Bedford
d. Emma seemingly wanting to get out of the way
e. Apparently completely avoiding Uncle John and the mutually exclusive stories Lizzie told (I was ill and didn't leave the house that day until I went to Alice's house vs. I was out when Uncle John arrived)
3. There seems to be a high-risk, improvised crime scene, but with a surprisingly well executed blood evidence mitigation strategy with a surprisingly poor consistent alibi construction.
4. Why that day? What was the trigger?
5. If Lizzie was truly a sociopath or psychopath or dissociative split-personality case, why wait until 32 years old for this crime. The most rational motive was strongest age 18 - 25, but at 32, her social window was rapidly closing. Perhaps it was the drift into middle age that was the pressure cooker that eventually exploded?
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
I was a bit lost on how to move the thread forward, so I asked chatgpt to analyze the thread. What it came up with is pretty interesting.
Overall, the thread is productive because it gradually escapes the original false binary: either the murders were meticulously planned or they were spontaneous acts of rage. The more plausible possibilities lie between those poles—prior intent combined with opportunistic timing, partial preparation, contingency decisions, and improvisation after something went wrong. Your Q1–Q4 post is where the thread becomes analytically useful because it separates the existence of a plan from the planning of the weapon, victims, timing, and aftermath.
What works particularly well
Your strongest observation is:
“There seems to be a high-risk, improvised crime scene, but with a surprisingly well executed blood evidence mitigation strategy with a surprisingly poor consistent alibi construction.”
That is the central contradiction worth investigating. The morning appears simultaneously controlled and uncontrolled.
The killer apparently avoided leaving conspicuous blood evidence on an identifiable person. The weapon and any protective covering disappeared. The killer exploited periods when Bridget was outside or upstairs. Yet the note story, barn account, movements around the house, and later explanations do not resemble a thoroughly rehearsed narrative.
That combination suggests something more complicated than either a perfect master plan or an instantaneous snap. It could indicate a planned killing executed under altered circumstances, a newly formed plan containing only a few prepared elements, or a person who had thought extensively about the physical act but inadequately about the subsequent investigation.
Your acknowledgment of retrospective bias is also important. You explicitly recognize that the pharmacy reports, dress-material irregularities, the Alice Russell conversation, and other conduct can be placed into a planning narrative only after one begins with the assumption of guilt. That prevents the discussion from becoming a simple exercise in converting every ambiguity into incriminating evidence.
The revived discussion also benefits from Camgarsky’s resistance. His argument that Andrew was the greater long-term obstacle forces your theory to explain why a guilty Lizzie would plan only Abby’s death. His rejection of the symbolic “key on the mantle” interpretation is similarly useful. It distinguishes a psychologically appealing interpretation from the simpler possibility that the key was merely placed somewhere accessible.
Where the thread becomes vulnerable
The largest problem is that several different levels of speculation become blended together:
Evidence-supported possibilities.
Reasonable behavioral inference.
Psychological reconstruction.
Essentially fictional interior monologue.
The later Wednesday-night scenario is coherent, but coherence is not evidence. Lizzie moving between fantasies of freedom, humiliation, fear, and rage is one possible internal sequence, but there is no direct means of knowing that this occurred. The Fourth Street transaction provides a defensible source of family tension. It does not establish the precise emotional escalation described in the post.
The phrase “something changed during Wednesday night” is therefore an effective narrative hinge but presently an evidentiary void. The theory needs an identifiable change, deadline, confrontation, discovery, anticipated transaction, or unexpected household development. Otherwise Wednesday night is being used as a container into which the missing trigger is placed.
Several other claims should be treated more cautiously.
“The hatchet was chosen somewhere between 24 hours and 24 seconds before the attack.”
Those boundaries are arbitrary. The evidence may suggest that the weapon was brought into position before Abby’s attack, but it cannot establish that it had not been selected days earlier.
The Jack the Ripper and karate comparison is the weakest part of your Q1–Q4 post. It introduces assumptions about how a strong male, professional killer, or experienced fighter would kill. Real offenders do not necessarily choose the objectively quietest or most efficient technique. Weapon choice may reflect access, emotion, symbolism, aversion to bodily contact, uncertainty, or a desire to incapacitate immediately. The comparison does not reliably narrow the offender class.
Emma “wanting to get out of the way” is potentially significant only after the evidence is defined very precisely. Her absence itself is not evidence that she arranged an alibi or knowingly removed herself.
