where did the killer hide?

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:34 pm

I've read somewhere that it took about some 2 hours btw. the murders. Correct??
Did the police investigation give any theories about the whereabouts of the killer during this time?? Did the killer hide in the house, any signs of turbulence during escape, or so??

Was it proven Lizzie and maid Sulliwan was inside the house while Mrs. Borden got killed?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:07 pm

Have you read the Lunday treatment of the case?
You can download it at:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... dBooks.htm

The Mystery Unveiled - 1893 (pdf 388kb)
By Todd Lunday. The full titled is The Mystery Unveiled: The Truth about the Borden Tragedy: Fresh Light That Must Be Convincing to All Readers. A 56-page pamphlet, published immediately after the trial, in which the writer concludes that, with Lizzie Borden acquitted and no other suspect substituted, nobody committed the murders. "Todd Lunday" is the nom de plume for a writer whose actual identity is still unknown.

--It identifies and evaluates the problems that an unknown assailant might encounter while hiding in the house preparing to strike.

As for whether the investigators checked for the possibility of someone hiding in the house, I think after Saturday, when the mayor told Lizzie she was suspected, there was not much more done in that direction by police. The officials took orders from the mayor, after all.

Now, if you ask if Lizzie's defense investigated this possibility, yes they did. They checked to see if a person could hide and took a photo of one hiding in the closet by the front door. They duplicated the position of the body of Abbie lying dead behind the bed and checked to see what could be seen of her from different angles and places on the stairs and the landing.

Anyone think of anythingelse?

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:36 am

No, I haven't read it yet...but I've downloaded all the PDF's from this great site.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:18 pm

In my opinion, the Killer was "hiding" in various places during the 1 1/2 - 2-hour period bewteen murders. First, she was in the guest room, where she hatcheted her stepmother. Then, she went into the hall, where she laughed as Bridget struggled to open the door to let her father in the house. Then, the Killer came downstairs, may have gone to the barn for a while, and hatcheted her father in the living room while he was resting on the sofa. You probably guessed who I believe is the killer. (But, then again, this is just my opinion. I obviously wasn't there.) I'll have to download Lundy's article. It must be interesting.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:25 pm

Well, yeah, Michael - but let's not be like another poster who famously always foists his theory of the case on everyone. This fellow above is obviously following the "outsider" thread of conjecture, and why shouldn't he?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:28 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:25 pm wrote:Well, yeah, Michael - but let's not be like another poster who famously always foists his theory of the case on everyone. This fellow above is obviously following the "outsider" thread of conjecture, and why shouldn't he?

You seem to mellowing with the passage of time. I think people here need more education. Reading Ann Rule's collections of true crime stories will help, also reading the local crime stories in your local newspaper.
If the people in a house or apartment did not kill anyone, it was an intruder. Its that simple.

An intruder killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
An intruder killed Marilyn Sheppard.
An intruder killed Abby and Andy Borden.

The lack of blood spatter and murder weapon should tell you something about any suspect. Don't you all agree?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:31 pm

That has given me something to look into. I don't think I have read where the killer was hiding between murders, provided it was someone other than Lizzie.
If it was Lizzie, she really would not have to hide. She could have gone on about her business, she wouldn't have had a need to hide in her own house. I mean, after all, who is going to suspect her?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:44 pm

Bob, point well taken (although I do not know who the other poster you refer to is). This is why I included the following words in my post: "In my opinion..." and "...this is just my opinion. I obviously wasn't there." To me, it's pretty obvious that Lizzy did it. She had motive. She was probably the only person in the house at the time of the murders. But, then again, this is just my opinion. Having said this, if I was on the jury, I would have acquitted Lizzie. My reasoning is that, in my opinion again, "reasonable doubt" did not exist. Still, this is a fascinating case.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:48 pm

Oops. I meant to say that, in my opinion, "reasonable doubt" DID exist. (It's been a long day.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:57 am

Ray, isn't it true that in domestic murders, (all of the cases you cited are domestic), the family member probably is guilty? Whether by their own hand or by contract. It so often follows, that officials have to investigate and clear the family members first (as well as the person who finds the body).

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:47 pm

Michael @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:48 pm wrote:Oops. I meant to say that, in my opinion, "reasonable doubt" DID exist. (It's been a long day.)

You don't have to apoligize for your opinion. EVERYONE here is mostly giving their opinion. They are all equal, but some are more equal (being better grounded on the facts in this case).

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:51 pm

Kat @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:57 am wrote:Ray, isn't it true that in domestic murders, (all of the cases you cited are domestic), the family member probably is guilty? Whether by their own hand or by contract. It so often follows, that officials have to investigate and clear the family members first (as well as the person who finds the body).

"NO, no, a thousand times NO" as somebody once said about one case.

In the case of Nicole (as far as I know) no police ever questioned her boyfriend, the most likely person to drop in late on Sunday night. Do you or anyone here know anything about this?

In the case of Marilyn, her husbad was picked for the fall guy at once. No other investigation was done. After the trial, when the police no longer banned the defense from the murder scene, a criminologist studied the scene and came up with his analysis.

No need to go over the last case?

