Maybe Lizzie did get a hold of some poisening

[snokkums]

I was on another Lizzie website, and I got to thinking. With everyone complaining about having upset stomachs due to some kind of food posioning, maybe Lizzie did get ahold of some kind of posion. Not being that familar poison, maybe there was something she could have gotten without going thru the pharmacist.

What is everyones thought on this?

[FairhavenGuy]

That's certainly a possibility, although many people don't think that a poisoner would switch to a hatchet.

As much as I'd like to blame Lizzie for the sickness, food-related illnesses during the summer was very, very common before modern refrigeration.

[snokkums]

That's certainly a possibility, although many people don't think that a poisoner would switch to a hatchet.

As much as I'd like to blame Lizzie for the sickness, food-related illnesses during the summer was very, very common before modern refrigeration.

Mzybe you are right. But, if Lizzie wanted to get rid of her stepmother and her father, she might have stopped at nothing to get rid of them So for me, it is possible to jump from poison to a hatchet.

But, you are right about food related illnesses back then, so that could be a possiblity too.That was probably more of what happened to everyone. I just it was possible to have the poison angle.

[Uozumi]

Hello everyone,
I'm new to the forum. I love reading what everyone thinks.

Recently, I was thinking about the times of death for Andrew and Abby. I have read that the two ways they used to find the times of death were widely used during that time period but inaccurate. I think they are correct. Could Lizzie have found a way to poison Abby?

Possibly, Abby died as early as they said but wasn't hacked up until after Andrew got home, so the killer had his coat to wear over his/her clothing. This is not what I think happened, I just think it is a likely way to do it and still stay relatively clean. The killer might not have even needed the coat because blood doesn't gush as much after a body is dead for awhile. That could explain why everyone was sick prior to the killings and why there wasn't as much blood spatters as expected. What do you all think about the times of death? Do you think they are correct? Does anyone know of any fanatics that take this view? I'm interested in reading more into this.

It sounds like I am making a simple thing, more complicated than it could ever have been. Don't worry I have a million more theories crazier than this one.

Steph Farra

[snokkums]

Hello everyone,
I'm new to the forum. I love reading what everyone thinks.

Recently, I was thinking about the times of death for Andrew and Abby. I have read that the two ways they used to find the times of death were widely used during that time period but inaccurate. I think they are correct. Could Lizzie have found a way to poison Abby?

Possibly, Abby died as early as they said but wasn't hacked up until after Andrew got home, so the killer had his coat to wear over his/her clothing. This is not what I think happened, I just think it is a likely way to do it and still stay relatively clean. The killer might not have even needed the coat because blood doesn't gush as much after a body is dead for awhile. That could explain why everyone was sick prior to the killings and why there wasn't as much blood spatters as expected. What do you all think about the times of death? Do you think they are correct? Does anyone know of any fanatics that take this view? I'm interested in reading more into this.

It sounds like I am making a simple thing, more complicated than it could ever have been. Don't worry I have a million more theories crazier than this one.

Steph Farra

First, welcome to the forum, we're a great bunch of people!

Well, I think anything is possible. It could have been possible that,with everyone having stomach problems and getting sick that maybe Lizzie got hold of some rat poison, a poisoned everyones food. And just put more in Andys and Abbys plate than everyone else. And just for good measure, so it wouldn't look like someone was trying to kill them, poison everyones food. Or it could have just been the food was spoiled; we'll never know, but as I said, anything is possible.

Abby could have been poisoned, and while she was in the guest room making it up, decided to lay down, then the murderer came in.

Oops Letting my imagination run away with me But, as I said, anything could have happened. The police didn't do a good job of securing the area like they do now.

[Harry]

Hi Steph, welcome to the forum.

The time of Andrew's death is fairly well established. The testimony of the two workers, Mather and Shortsleeves, pretty much settle it that he arrived home about 10:45 that morning. The call to the police station at 11:15 narrows the killing between those two times.

If Bridget is telling the truth and that she went upstairs a few minutes before 11 and he was still alive (as far as she knew) that narrows it even further. Probably somewhere around 11.

Abby's time is less certain. The medical testimony all states that she died 1 to 2 hours earlier. So that brings her time of death between 9 and 10. She was last seen going upstairs about 9. That no one seen her after that is strong evidence to support her being killed between those times. Of course this is if you believe Lizzie and Bridget.

Masterton debates the accuracy of the time of Abby's death. Have you read his book?

Again, welcome.

[Uozumi]

Thank you all for the kind welcome.