“Andrew came home early” should not be treated as established. The older thread repeatedly assumes this, while another participant correctly notes that it is not clear he returned unusually early. A theory should not depend on his arrival being unexpected unless that proposition can be independently established.
Psychopathy, sociopathy, dissociative identity, or “split personality” do not help much here. They invite retrospective diagnosis from sparse historical conduct and create a false expectation that such a person must have committed serious violence earlier. A first homicide at thirty-two does not materially prove or disprove any of those conditions.
The closing social window is a plausible pressure factor, but it needs to be tied to Lizzie specifically. It cannot simply be inferred that she experienced thirty-two as the end of her prospects or that marriage was her principal route to autonomy.
The older discussion
The 2004 portion contains the germ of the correct question: how can a crime be planned when the victims’ precise positions and movements were uncertain?
The best answer offered there is that planning need not specify an exact room and minute. A killer can prepare for a suitable opportunity rather than script every movement.
The old posts also demonstrate why source control is essential. Claims about a secret will meeting, most of the police being absent, bodies being arranged, Andrew’s supposedly premature return, and Bridget’s “dark past” enter the conversation with varying levels of support. Once admitted, they begin generating secondary theories.
The revived thread should explicitly separate established testimony, disputed reports, later legend, and pure hypothetical reconstruction.
Inspector’s Morse scenario is highly speculative, but Camgarsky’s response to it is methodologically sound. He tests it against time, location, the Emery visit, Andrew’s presence, and the danger of expanding the theory into a large conspiracy. That is the kind of pressure testing the planning discussion needs.
My present assessment
The thread has not established a particular plan, but it has identified the correct research problem:
Which features of the crime require advance preparation, which merely permit it, and which are better explained as improvisation?
At present, I would not characterize the evidence as supporting a fully formed plan devised well in advance.
I would characterize it as compatible with prior hostility and possibly prior homicidal ideation; some preparation before Abby’s attack, at minimum acquisition or positioning of the weapon; exploitation of a favorable household configuration; substantial improvisation concerning Andrew, Bridget, the note story, and the eventual alibi; and some successful method of preventing, removing, or concealing blood evidence.
Your final post listing the weaknesses is more valuable than the preceding psychological scenario because it identifies the unanswered questions rather than disguising them with a smooth narrative.
“Why that day?” remains the decisive problem.
Until there is a defensible answer, the Wednesday-night transformation should remain a hypothesis rather than the backbone of the theory.
The strongest next thread would not attempt to reconstruct Lizzie’s emotions first. It would divide the evidence into stages: before Wednesday, Wednesday, before Abby’s death, between the deaths, and after Andrew’s death. Each fact could then be classified as evidence of preparation, improvisation, or neither.
That would allow you to identify the remnants of a possible plan without requiring a complete plan to be invented at the outset.
Overall, the thread is productive because it gradually escapes the original false binary: either the murders were meticulously planned or they were spontaneous acts of rage. The more plausible possibilities lie between those poles—prior intent combined with opportunistic timing, partial preparation, contingency decisions, and improvisation after something went wrong. Your Q1–Q4 post is where the thread becomes analytically useful because it separates the existence of a plan from the planning of the weapon, victims, timing, and aftermath.
What works particularly well
Your strongest observation is:
“There seems to be a high-risk, improvised crime scene, but with a surprisingly well executed blood evidence mitigation strategy with a surprisingly poor consistent alibi construction.”
That is the central contradiction worth investigating. The morning appears simultaneously controlled and uncontrolled.
The killer apparently avoided leaving conspicuous blood evidence on an identifiable person. The weapon and any protective covering disappeared. The killer exploited periods when Bridget was outside or upstairs. Yet the note story, barn account, movements around the house, and later explanations do not resemble a thoroughly rehearsed narrative.
That combination suggests something more complicated than either a perfect master plan or an instantaneous snap. It could indicate a planned killing executed under altered circumstances, a newly formed plan containing only a few prepared elements, or a person who had thought extensively about the physical act but inadequately about the subsequent investigation.
Your acknowledgment of retrospective bias is also important. You explicitly recognize that the pharmacy reports, dress-material irregularities, the Alice Russell conversation, and other conduct can be placed into a planning narrative only after one begins with the assumption of guilt. That prevents the discussion from becoming a simple exercise in converting every ambiguity into incriminating evidence.
The revived discussion also benefits from Camgarsky’s resistance. His argument that Andrew was the greater long-term obstacle forces your theory to explain why a guilty Lizzie would plan only Abby’s death. His rejection of the symbolic “key on the mantle” interpretation is similarly useful. It distinguishes a psychologically appealing interpretation from the simpler possibility that the key was merely placed somewhere accessible.