PS
Some Comments on Paul Holmes' book "The Sheppard Murder"

Dr. Paul Leland Kirk, a foremost criminologist, came to Cleveland to study the evidence. The blood evidence said a third person was in the murder room, and one bloodstain came from that person. Blood spatter evidence can reconstruct a crime. The lack of blood spatter on a wall tells where the attacker stood. The weapon was about a foot long and wielded with the left hand. Marilyn's teeth fragments did not come from a blow since they were outside the mouth which was undamaged. The blood from the third person was Type O but had delayed agglutination. The absence of blood spatter on Dr. Sam's trousers shows they were not on the murderer. The murder weapon could have been a "heavy flashlight", not a surgical instrument. These technical proofs suggest a murderer other than the defendant. Dr. Sam's injuries could not have been self-inflicted. This newly discovered evidence was rejected (Chapter 28).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:58 am

Yes the family is always suspected first in a domestic murder.
And we have the Menedez brothers, Scott Peterson, Jeffery McDonald, OJ Simpson (liable in a civil trial),Lizzie Borden...
All those female poisoners whose husbands died.
All those husbands-who-kill-their-wives-and-try-to-get-away-with-it (My favorite).
Members of the Kent family (Constance Kent finally confessed).
Fill in the blanks.
You're just being contrary. If not, then you don't know much about murder...
Edit: Oh and Robert Blake was suspected right away...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:07 pm

In the Kent murder, the police suspected an intruder. One policeman pointed suspicion on Constance, but he was ridiculed for blaming a lady! He left the force.
Years later Constance confessed to the killing.

Willkie's "The Moonstone" uses this case as a basis. The police sergeant in this novel was modeled on that tall thin sergeant of police.

I never experienced any murder in my family, nor where I lived. So I guess you can claim I "don't know much". I'm happy with that condition.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:45 am

I recall you pointing to Ann Rule a lot and my favorite books of hers are the *husband-did-it* stories. You've read Ann Rule, right? Plus you're always telling us to *read more.* Admit you argue for argues sake.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:07 pm

Kat @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:57 am wrote:Ray, isn't it true that in domestic murders, (all of the cases you cited are domestic), the family member probably is guilty? Whether by their own hand or by contract. It so often follows, that officials have to investigate and clear the family members first (as well as the person who finds the body).

My highlights. "Probably" reflects the facts that most violent deaths occur in the home, between family and friends. Does this scare you?
But if the inhabitants do not have blood spatter or other evidence against them, its an outside job.
Some months ago I mentioned the case where a husband was outside mowing the lawn, then came inside and found his wife stabbed to death.

What would you say to a case like this?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:09 pm

Kat @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:45 am wrote:I recall you pointing to Ann Rule a lot and my favorite books of hers are the *husband-did-it* stories. You've read Ann Rule, right? Plus you're always telling us to *read more.* Admit you argue for argues sake.

I discuss things to keep my mind agile. More fun than a crossword puzzle.

I am not biased as to my readings. I think Ann Ruhl's collection of magazine articles provides more true crime examples than a book devoted to one crime.
You are free to read otherwise.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:00 pm

If I were the killer I would probably use the large closet at the top of the stairs next to the guest bedroom. I haven't seen the floor layout for some time now but It looked big enough to hide in if I remember correctly.

But, I find it hard to believe a killer would be willing to hide in a strange house for two+ hours hoping to be able to catch Andrew alone when coming out of hiding. It was just a stroke of dumb luck that both Lizzie and Bridget were not in the room during Andrew's killing. That killer could very easily have been trapped in the "closet" for hours waiting for Lizzie and Bridget to leave. A very lucky killer!!!

I feel either it was an inside job or Lizzie was a look-out for the killer in hiding.

-1bigsteve (o:

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:09 pm

It is a nice big closet Steve- but it was locked the day of the murder. Lizzie had the key.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:15 pm

Thank you, Shelley. So Lizzie had control of the closet. So Lizzie could have hid the killer there herself, if there was an outside killer.

Interesting speculation.

-1bigsteve (o:

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:35 pm

She sure could have- and he/she would have been very handy to pop out and rush into the guestroom to attack Abby. The story about the note also could have been not only to keep Andrew from finding Abby upstairs- but also from finding the killer upstairs. Makes a good possibility if you don't believe Lizzie did it herself.

dasdeeboot · Post by **dasdeeboot** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:24 am

i was looking around the house, and im thinking the best place to hide would have been the closet in the sitting room :P

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:38 am

I agree with you on that one. The front hall closet and the diningroom closet are just too shallow and had too much stuff in them. I do believe the 2 bookshelves at the very back of this sittingroom closet may be original and the "library" reference in the crime scene description. This photo does not adequately show just how deep this closet really is. Plus, with the door to the kitchen closed, the only visibility risk would come from the lefthand door into the diningroom.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:41 am

The door could be opened a crack and from across the room, it would not be noticeable.

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:30 pm

I have read some theories that the Jonbenet Ramsey killer may have hidden under the bed in the master bedroom--- and it makes me wonder--- could a killer have hidden under one of the 2nd floor beds in the Borden house? There isn't a great deal of room underneath the guest bed, but I don't know about the other beds in the house.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:27 pm

I saw that program too. It was under the guest bed in the guest room and seems from that vantage point an intruder could see out the hall toward JonBenet's room!

In the Borden case tho, they made such a big deal about Abbie's body being noticed or not depending on where one stood and how much light there was, at least we might assume a killer did not hide there. But the other bedrooms were locked.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:35 pm

I have just read that article from this site. It's great.

libby · Post by **libby** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:45 pm

it seems logical and obvious to me that an "intruder" would have killed lizzie and bridget too. i mean, no one (but the sisters of course) had a motive to smash abby in head, why not kill everybody, then lie in wait for andrew?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:26 pm

Yes, I believe that too. If it was an intruder, the person would have had to kill Lizzie and Bridget. Unless the person didn't know that they were home, but that would have been alittle impossible not to have known they were home. Both Lizzie and Bridget were in and out of the house, so the person would have had to have known they were there. And neither one of them were killed. Makes me think that Lizzie was the one to do the killing and Bridget helped clean up.