Investigative Improv

[Lorcan]

I'm interested to see what we all think about an accomplice. The seemingly obvious answer would be Bridget, willing beforehand, or forced after Abby's murder. By forced, I mean all Lizzie would have to do is wait for Bridget to come inside and start washing the inside windows and sit her down and say, don't panic but Abby is dead. You have been inside the house for enough time out of sight that I am your only alibi. If you fight me on this it's your word against mine.

However, as tempting as that might be as a solution that would make the case trivial as far as timing and cleanup, I would need an answer to:

1. Why Bridget said she didn't see the pail of bloody rags.
2. Why Bridget said she heard Lizzie laughing at the top of the stairs.
3. Why Bridget would suggest going to Mrs Whitehead's house.

Currently, I think it was Lizzie alone 90% with the other 10% being Bridget initially agreeing to help with cleanup and not implicating Lizzie as long as Lizzie didn't try to implicate her, but then walking the line protecting herself as much as possible with testimony becoming increasingly confident as the police narrowed in on Lizzie.

[camgarsky4]

I think Lizzie was the planner/instigator for both murders, killed Abby and either she, or an accomplice, killed Andrew.

I do not think Bridget had any active involvement in the crime nor do I think she intentionally lied under oath. I do think she had a miserable morning BEFORE the murders and her sense of time was distorted to a considerable degree.

So if I had to put %'s to it.....100% Lizzie actively involved and 50/50 if someone helped her out with Andrew. View the 50/50 as truly I'm equally divided between if she acted solo or if she had a helper. So that split is in no way meant to minimize my suspicion about another party.

[Inspector]

Ok Cam, so it seems you’ve moved opposite of my suspicion, I seem to remember you at 60/40 that she had an accomplice.
So at 50/50, who do you suspect at present to be the most likely candidate?
I haven’t read Spencer’s theories book yet, but I suspect he did a good job eliminating the usual suspects.

[Lorcan]

The owners of the Miss Lizzie Coffee shop, now located in the Central Congregational Church building will be publicly debuting their theory on Seth & Rich's podcast Sunday at 7PM Eastern. Here is the link with the countdown. Seth has referred to it as an intruder theory, so hopefully they have something actually new to discuss. That same link should become the permanent link to the episode after the live broadcast, which is why I'm posting it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G93XstQOx1o

[Inspector]

I’ve been wondering why Lizzie didn’t have a better alibi for Abby’s murder.
Bridget was out of the house during that time, but if Lizzie planned all this, couldn’t she have something to offer other than her contradictory whereabouts all around, and speaking to Abby just before she went up to put on pillow shams?

Lizzie claims to be out of the house during Andrew’s demise, while Bridget is on the third floor.
If a plan went wrong, Lizzie, depending on one’s opinion, has a better alibi during Andrew’s murder than for Abby.
Did the plan go wrong “before “ Abby’s murder?

Another thought occurred:
Since Lizzie offers information that she saw the guest room door closed, it may suggest that Lizzie closed it herself just before attacking Abby, and then left it open when she exited.
Do y’all believe that would make it harder to hear Abby fall or scream?

[Lorcan]

Wow, I'm just a few minutes in to the Miss Lizzie video and my hope for new evidence or a viable theory have evaporated. A lot of unsupported nonsense being spouted.

[Lorcan]

Inspector - I haven't come to any conclusion as to the root cause of Lizzie not having a consistent, reasonable alibi. There is a possibility that Lizzie was so confident nobody relevant (all male police, all male jury) would suspect she was capable of that level of brutality that she thought her only problem would be cleaning up herself and not getting caught in the act itself. She certainly spoke to the police as if it were obvious she could not be suspected.

[camgarsky4]

Lorcan -- I was excitedly waiting until 7pm to go over to the podcast....sounds like its already posted?

[Lorcan]

He posted it early. What's weird is the link to the countdown at 7 is also there. Not sure what he's doing.

Here's the one that is already posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyCYFo_5XY0


Maybe the live call in show at 7PM is to discuss the shorter video above. I think that's what he did. Now if you are there at 7, you can "Axe" Rich a question in the live chat.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks. Watching now. Is Rich well? He appears almost like he's had a stroke maybe. Hope not. Now back to the exciting reveal!!

[Inspector]

Since yall have been in the house, how about the door?

[camgarsky4]

Since I think Abby was killed when Bridget was in the backyard being ill and after AJB & Morse had left, I don't think there was anyone in the house to hear Abby regardless if door open or not.

But assuming someone was in the kitchen, the guest room open or closed would have be irrelevant. As you move forward in the house (sitting room and front foyer), the door closed might have helped mute noise a bit. There are multiple corners for the noise to navigate to wind its way down to the sitting room and further back in the house, so not sure the status of the door would be essential to remain undetected.

The parlor doors were kept closed, so that would have aided in softening noise of Abby hitting the floor above the parlor. If Bridget had been in the kitchen, not only were the parlor doors kept closed, but the door between kitchen and sitting room was also closed.

[Lorcan]

As for the door, I think it was open when Abby was attacked, since she almost certainly knew her attacker (flap wound from cheek back toward ear, no scream, no defensive wounds). I'm 95% sure whomever the killer was was able to stand alone in a bedroom with Abby, face to face, and not cause her concern. For instance, if Lizzie or Bridget were carrying a hatchet in the middle of a pile of laundry and the first Abby suspected of danger was the flash of silver approaching her face at 40mph, that fits 100% with the evidence.