Where the thread becomes vulnerable
The largest problem is that several different levels of speculation become blended together:
Evidence-supported possibilities.
Reasonable behavioral inference.
Psychological reconstruction.
Essentially fictional interior monologue.
The later Wednesday-night scenario is coherent, but coherence is not evidence. Lizzie moving between fantasies of freedom, humiliation, fear, and rage is one possible internal sequence, but there is no direct means of knowing that this occurred. The Fourth Street transaction provides a defensible source of family tension. It does not establish the precise emotional escalation described in the post.
The phrase “something changed during Wednesday night” is therefore an effective narrative hinge but presently an evidentiary void. The theory needs an identifiable change, deadline, confrontation, discovery, anticipated transaction, or unexpected household development. Otherwise Wednesday night is being used as a container into which the missing trigger is placed.
Several other claims should be treated more cautiously.
“The hatchet was chosen somewhere between 24 hours and 24 seconds before the attack.”
Those boundaries are arbitrary. The evidence may suggest that the weapon was brought into position before Abby’s attack, but it cannot establish that it had not been selected days earlier.
The Jack the Ripper and karate comparison is the weakest part of your Q1–Q4 post. It introduces assumptions about how a strong male, professional killer, or experienced fighter would kill. Real offenders do not necessarily choose the objectively quietest or most efficient technique. Weapon choice may reflect access, emotion, symbolism, aversion to bodily contact, uncertainty, or a desire to incapacitate immediately. The comparison does not reliably narrow the offender class.
Emma “wanting to get out of the way” is potentially significant only after the evidence is defined very precisely. Her absence itself is not evidence that she arranged an alibi or knowingly removed herself.
“Andrew came home early” should not be treated as established. The older thread repeatedly assumes this, while another participant correctly notes that it is not clear he returned unusually early. A theory should not depend on his arrival being unexpected unless that proposition can be independently established.
Psychopathy, sociopathy, dissociative identity, or “split personality” do not help much here. They invite retrospective diagnosis from sparse historical conduct and create a false expectation that such a person must have committed serious violence earlier. A first homicide at thirty-two does not materially prove or disprove any of those conditions.
The closing social window is a plausible pressure factor, but it needs to be tied to Lizzie specifically. It cannot simply be inferred that she experienced thirty-two as the end of her prospects or that marriage was her principal route to autonomy.
The older discussion
The 2004 portion contains the germ of the correct question: how can a crime be planned when the victims’ precise positions and movements were uncertain?
The best answer offered there is that planning need not specify an exact room and minute. A killer can prepare for a suitable opportunity rather than script every movement.
The old posts also demonstrate why source control is essential. Claims about a secret will meeting, most of the police being absent, bodies being arranged, Andrew’s supposedly premature return, and Bridget’s “dark past” enter the conversation with varying levels of support. Once admitted, they begin generating secondary theories.
The revived thread should explicitly separate established testimony, disputed reports, later legend, and pure hypothetical reconstruction.
Inspector’s Morse scenario is highly speculative, but Camgarsky’s response to it is methodologically sound. He tests it against time, location, the Emery visit, Andrew’s presence, and the danger of expanding the theory into a large conspiracy. That is the kind of pressure testing the planning discussion needs.
My present assessment
The thread has not established a particular plan, but it has identified the correct research problem:
Which features of the crime require advance preparation, which merely permit it, and which are better explained as improvisation?
At present, I would not characterize the evidence as supporting a fully formed plan devised well in advance.
I would characterize it as compatible with prior hostility and possibly prior homicidal ideation; some preparation before Abby’s attack, at minimum acquisition or positioning of the weapon; exploitation of a favorable household configuration; substantial improvisation concerning Andrew, Bridget, the note story, and the eventual alibi; and some successful method of preventing, removing, or concealing blood evidence.
Your final post listing the weaknesses is more valuable than the preceding psychological scenario because it identifies the unanswered questions rather than disguising them with a smooth narrative.
“Why that day?” remains the decisive problem.
Until there is a defensible answer, the Wednesday-night transformation should remain a hypothesis rather than the backbone of the theory.
The strongest next thread would not attempt to reconstruct Lizzie’s emotions first. It would divide the evidence into stages: before Wednesday, Wednesday, before Abby’s death, between the deaths, and after Andrew’s death. Each fact could then be classified as evidence of preparation, improvisation, or neither.
