A newbie

Manderlay · Post by **Manderlay** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:20 pm

Hi. A newbie.

We have one of the best homocide divisions in the country, in my home town. I believe, without question, they could have solved the Borden case. Let me explain.

Years ago, a man was murdered in his home. Our police department -- after a long, exhaustive, meticulous, leaving no stone unturned investigation -- solved the crime. To everyones amazement, the murderer turned out to be the last person anyone would have suspected: the victim, himself.

This conclusion was nothing short of brilliant. Never mind the fact that the victim was inside a locked room which could only be locked from the outside, and that this was the only entrance, and forget the fact that the victim had been hit in the back of the head with a hammer some fifty odd times. No, this wasn't going to fool them -- this was a suicide, god dang it, and that's all there was too it. A very clever piece of police work, if I do say so myself.

What does all this have to do with the Borden murders, you might ask? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Andrew and Abby Borden --yes you've now guessed it -- Andrew and Abby Borden, murdered themselves. Perhaps it was some weird suicide pact. Lizzie happened upon the scene, and not wanting to have disgrace brought upon the family, hatched a murder scenerio and then disposed of the weapon. Well, you have to admit, it's angle no one has explored; however, I'm sure our brilliant police department would have.

Seriously, I believe Lizzie must have done it, and done it alone, but why would she do it with Bridget home (yes, I know she tried to get Bridget to go out that day)? Even if Bridget was out washing windows at one point and then upstairs napping, later, Lizzie still couldn't be absolutely sure Bridget wouldn't walk in on her during the commision of the crime. Then, again, if Lizze wasn't in her right mind...

For those who think John might have been in on the murders, I was wondering if he had anything to gain? I'm not an expert on "all things Lizzie" the way most of you are.

Also, did Andrew come home that fateful day because he felt ill, or because that was his normal habit?

Sorry about any typos. My spell check won't work and I'm a terrible proof reader. I have no such excuse for my punctuation.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:28 pm

Welcome to the forum, Manderlay! Personally, I've always harbored a nagging suspicion that Abby might have flown through the window on her broom and cut her head on the glass!!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:47 pm

Hi Manderlay, welcome to the forum. Great name BTW. Reminds me of Sinatra singing "Come ye back to Mandelay...."

Believe it or not one of the early reports in a newspaper, the Boston Journal, mentioned a possible murder/suicide theory. The headlines read:

"The Boston Journal, Thursday, August 4, 1892

TRAGIC AFFAIR.

Andrew J. Borden of Fall
River and His Wife

Found Dead and Horribly
Mutilated in Their Home.

Murder and Suicide Theories
Both Advanced."

Sure. Andrew after killing Abby whacked himself in the head 10 times with the murder weapon.

From what we can determine Andrew may have come home a little earlier than normal but not that much. Lizzie and Emma said he normally conducted his business affairs between 11 and 12 when home. Fleet says that Lizzie told him that her father looked "feeble" that day when he returned home so he may have been still ill from the previous day. And I'm sure the heat and the clothing he wore didn't help.

Again, welcome.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:01 pm

The one I got a kick out of was the newspaper article that came out I think about a year after the trial. The paper was more or less making fun of the fact that the police had not solved the murder. So, they printed an article saying Andrew and Abby's heads had exploded due to the extreme August heat.

Manderlay · Post by **Manderlay** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:36 pm

lol, Yooper. Good one.

DWilly, I almost fell off my chair when I read your post.

Harry, thanks for the info. That anyone would ever entertain the idea that it could have been a murder/suicide is mind boggling.

Thanks for the nice welcome, guys.

Oh, by the way, Harry, glad you like my name. It does make one think of Mandelay. In fact, Mandelay probably sounds prettier; perhaps I should have chosen that, instead. Anyway, I've always loved the first line in "Rebecca": Last night I dreamt I went to Manderlay, again. For some reason I've always found it so hauntingly beautiful and mysterious. A great first line, IMHO.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:00 am

HI Mandelay
I have also always wandered about Lizzie doing it and had Bridget around and Bridget not hear or see anything. Maybe she was in on it, or just to frightened to say anything?

Manderlay · Post by **Manderlay** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:47 am

Hi Snokkums,

While I don't think Bridget was in on it, I suppose she could have known more than she let on; but kept it to herself, for whatever reason.

I don't know if there is any truth to this rumor, but I read somewhere that Bridget once told someone, "I never said a word that wasn't true," in regard to the Borden case. An ambiguous statement? If she, indeed, made that statement it could simply have been her way of saying she honestly told all she knew; or, I suppose one could read into it, that though she never told an untruth, there was information she didn't volunteer...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:05 am

Manderlay @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:47 am wrote:Hi Snokkums,

While I don't think Bridget was in on it, I suppose she could have known more than she let on; but kept it to herself, for whatever reason.

I don't know if there is any truth to this rumor, but I read somewhere that Bridget once told someone, "I never said a word that wasn't true," in regard to the Borden case. An ambiguous statement? If she, indeed, made that statement it could simply have been her way of saying she honestly told all she knew; or, I suppose one could read into it, that though she never told an untruth, there was information she didn't volunteer...

The statement implies "the truth, and nothing but the truth", but not "the whole truth". The lawyers didn't seem to want any "volunteered" or "peripheral" comments in the testimony, just straightforward answers to specific questions as they framed them. At times they allowed elaboration, but not always. While it may be necessary to do that in court, it presumes that the lawyers know all of the right questions to ask, which may or not be correct. If the question is never asked, no answer is given, so "the whole truth" could possibly be amended to "the whole truth-as the lawyers want to hear it".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:38 pm

That's true. I think that is the most frustrating part of this whole case.