Why didn't Lizzie just go?

[DWilly]

This is a " What if Lizzie did do it?" type of question. If Lizzie did kill Abby then Andrew then why didn't she just walk out of the house after killing Andrew? Head downstreet or whatever its called to do some shopping. I have no idea how long Bridget usually took her naps but if it was for let's say about 15-20 minutes than Lizzie may have had time to walk out the door and begin setting up her own alibi. If I'm not mistaken, even today it's hard to place a murder right down to the exact minute. So, if Lizzie were out that would have left poor Bridget to find the body after she awoke and she would have been the only other person in the house with both of the bodies at that moment.

Could it be that Lizzie never thought of trying to frame the Irish Bridget?
Maybe Bridget, to a degree, was in on it? Maybe Lizzie just wan't smart enough to think about that?

[Michael]

. . . hindsight is 20/20, particulary if Lizzie did not plan the murders (assuming she committed them at all, and I believe she did). If the murders were committed "in the moment", perhaps Lizzie did not think of leaving the house. It was, after all, an emotionally jarring thing to do.

Here's my theory of what happened: Lizzie believed that Abbey was going to receive more of an inheritance than her (Lizzie). Therefore, she planned to kill Abbey and then leave the house; however, Andrew came home earlier than expected, probably due to the fact that he wasn't feeling well that day. When Lizzie found that Andrew was home, she knew that she couldn't leave the house (and thus have an alibi), without her father suspecting that she committed the murders. Therefore, Lizzie killed Andrew, as well, because: a) She couldn't face him, knowing that he knew that she killed Abbey; b) Lizzie felt that she needed to kill Andrew, in order to avoid being caught "red handed"; or c) a combination of a and b above...But, then again, this is just my theory.

[Angel]

I've always tried to get a handle on her thinking also, and really can't. I too feel that Abby was the intended victim and Andrew was an unexpected development. However, she still had time to go out into town and be seen. It would have made much more sense. But then, if she was so worked up emotionally, especially with having to unexpectedly do in her father, she may have been in shock and couldn't think logically about how it would look to others. And maybe she was so rattled that she couldn't trust herself to act casual while she was shopping and meeting people on the streets. If she stayed home and looked rattled it would be expected because everyone knew she had just found her battered father.

[Shelley]

I also wonder if she knew John was coming back for dinner at noon. We don't know if she was told that by Abby, do we? If she did know it, she would not have known just when he would come back. What a great thing it would have been for her to be out shopping after the murders, then John walk in and find the bodies with Bridget dozing upstairs! I bet he would have been regarded with even more suspicion than he initially was.

[Angel]

That's an interesting thought. Maybe she was afraid she would meet up with him on the street so he would know she had just left two corpses. Or, for that matter, she may have been aware enough to realize that if someone did see her leaving the house they would be able to pinpoint a time, which would not work in her favor

[Kat]

Yes I think you may have answered yourself.
My thought was the same- that Lizzie would have been seen if she did leave. She probably knew this.
She only tried to place herself outside on the (back) property, yard or barn.
There must have been a reason for that.

[Shelley]

I wish someone had noted how many places were set at the diningroom table. If Bridget set the table and did not know John was coming back to eat, there would have been three places set, four if Bridget knew John was coming back. Of course maybe Abby set the table. I suppose at the time, nobody was looking at place settings.

[snokkums]

I think Lizzie didn't think that she was going to get accused of murdering her parents, so she didn't think to leave. Or another sceniro would be that she was acting out of rage, and just wasn't thinking clearly. You know, temporary insanity.

[Smudgeman]

If she had of been successful in getting Bridget out of the house, she could have just said she was not there when all this happened, but as Kat mentioned, someone would have seen her, and she would have this whole timing issue. What if Uncle John had returned before Andrew arrived and Abby was already dead? Would we have 3 victims?

[Kat]

That's a good point, because we forget Lizzie did attempt to get Bridget away from the house. What do you guys foresee as a result if Bridget had left?