That would allow you to identify the remnants of a possible plan without requiring a complete plan to be invented at the outset.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Here are some related and some independent thoughts on the topics you have raised. They are written as statements, but are just my opinions and interpretation.
Several of these thoughts and ideas I won't expand upon, but share at this level to stimulate thought and conversation.
1. This was not a spontaneous, rage driven set of murders. Exception would be if there existed an unknown very dark family secret.
2. The killer was emotionally detached from both victims, they had become 'objects' and obstacles in the killers' mind Their deaths created no sympathy or empathy for the assailant.
3. Both victims were targeted.
4. The 1887 Fourth Street drama had been the planting of the seeds of discord.
5. Social involvement dramatically increased in 1887 and culminated with the 1890 Europe extravaganza. Desires and dreams were created and cemented.
5. Andrew had considered upgrading their home and its location, but had not acted as the summer '92 came to a close.
6. Andrew was considering organizing his estate in a way that was not pleasing to his offspring.
7. Decision to commit murder made 30-60 days before the murders.
8. Poison was the preferred method.
9. Once the 'ball starting rolling' on August 3, there was no turning back.
10. Andrew was 69 years old. His father lived to over 80 years of age.
Several of these thoughts and ideas I won't expand upon, but share at this level to stimulate thought and conversation.
1. This was not a spontaneous, rage driven set of murders. Exception would be if there existed an unknown very dark family secret.
2. The killer was emotionally detached from both victims, they had become 'objects' and obstacles in the killers' mind Their deaths created no sympathy or empathy for the assailant.
3. Both victims were targeted.
4. The 1887 Fourth Street drama had been the planting of the seeds of discord.
5. Social involvement dramatically increased in 1887 and culminated with the 1890 Europe extravaganza. Desires and dreams were created and cemented.
5. Andrew had considered upgrading their home and its location, but had not acted as the summer '92 came to a close.
6. Andrew was considering organizing his estate in a way that was not pleasing to his offspring.
7. Decision to commit murder made 30-60 days before the murders.
8. Poison was the preferred method.
9. Once the 'ball starting rolling' on August 3, there was no turning back.
10. Andrew was 69 years old. His father lived to over 80 years of age.
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
ChatGPT doesn’t like me…lol
I had fun reading it though. I was surprised how analytical it was, yet offered no real solutions, but I know it’s just reading the thread, and that’s all it has to go on.
I imagine from a clinically, scientific way it will guide someone through highly detailed processes, but for me, it can only give out possibilities from what has been programmed.
Maybe I’ll ask it some more.
I think I cut to the chase and just asked who killed them, but it just said-unsolved.
Perhaps asking percentage questions may help.
Cam:
1) I think there was planning and thought, rage built up if the sisters were molested, but no evidence.
2) Appears correct if Lizzie or Emma were involved, they had obstacles.
3) Agreed, Andrew couldn’t prove Lizzie’s guilt, though he may suspect. Emma would know or suspect just as much as Andrew, not to mention Bridget.
4) probably, with other contributors.
5) Seems plausible. She didn’t come straight home afterwards. She must have hated the house. I would miss my family and home. This could relate to your first point.
Says 5). No
6) Curious to know if that is true. I think it probable that Lizzie overheard through her keyhole, things that Abby said and Andrew agreed to. If true, Lizzie could have known far more than anyone will ever know.
7) yes
8) yes
9) yes
10) unsure how I feel about it. If the Europe trip triggered impatience, and greed, then it could.
I had fun reading it though. I was surprised how analytical it was, yet offered no real solutions, but I know it’s just reading the thread, and that’s all it has to go on.
I imagine from a clinically, scientific way it will guide someone through highly detailed processes, but for me, it can only give out possibilities from what has been programmed.
Maybe I’ll ask it some more.
I think I cut to the chase and just asked who killed them, but it just said-unsolved.
Perhaps asking percentage questions may help.
Cam:
1) I think there was planning and thought, rage built up if the sisters were molested, but no evidence.
2) Appears correct if Lizzie or Emma were involved, they had obstacles.
3) Agreed, Andrew couldn’t prove Lizzie’s guilt, though he may suspect. Emma would know or suspect just as much as Andrew, not to mention Bridget.
4) probably, with other contributors.
5) Seems plausible. She didn’t come straight home afterwards. She must have hated the house. I would miss my family and home. This could relate to your first point.
Says 5). No
6) Curious to know if that is true. I think it probable that Lizzie overheard through her keyhole, things that Abby said and Andrew agreed to. If true, Lizzie could have known far more than anyone will ever know.