My 5% uncertainty is if Morse or Bridget or Lizzie let a killer in the previous night and they positioned themselves behind the opened guest room door, they could grab Abby from behind, hold a blade to her throat, and force her to quietly walk toward the drawers under the pretext of a robbery.

All we really know if by the time Mrs. Churchill and Bridget walked up the front stairs the door was open. My guess is it was left open the whole time. Lizzie had no fear whatsoever that Bridget would walk up those stairs without being specifically asked to go there.

[camgarsky4]

Lorcan -- don't forget, the killer could have hid in the secret fireplace in the guest room!!!

Inspector -- that is a podcast joke.

[Lorcan]

While I was watching the Seth & Rich episode, I did some investigating as to which plot Bridget Sullivan is buried in. I found the reverse L shape of concrete supports and then found it on the map. Mount Olivet Cemetery in Anaconda, Montana.

I was in Bozeman when I went to Yellowstone, but it was before I started to investigate the case. Next time I go to Yellowstone, I'll visit Anaconda.

[Inspector]

Those guys really said that?
That’s why I can’t watch those type, who don’t have a filter for facts.
I can understand mistakes, but it happens over and over with them.
I suppose it get likes and followers.

[Lorcan]

If Rich wasn't in his 80s still working as a school teacher, being a former teacher in a jail, and still investigating the Borden case and other true crime cases, I'd cut him less slack. At this point in his life I think he really believes he's defended Lizzie and he is a part of our tiny community of investigators, so let's see if we can put it down to A+++ for sustained elderly effort, D for accuracy.

I don't think he has any bad intentions. He has given us a bit more work to set the record straight on Uncle John.

I was very harsh on Andrew when I first got started on the case. It's hard if not impossible to not form false impressions with this case and sometimes those false impressions stick around if the investigator has too much wrapped up in their theory.

It looks like I'm going to end up with just a heat map of theories with various probabilities associated with them. I'll probably eventually try to organize my notes in two ways, by timeline and by subject. Then I'll color code it by confidence level.

[Lorcan]

I made Rich a map to visualize Dr. Bowen's coachman's testimony. Hopefully that will help.

[camgarsky4]

Just ordered an autographed used copy of Flynn's book.

Lorcan, I'll look thru it and see if Flynn makes any observations on why he didn't think the handleless was the murder weapon. Will post so you can update your thoughts on that hatchet.

Screenshot 2026-08-23 212438.png

[Lorcan]

Thanks, I look forward to hearing what you find out.

Here's why I think the handleless hatchet was the murder weapon for Andrew.

This testimony is very interesting, but not definitive, about the handleless hatchet being the murder weapon for at least Andrew. There is a roughly 3.5 inch assymetric wound in Andrew's skull where the blade that made the would fully penetrated the bone. The width of the lower end of the wound is shallower and narrower than the standard brand new 3.5 inch hatchet. However, the handleless hatchet blade had been ground down in just such a way that it fit through the bone because the lower edge of the blade was both ground shorter and thinner than a new blade. That is very compelling evidence to me. Other's may think not and have good arguments about the angle of the impact or something like that, but to my understanding this wound was a blade that went completely through the bone and they can tell by the chip out angles on the inside of the skull at the edges of the wound.

From Dr. Draper's testimony when the defense tried to use a new hatchet of the same blade size (3 1/2 inches) as the handleless hatchet was originally made - however it had been ground and sharpened over the years, so the particular edge geometry changed from all the grinding.

Melvin Adams: The handleless hatchet is not an uncommon instrument, is it?
Dr. Draper: No, sir.
Q. It has a very general circulation?
A. I think so.
Q. Like some other things. (Producing a new hatchet). Is there anything about that which is out of the ordinary?
A. Nothing that I perceive at present, sir.
Q. Won't you see if you can cut that into the injury or the scar in the skull?
A. (After trying experiment). It does not fit the wound.
Q. Why not?
A. Because it is too blunt at this lower corner and does not go into this passage right here.
Q. That is on account of the grinding?
A. It is on account of the thickness and the grinding.
Q. That is to say, it is not ground enough, in your opinion?
A. It is not.

[Lorcan]

Dr. Koorey's Lizzie Borden Podcast interviewed the executive director of the Venice, Florida theatre about their production of a Lizzie Borden play this Oct 9 - Nov 1. If you are in Florida in October, you might want to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N7hDD33LW8

[camgarsky4]

I'll look into it..will be up in the mountains for the change of the leafs, but should be back down here late october.

[Inspector]

I always enjoy Stefani’s lectures and podcasts.

[Inspector]

I think Rich and his grandson are nice people, and allow their guests to express themselves in a way that isn’t going to be rebuffed or criticized.
Initially I was probably too harsh against Rich, although Rich certainly knows what is factual to the majority of the case, he simply chooses to use the podcast as a friendly way for others to voice themselves.


This creates a friendly atmosphere for all involved while not necessarily holding to the known facts as a guide, or point of contention .

My main complaint with Rich, is the deliberate delivery of certain information as fact, (for instance the substance of the Wednesday night conversation between Abby, Andrew, and Morse) when he cannot possibly know it.

These types of errors are made by others who aren’t well versed in the case, and therefore have an excuse.
As nice a guy as Rich is, I don’t understand why he does this.

He occasionally states that it’s a “theory” and this is my “theory “ so perhaps in his mind, that excuses all his presentation, even though he intertwines supposed fact which is simply not provable.