[Smudgeman]

Maybe Lizzie was planning on leaving after Abby was dead. She tried to get Bridget out of the house, and according to Lizzie if you believe her, she had her hat on sometime in between when she says she was out in the backyard or barn. That tells me she was planning on leaving. Who knows where she really was during this period, but I think if she had gotten Bridget to leave, she would have left herself, before Andrew arrived home and claimed she was out of the house the entire morning, well up until the last time Bridget saw her. That was a problem for her and she probably knew it, so on to plan B. The last time Bridget saw or heard her was at the top of the stairs when Andrew arrived home right? I think Lizzie knew she couldn't very well leave now, so she said she was outside. She had to say that, otherwise that puts her right at the murder scene of Andrew.

[snokkums]

But if Lizzie left after abby was dead that would give the impression that she did do it.Trying to get Bridget to leave,to me, just adds too that fact. Maybe I am wrong, that's just the way I am looking at it.

[Kat]

I think the last Bridget says she saw or heard of Lizzie was when Lizzie asked her if she was going to go to Sargent's for the sale, which point you did rightly make yourself, Scott.

The hat seems like a good indicator that Lizzie thought she'd be leaving the property.

If she could have gone out after Abbie was killed, since we have some kind of proof that Lizzie was not aware of expert's being able to estimate time of death- especially after a gap of time- then she could leave without worrying about that part of it.

[snokkums]

I ithink that she didn't leave because she didn't think that she would be a suspect. She didn't think that she would get caught. I think that she thought that she had to stay to get rid of her father because she killed abby, and she didn't know how to explain to her father that she did it. If she'd of left, she still would have had to explain to her father what happened and why.

[RayS]

Note how Arnold Brown's explanation of a Secret Visitor answers all these questions w/o any leftover parts that don't fit?

Lizzie went outside to give Andy privacy. She tried to get Bridget to leave for the same reason. Was Bridget in the habit of resting in her room?

I will admit that I have no proof that it happened that way, its just that its the best answer to this unsolved murder, and always will be.

[DWilly]

Note how Arnold Brown's explanation of a Secret Visitor answers all these questions w/o any leftover parts that don't fit?

Lizzie went outside to give Andy privacy. She tried to get Bridget to leave for the same reason. Was Bridget in the habit of resting in her room?

I will admit that I have no proof that it happened that way, its just that its the best answer to this unsolved murder, and always will be.

I don't trust Brown. I think he was a fraud. And here is why:

1. Brown claimed to have received Hawthorne's memoirs. If that is true then where are they? To this day those memoirs have never even been shown to exist.

2. Brown claims the Mellon House Gang was behind everything. Yet, Brown does not produce one single piece of evidence to verify that. He doesn't even say who told him about the alleged meetings or what if anything was said. As far as we know he made it up just like he made everything else up.

3. I find it ridiculous to think that Lizzie and Bridget let this so called "Secret Visitor in and then just sat around while some nut ball runs around the house slaughtering people. Wouldn't they have been afraid that at some point he would come after them?

4. I especially don't buy the nutty story that Lizzie would take the fall for William. No way.


There is no proof for Brown's so called theory.

[Smudgeman]

Note how Arnold Brown's explanation of a Secret Visitor answers all these questions w/o any leftover parts that don't fit?

Lizzie went outside to give Andy privacy. She tried to get Bridget to leave for the same reason. Was Bridget in the habit of resting in her room?

I will admit that I have no proof that it happened that way, its just that its the best answer to this unsolved murder, and always will be.

No, I don't "note" anything about a secret visitor that solves everything. Do you think Lizzie would give Andrew some privacy without worrying about Bridget barging in on the affair? Wouldn't she be making sure where Bridget was instead of wandering out into the backyard? Yes, I do believe Bridget would probably rest in her room at every opportunity she could get.
We all know what your best answer is to everything, but why must you shove it down our throats? Others here do not buy into your way of thinking and you seem to think by mentioning Brown in every thread that is started will change our minds. Well, your plan in NOT working.