7) yes
8) yes
9) yes
10) unsure how I feel about it. If the Europe trip triggered impatience, and greed, then it could.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Camgarsky - That is a solid set of assumptions. I think worthy of exploration at some point when you feel comfortable. I'd buy the book, if you ever decide to write one. This is not false praise, the AI has consistently flagged your pushback and investigative discipline as being helpful, not just in this thread.I think that same investigative approach would lead to a book that is far more disciplined than most of what has been written.
Number 5 is what I'd like to get solid info on. I heard it was the building that became the Quequechan Club, but I don't trust Charles Cook (for no good reason - just a bad feeling about him).
Number 5 is what I'd like to get solid info on. I heard it was the building that became the Quequechan Club, but I don't trust Charles Cook (for no good reason - just a bad feeling about him).
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
William Mason a big time Fall River businessman who died four months prior to the murders and owned an impressive estate at 110 North Main Street. Very near where Andrew would do his daily walks downtown.
Source: Jennings Journals. Page 73.
Interview with William Bowers Moison Chace. Entry recorded by Arthur Phillips.
“Mr. AJB came to us when Mr. Wm. Mason died & wanted the first show at the Wm Mason estate if it came to market, said he was getting older – Then another time while walking by there he asked about it again & said he was getting old & wanted a nice place for his daughters.”
W.B.M Chace was a prominent realtor and financier in Fall River.
William Mason, Fall River manufacturer, died in Fall River in 1892, at the age of 85 years, 7 months. All three Fall River newspapers published lengthy and glowing articles recognizing the passing of Mr. Mason.
The opening statement in the Fall River Daily Herald April 14, 1892 article…..
“(William Mason) started life as a cobbler in Swansey, engaged in the shoe business and made money as a manufacturer of soap and yarn – A Devoted Methodist.”
The 110 North Main Street property was sold in November, 1894, roughly two years after the Borden killings.
Source: Fall River Daily Herald November 24, 1894
The William Mason homestead on North Main Street was sold at auction at 1:30 o’clock today to F.O. Dodge for $19,750 by W.B.M Chace, auctioneer.
The property was so exquisite that F.O. Dodge wasn’t planning to live there….he had bigger plans.
The Fall River Daily Herald February 7, 1895 declares with a bold headline “The New Quequechan Club”.
Below the headline is a large drawing of the William Mason estate transformed into Fall River’s elite social club.
The building is still there today. If you want a look see, go to googlemaps.com; the address is 306 North Main Street. Use the ‘street view’ capability to get a frontal view of the William Mason homestead in 2026.
Quequechan Club in the early 1900's. When converted to the Club, the front facing the street was roughly doubled in size. As most of you know, Fall River changed the numbering system for addresses. The 1895 Fall River City Directory lists the Mason home at 110 No. Main Street, while the 1896 Directory has the home located at 306 No. Main Street. They are one and the same building.
Source: Jennings Journals. Page 73.
Interview with William Bowers Moison Chace. Entry recorded by Arthur Phillips.
“Mr. AJB came to us when Mr. Wm. Mason died & wanted the first show at the Wm Mason estate if it came to market, said he was getting older – Then another time while walking by there he asked about it again & said he was getting old & wanted a nice place for his daughters.”
W.B.M Chace was a prominent realtor and financier in Fall River.
William Mason, Fall River manufacturer, died in Fall River in 1892, at the age of 85 years, 7 months. All three Fall River newspapers published lengthy and glowing articles recognizing the passing of Mr. Mason.
The opening statement in the Fall River Daily Herald April 14, 1892 article…..
“(William Mason) started life as a cobbler in Swansey, engaged in the shoe business and made money as a manufacturer of soap and yarn – A Devoted Methodist.”
The 110 North Main Street property was sold in November, 1894, roughly two years after the Borden killings.
Source: Fall River Daily Herald November 24, 1894
The William Mason homestead on North Main Street was sold at auction at 1:30 o’clock today to F.O. Dodge for $19,750 by W.B.M Chace, auctioneer.
The property was so exquisite that F.O. Dodge wasn’t planning to live there….he had bigger plans.
The Fall River Daily Herald February 7, 1895 declares with a bold headline “The New Quequechan Club”.
Below the headline is a large drawing of the William Mason estate transformed into Fall River’s elite social club.
The building is still there today. If you want a look see, go to googlemaps.com; the address is 306 North Main Street. Use the ‘street view’ capability to get a frontal view of the William Mason homestead in 2026.