[RayS]

...
I don't trust Brown. I think he was a fraud. And here is why:

1. Brown claimed to have received Hawthorne's memoirs. If that is true then where are they? To this day those memoirs have never even been shown to exist.

2. Brown claims the Mellon House Gang was behind everything. Yet, Brown does not produce one single piece of evidence to verify that. He doesn't even say who told him about the alleged meetings or what if anything was said. As far as we know he made it up just like he made everything else up.

3. I find it ridiculous to think that Lizzie and Bridget let this so called "Secret Visitor in and then just sat around while some nut ball runs around the house slaughtering people. Wouldn't they have been afraid that at some point he would come after them?

4. I especially don't buy the nutty story that Lizzie would take the fall for William. No way.

There is no proof for Brown's so called theory.

Somebody here can answer #1 by telling where these memoirs are supposed to be today. Somebody else got them after Brown.
#2 a conspiracy by the town leaders is never written down for later discovery; a secret is kept by not telling anyone. But you can analyze the events and reconstruct what happened. Don't detectives do this every day?
#3 is your own wrongful statement. Read the book.
#4 is explained in Part 2 and 4 of "Brown's Theory ...". I hope you can read it and take notes. Lizzie didn't "take the fall", she was found not guilty. I'll bet that if she knew what her silence would result in she would've told all that first hour. IMO

[RayS]

...
No, I don't "note" anything about a secret visitor that solves everything. Do you think Lizzie would give Andrew some privacy without worrying about Bridget barging in on the affair? Wouldn't she be making sure where Bridget was instead of wandering out into the backyard? Yes, I do believe Bridget would probably rest in her room at every opportunity she could get.
We all know what your best answer is to everything, but why must you shove it down our throats? Others here do not buy into your way of thinking and you seem to think by mentioning Brown in every thread that is started will change our minds. Well, your plan in NOT working.

Obviously we have a difference in analysis and outlook.
Are you very, very sure that Lizzie didn't tell Bridget to rest upstairs until they called for her? (The simplest explanation.)

I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my logical defense of Brown's Theory. It alone can solve this unsolved mystery. Has anyone else published a better book?

PS Are you really upset in having to question me?

[Smudgeman]

Rays said "PS Are you really upset with having to question me?"


It is this type of comment that really leads us to your state of mind and character.

[DWilly]

I also wonder if she knew John was coming back for dinner at noon. We don't know if she was told that by Abby, do we? If she did know it, she would not have known just when he would come back. What a great thing it would have been for her to be out shopping after the murders, then John walk in and find the bodies with Bridget dozing upstairs! I bet he would have been regarded with even more suspicion than he initially was.

I agree. That's why I can't understand why Lizzie just didn't clean up and get out of the house after killing Andrew. Why wake up Bridget? Why didn't she just let someone else find Andrew's body? Lizzie could have been out setting up her own alibi. Yes, people would have seen her. They also would have seen she had no blood on her. Would have helped with her alibi.

[DWilly]

...
I don't trust Brown. I think he was a fraud. And here is why:

1. Brown claimed to have received Hawthorne's memoirs. If that is true then where are they? To this day those memoirs have never even been shown to exist.

2. Brown claims the Mellon House Gang was behind everything. Yet, Brown does not produce one single piece of evidence to verify that. He doesn't even say who told him about the alleged meetings or what if anything was said. As far as we know he made it up just like he made everything else up.

3. I find it ridiculous to think that Lizzie and Bridget let this so called "Secret Visitor in and then just sat around while some nut ball runs around the house slaughtering people. Wouldn't they have been afraid that at some point he would come after them?

4. I especially don't buy the nutty story that Lizzie would take the fall for William. No way.

There is no proof for Brown's so called theory.

Somebody here can answer #1 by telling where these memoirs are supposed to be today. Somebody else got them after Brown.
#2 a conspiracy by the town leaders is never written down for later discovery; a secret is kept by not telling anyone. But you can analyze the events and reconstruct what happened. Don't detectives do this every day?
#3 is your own wrongful statement. Read the book.
#4 is explained in Part 2 and 4 of "Brown's Theory ...". I hope you can read it and take notes. Lizzie didn't "take the fall", she was found not guilty. I'll bet that if she knew what her silence would result in she would've told all that first hour. IMO

Ok, let me get this straight. I ask about the memoirs and you respond with a "somebody" can answer and "somebody" has them. In other words you have no clue where or even if such memoirs exist.

I ask about what proof there is that the Mellon House gang/Town Leaders were involved and you admit no such proof exists. In other words, Brown made it all up. He created scenes in his book that never happened and then didn't tell his readers what he was doing. That's fraud in my book.

Btw, I read the book. I told you that before. The book makes good fiction but bad history.

[Smudgeman]

It is because he is full of hot air Dwilly, he has NEVER backed up his claims and he never will. We are to take him at his word, his faded memory of something he read years ago. A total joke. Dismissed.

[Kat]

Well somebody around here noted that every topic degenerates into a thing about Brown and they were right. (As usual.)

This thing is so prevalant and ubiquitous and insidious that we are rebelling like all good children finally do, Ray. That means that the more you talk about Brown and his theories the more we dislike Brown and his theories. If that is the intent, you have succeeded admirably!

Do you think Brown would be proud of you?

[DWilly]

Well somebody around here noted that every topic degenerates into a thing about Brown and they were right. (As usual.)

This thing is so prevalant and ubiquitous and insidious that we are rebelling like all good children finally do, Ray. That means that the more you talk about Brown and his theories the more we dislike Brown and his theories. If that is the intent, you have succeeded admirably!

Do you think Brown would be proud of you?

The thing about the Brown Theory that bothers me is the huge holes in it. Ray, chooses to ignore those holes and look the other way. When asked about Brown's lack of proof for his Mellon House Gang Theory, Ray dismisses such questions with the non answer of how if we just understood how government works we'd know Brown is right.

[DWilly]

But if Lizzie left after abby was dead that would give the impression that she did do it.Trying to get Bridget to leave,to me, just adds too that fact. Maybe I am wrong, that's just the way I am looking at it.

Well, what I'm looking at is if Lizzie left the house around 9:30 that would give her about an hour to be out of the house and seen somewhere else. From what I understand they didn't fix the murder right down to the exact minute.

[snokkums]

I hadn't looked at it like that. It would establish an alibi. But she would have had to leave like that too after Andrew, or at least be out in the back yard or something-- to be seen outside the house-- to make another alibi. I think that might have been too complicated. And to get cleaned up and then be outside after both murders-- too much work for me, to make it look like I didn't do something.

[RayS]

...

Ok, let me get this straight. I ask about the memoirs and you respond with a "somebody" can answer and "somebody" has them. In other words you have no clue where or even if such memoirs exist.

I ask about what proof there is that the Mellon House gang/Town Leaders were involved and you admit no such proof exists. In other words, Brown made it all up. He created scenes in his book that never happened and then didn't tell his readers what he was doing. That's fraud in my book.

Btw, I read the book. I told you that before. The book makes good fiction but bad history.

The clue to the memoirs is found in old postings. Somebody said they were given to a Terrence (?), who is also now gone.

Actually, if you know something about how local politics work, you'd know Brown's description of how the city leaders work would be dead right.
Brown didn't make anything up, you can read about it if you can find the uncensored history books. Didn't Lincoln Steffens write about "The Shame of the Cities" about a century ago?

I gues the discussion is now closed.

[RayS]

Well somebody around here noted that every topic degenerates into a thing about Brown and they were right. (As usual.)

This thing is so prevalant and ubiquitous and insidious that we are rebelling like all good children finally do, Ray. That means that the more you talk about Brown and his theories the more we dislike Brown and his theories. If that is the intent, you have succeeded admirably!

Do you think Brown would be proud of you?

The thing about the Brown Theory that bothers me is the huge holes in it. Ray, chooses to ignore those holes and look the other way. When asked about Brown's lack of proof for his Mellon House Gang Theory, Ray dismisses such questions with the non answer of how if we just understood how government works we'd know Brown is right.