Quequechan Club in the early 1900's. When converted to the Club, the front facing the street was roughly doubled in size. As most of you know, Fall River changed the numbering system for addresses. The 1895 Fall River City Directory lists the Mason home at 110 No. Main Street, while the 1896 Directory has the home located at 306 No. Main Street. They are one and the same building.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think those were Cam’s assumptions, rather ideas he’s throwing out for consideration and stimulation.
The thread is about the planning of the crimes, and it’s obvious that Lizzie wanted poison, so now we can use Chatgtp to tell us how far back is the correct definition for planned—-then we’ll be better off.
The thread is about the planning of the crimes, and it’s obvious that Lizzie wanted poison, so now we can use Chatgtp to tell us how far back is the correct definition for planned—-then we’ll be better off.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
The items I listed are my opinions and interpretation of the case. I felt like they fit the theme of whether the crime was planned or spontaneous.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
If there was a way to prove Lizzie and Emma knew of Andrew's plans - not necessarily for that specific house, but a move of that type, then almost everyone's primary guess at Lizzie's motive is significantly weakened if not altogether removed. I want to point out that the entire cost of buying Maplecroft was under 5% of Andrew's net worth. His entire net worth wasn't liquid, but the point remains that if Lizzie was satisfied with Maplecroft, then we can't look at simple dollar value. Even the $20,000 for Quequechan would have been something like 6% of his net worth.
I think the idea that Andrew had decided to arrange things in the daughters' favor with a house like Quequechan wasn't enough or didn't solve the underlying problem. For me, it deepens the mystery.
I think the idea that Andrew had decided to arrange things in the daughters' favor with a house like Quequechan wasn't enough or didn't solve the underlying problem. For me, it deepens the mystery.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Regarding poison - I tend to believe Lizzie really did intend to poison her parents. The reason being we have 3 witnesses in Fall River and 2 other pharmacies in New Bedford on the witness list. It would mean Knowlton was a monster if he planned to bring that type of evidence to get a woman hanged if he didn't truly believe it was valid. I don't think he would present witnesses he believe were lying in such a life or death type of situation. All of them had careers and professional reputations and businesses on the line as well as legal repercussions for lying in a double murder trial. Maybe the witnesses did not take that responsibility of life and death as seriously as I assume they did, but I have to think Knowlton could recognize that risk and mitigate it.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Inspector - give us your planning timeline. I'm ok with 1887 as a serious emotional break between Lizzie and her parents. 1890 as the eye opening and beginning of seriously planning how to live the life she felt she deserved.
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Who knows how long. If Lizzie is guilty,
the poison was
the means by which the plan was put in action .
Probably very frustrated at her refusal the previous day, which didn’t help her anxiousness if she realized the poison option would not be realistic.
I was hoping Spencer might touch on Lizzie’s visit from a friend while she was incarcerated. Mrs Livermore , because she was very positive for Lizzie, but relayed a story of how Lizzie would have done it (if she had done it.) Spencer can’t be expected to cover everything, and it was from a newspaper article.
OJ Simpson did the same, and I see similarities in the two cases.
Not in their personalities, but in other aspects.
As far as this subject, that either of them would entertain such a wicked idea.
If Morse hadn’t shown up Wednesday and spent the night, I wonder if Lizzie would have carried out what she (supposedly) told Mrs Livermore.
the poison was
the means by which the plan was put in action .
Probably very frustrated at her refusal the previous day, which didn’t help her anxiousness if she realized the poison option would not be realistic.
I was hoping Spencer might touch on Lizzie’s visit from a friend while she was incarcerated. Mrs Livermore , because she was very positive for Lizzie, but relayed a story of how Lizzie would have done it (if she had done it.) Spencer can’t be expected to cover everything, and it was from a newspaper article.
OJ Simpson did the same, and I see similarities in the two cases.
Not in their personalities, but in other aspects.
As far as this subject, that either of them would entertain such a wicked idea.
If Morse hadn’t shown up Wednesday and spent the night, I wonder if Lizzie would have carried out what she (supposedly) told Mrs Livermore.
-
Lorcan
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2025 2:22 pm
- Real Name: Paul Murphy
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
Here is the article, I think.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Inspector
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2025 7:27 am
- Real Name: Star Johns
Re: Were the Borden Murders planned?
That’s it. Mostly positive, except she said Lizzie wasn’t pretty, that was odd. I had forgotten about that comment, and how it made me doubt the truthfulness of the article.