This question has been answered again.
It is how your local city politics worked then, and probably now.
Money influences politics, alway has.

[Kat]

In my estimation, after Abbie was killed, if Lizzie left and established an alibi- because as Dwilly says they couldn't tell the exact minute Abbie died- then she could only be interested in covering herself for the passionate, hate-filled killing of her stepmother, and never would have returned to kill Andrew at all.

Because if she had an alibi that was acceptable, then she wouldn't need to kill Andrew for the reason always stated- which is that she had to kill him, else he would know who it was that killed Abbie. He might always wonder, but he wouldn't know, just like us. And he had outlived his average expiration date already and w/o a wife he might be more bendable to the girl's wishes and wants.

I would be asking why did Andrew have to die if the intended victim was Abbie?
I've always wondered that.

[snokkums]

In my estimation, after Abbie was killed, if Lizzie left and established an alibi- because as Dwilly says they couldn't tell the exact minute Abbie died- then she could only be interested in covering herself for the passionate, hate-filled killing of her stepmother, and never would have returned to kill Andrew at all.

Because if she had an alibi that was acceptable, then she wouldn't need to kill Andrew for the reason always stated- which is that she had to kill him, else he would know who it was that killed Abbie. He might always wonder, but he wouldn't know, just like us. And he had outlived his average expiration date already and w/o a wife he might be more bendable to the girl's wishes and wants.

I would be asking why did Andrew have to die if the intended victim was Abbie?

And I have to admit, if she left, then why come back. Her alibi was estasblishe, then why come back to kill andy? Unless she was worried about having to explain what happened/
I've always wondered that.

[Smudgeman]

...

Ok, let me get this straight. I ask about the memoirs and you respond with a "somebody" can answer and "somebody" has them. In other words you have no clue where or even if such memoirs exist.

I ask about what proof there is that the Mellon House gang/Town Leaders were involved and you admit no such proof exists. In other words, Brown made it all up. He created scenes in his book that never happened and then didn't tell his readers what he was doing. That's fraud in my book.

Btw, I read the book. I told you that before. The book makes good fiction but bad history.

The clue to the memoirs is found in old postings. Somebody said they were given to a Terrence (?), who is also now gone.

Actually, if you know something about how local politics work, you'd know Brown's description of how the city leaders work would be dead right.
Brown didn't make anything up, you can read about it if you can find the uncensored history books. Didn't Lincoln Steffens write about "The Shame of the Cities" about a century ago?

I gues the discussion is now closed.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You want us to to find uncensored history books to read so we can agree with you? And if the clue to the memoirs is in an old posting, we are supposed to dig and try to find it?Why don't you have that information available professor?

[theebmonique]

Ray doesn't have the information. Period. He thinks he can trick us into looking for it for him. If he had it he would post it over and over and over and over...etc..





Tracy...

[RayS]

In my estimation, after Abbie was killed, if Lizzie left and established an alibi- because as Dwilly says they couldn't tell the exact minute Abbie died- then she could only be interested in covering herself for the passionate, hate-filled killing of her stepmother, and never would have returned to kill Andrew at all.

Because if she had an alibi that was acceptable, then she wouldn't need to kill Andrew for the reason always stated- which is that she had to kill him, else he would know who it was that killed Abbie. He might always wonder, but he wouldn't know, just like us. And he had outlived his average expiration date already and w/o a wife he might be more bendable to the girl's wishes and wants.

I would be asking why did Andrew have to die if the intended victim was Abbie?
I've always wondered that.

Because the original target was Andy. Abby just got in the way.
You can see this theme developed in many novels and films.

BTW why did so many witnesses to the events of 11-22-1963 die suddenly in the coming weeks and months?

[RayS]

Ray doesn't have the information. Period. He thinks he can trick us into looking for it for him. If he had it he would post it over and over and over and over...etc..

Tracy...

You are being wrong again, contrarily IMO.
The stories about local politics should be in your local newspaper, if its not censored or covered up. "Local zoning board grants variance" is a hint.

Arnold Brown must have heard many stories about politics in Detroit. Remember how they razed 600 acres of a city (square mile) to build a new automotive plant? Then changed their minds?

Ever read about the 'eminent domain' controversies? I guess people won't learn if they don't want to learn?

[Yooper]

In my estimation, after Abbie was killed, if Lizzie left and established an alibi- because as Dwilly says they couldn't tell the exact minute Abbie died- then she could only be interested in covering herself for the passionate, hate-filled killing of her stepmother, and never would have returned to kill Andrew at all.

Because if she had an alibi that was acceptable, then she wouldn't need to kill Andrew for the reason always stated- which is that she had to kill him, else he would know who it was that killed Abbie. He might always wonder, but he wouldn't know, just like us. And he had outlived his average expiration date already and w/o a wife he might be more bendable to the girl's wishes and wants.

I would be asking why did Andrew have to die if the intended victim was Abbie?
I've always wondered that.

If Lizzie had intended to leave after killing Abby in order to establish an alibi, she simply ran out of time. Lizzie said she "couldn't do anything in a minute", so perhaps she ran out of time changing clothes, cleaning up, etc. Andrew possibly arrived sooner than anticipated, or maybe Abby was killed later than 9:30, or both.

My best guess is that Lizzie knew that Andrew would immediately suspect her if she had been in the house with Abby all morning. When he arrived to find Lizzie still in the house, he had to be gotten rid of. I have to wonder what might have happened if Andrew had not taken a nap or if Bridget had not gone upstairs, assuming that information is accurate.

[Smudgeman]

Hi Yooper!

I think Lizzie was planning on leaving after Abby's murder, but when her Father came home before she could leave she went into "panic mode". She had no other choice to kill him before he could figure out she killed Abby.

[Smudgeman]

edit-duplicate post

[Shelley]

I wish I could have had a good look at those pillow slips Abby was working on to see how far her work had progressed. I wonder if they needed running up on the sides and were hand hemmed or just what. Knowing that would give me some idea of maybe how long she was up in that guestroom. I am trying to recall where I read there was a yardstick found at her side on the floor.

Yes, I would agree, as we have mutually surmised before, or some of us have, -that things did not go as planned on the morning of August 4th. If Bridget had not gone up to lie down, I bet Lizzie would have found another pretense to get her out of the way. She may have even sent her over to Mrs. Whitehead's to get Abby. I have always found it very intriguing that Bridget pipes right up after the body of Andrew is found and asks if she ought to go get Mrs. Borden if someone will tell her where the Whitehead house is. That tells me that Abby was a frequent guest there to the point the maid automatically assumed that if Abby was out- she most likely was to be found there.

And I would bet that Andrew being feeble and ill, she knew he would rest until lunch. He may have even stretched out routinely on the day bed or couch when he came home before lunch-I don't believe that ever came up at the trial but it is a question I would have asked.

I am trying to imagine Uncle John coming back early and walking right into that whole business! What an eyeopener! I really wish someone had noticed if a place had been set for John, or if Lizzie knew John was coming back to eat. We don't know if Abby told her and I am not sure Bridget knew, but someone could have counted the place settings as the table was set for lunch. Oh-to be let loose on that crime scene!!!

[Susan]

Shelley, according to Bridget's Preliminary testimony, she always kept the dining room table set for a meal after she washed the dishes. Though she doesn't say how many place settings there were. Were there only four place settings for the occupants of the house? Was there 6 chairs at the table instead of just four which would neccessitate 6 place settings on the table at the ready at all times?

Preliminary, volume 1, page 23:

Q. Was the table in the middle of the room?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Was it set with dishes?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. You kept it set all the time?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. You did not clear it away, and put on a red cloth, or something, but kept it set all the time?
A. Yes Sir.

[Shelley]

Yes, I was recalling that bit of testimony- and also John mentions the whiteware dishes I believe. With Emma away, there should have been 3 place settings. Sometimes Lizzie would eat at table with Andrew and Abby and Bridget probably never knew when or if so set a place in case. If that table was set for 4, that would indicate to me that Abby had told her John was coming back. Mostly I want to know if Lizzie had any clue John was coming back as she had never spoken to her Uncle at that point.

If neither Abby nor Bridget had told her this, Lizzie might have surmised it from seeing the extra place set at the table. If she thought her Uncle might be coming back at some unknown time- that fact may have influenced her actions.

[Yooper]

Could Lizzie have overheard Andrew invite John back to lunch as John was leaving? The number of place settings would be a good indicator of how many were expected for lunch. Good thing there were more than two when the police arrived!

[Kat]

If Lizzie killed Andrew and cleaned up everything within 20 minutes, why couldn't she have killed Abbie and cleaned up in a bit less than 90 minutes, in order to get away?

Abbie is the intended victim- because of the overkill. And no-one had it in for Abbie except for Emma and Lizzie- That was pretty much agreed upon.

But I'm not convinced Lizzie did it. Just showing that there was plently of time to clean up and leave before Andrew came home, *early* or not. (I'm not convinced he was even *early.*)

[Kat]

Does Bridget set a place for herself, altho she takes Andrew's chair at the table when the family is finished?

[Shelley]

I am positive that Bridget would have eaten leftovers in the kitchen- not dine with her employers. That was the norm in a household in 1892-there was a clearly-defined social order and protocol for living daily life. Lizzie had time "to kill" for Abby. With Andrew, it was a different story. Bridget would be expecting Abby , Andrew and maybe Uncle John back to sit down for the noonday meal. I think John had gone out about 8:45, before Lizzie came down, so she would not have heard an invitation for John to come back to eat at noon unless she was told that by Abby or Bridget or figured it out by seeing an extra place setting.

Andrew's murder had to be done with no time to spare. I have always thought his killing was a murder of neccesity, and he was dispatched quickly, and I think having already had a "trial run" with the first time around, the second killing was far more efficient.

[Yooper]

Another point to be made is that an adrenaline rush would have been a problem after Abby's murder, but it was helpful after Andrew's murder. How long does it take to overcome the "shakes"?

[Angel]

But, if she was able to disassociate, that would explain why she seemed calm to Bridget, talking about fabric sales and whatnot.

[Yooper]

Angel,
Would an ability to disassociate overcome a physical manifestation like an adrenaline rush, sort of "mind over matter"? I really know nothing about psychology or mental disorders.

It could be that going out in public required more fussing and primping than remaining in the house, so who knows how long that may have taken. She may have changed her dress between the murders and possibly took time to spot clean one of them. Andrew's murder took about half of the hatchet blows, maybe there was little cleanup necessary in that case.

[Angel]

I'm not sure. I remember one time when I was young I was standing on a chair trying to put a star on top of a Christmas tree. I lost my balance and fell. I think I kind of disassociated at that point because it was almost like I was watching myself fall in slow motion. I didn't get scared because it didn't feel like me that was falling. Maybe that's what it is like, I don't know. The feeling disappeared only after I had hit the ground and was lying there for a little while.

[Kat]

I am positive that Bridget would have eaten leftovers in the kitchen- not dine with her employers. That was the norm in a household in 1892-there was a clearly-defined social order and protocol for living daily life.

Of course you are right that Bridget would not dine with her employers. But I didn't say she would- I recall that she would sit at Andrew's place in the dining room and have her breakfast when the family retired from the room. I wondered if she had set herself a place or if she brought her place setting in with her own plate to eat.
Lizzie, actually ate in the kitchen and Bridget in the dining room! A bit backwards, eh?

Trial
Bridget
222
Q. After the breakfast was completed do you know where those three went or either of them?
A. Well, I guess they must go in the sitting-room. The bell rang, and when I went in there was nobody in the dining-room.

Q. The bell from the table, do you mean?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Indicating that the breakfast had been completed?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they had gone from the dining-room at that time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I sat down and had my breakfast.

Q. Did you have your breakfast in the dining-room?
A. Yes, sir.

--We know Bridget sat at Andrew's place- I think it was also mentioned here before lately. I'm just not finding that at the moment.