Steph Farra

[twinsrwe]

Well, you're right Robin, anything is possible. However, it is more likely that the illness was related to spoiled food, as opposed to poison. It was Bridget's job to prepare and serve the food; it would have been pretty tricky for Lizzie to have poisoned everyone's food except her own without anyone being in the kitchen with her. I just can not see Lizzie helping to prepare a meal, let alone, having the time required to place poison on the food before it is served. I highly doubt Lizzie had anything to do with the preparation, serving, or clean-up of the meals. When would she have had the to opportunity to poison the food?

Hi Steph, welcome to the forum - I hope you enjoy it.

[doug65oh]

Welcome to our little corner of the zoo, Steph. I've been thinking a bit about the scenario you present. Is it your premise that Mrs. Borden was dead by poison before the hatchet job? If I'm understanding you correctly and that's right, any effective poison would have ceased (among other functions) her digestive process and also blood flow. Once the heartbeat ceases... See what I'm getting at? There would be virtually no gushing at all anyway if Mrs. Borden was already dead by poisoning it seems to me - there'd be more blood all over her than anything else...but it's all over the floor as we see in the Walsh photos.

[Yooper]

Hi Steph, welcome! Please don't worry about a "fanatical" viewpoint, we all have them! We all have our pet hypotheses and biases, that's what makes the forum interesting.

I think the totality of the evidence surrounding Abby's death probably indicates the time of death is correct as estimated at the time, between 9am and 10am. The estimate was based upon the blood evidence, the body temperature, and the degree of digestion which had taken place. Granted, they didn't use a thermometer, but I expect experienced physicians could probably tell the difference between cold and warm.

The blood spatter evidence or rather the lack of it on Lizzie, is always good for a somewhat heated discussion! I'll offer one perspective and let someone else with a dissenting view argue the other side.

First, there seems to be a distinct lack of information about blood spatter during hatchet murders, even today. It is hard to know what to expect, and often a subjective view is taken. The expectation is that the murderer must have had blood on them, and while this seems logical, there is no real basis for it. Given the ferocity of the attacks, there was remarkably little blood spatter in the Borden case.

Nearly all of the witnesses questioned about whether there was blood on Lizzie responded with "not that I noticed" or "I didn't see any" or something like that. That addresses their powers of observation, not the fact of blood or lack of blood on Lizzie. No one stated definitively "No, there was no blood whatsoever on Lizzie because I looked for it". These same witnesses could not remember what Lizzie's dress looked like, most could not describe it in any detail. How far can you stretch to accept the idea that "I can't remember the dress, and I didn't notice any blood" means there was no blood on Lizzie?

The people questioned about the blood evidence were not looking for it at the time. Lizzie was thought of as a victim at first, not a suspect. There was no real reason to be particularly sensitive to the idea of Lizzie having blood on her. They were not expecting to see it and were not looking for it. I'm not a bit surprised that no one remembered seeing any blood on Lizzie under the circumstances.

[Uozumi]

Well, you're right Robin, anything is possible. However, it is more likely that the illness was related to spoiled food, as opposed to poison. It was Bridget's job to prepare and serve the food; it would have been pretty tricky for Lizzie to have poisoned everyone's food except her own without anyone being in the kitchen with her. I just can not see Lizzie helping to prepare a meal, let alone, having the time required to place poison on the food before it is served. I highly doubt Lizzie had anything to do with the preparation, serving, or clean-up of the meals. When would she have had the to opportunity to poison the food?

Hi Steph, welcome to the forum - I hope you enjoy it.

Lizzie said herself that she didn't eat breakfast. Then again Bridget said she ate some cookies. Either way, she didn't eat what everyone else ate. Then again, it didn't have to be in the food either. I'm really curious. I don't think it was a strong poison if Abby was given any at all but it seems it would be simpler if Abby was already dead. Goodness, I wish we all could have an in person debate with all of this! This is so interesting.
Steph Farra

[Harry]

On August 23, 1892, two days before the beginning of the Preliminary hearing, Prof. Wood wrote a letter to Knowlton in which he discusses his initial findings on the Borden stomachs. The letter appears in the Knowlton papers, page 30+ (HK019). In part it reads:

"I have completed today a very careful analysis of both stomachs for Prussic acid but none is present. Had death been due to that poison I should have found it, because the stomachs have been tightly enclosed in glass bottles, moreover I see no reason for suspecting that Mr. or Mrs. Borden were dead before the blows were inflicted on their heads."

Further on:

"The stomachs of both Mr. & Mrs. Borden were perfectly healthy in appearance and showed no evidence of the action of any poison - The stomachs were neither congested nor irritated, so that I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of your preliminary hearing to make an analysis to prove the absence of ordinary poisons - Prussic acid is the only ordinary poison which would kill immediately within 15 minutes & leave no marks (either congestion or irritation) except in very rare cases & under rare circumstances. If an indictment should be found, it will then be time enough to prove the absence of the other poisons. Such an analysis would require 2 or 3 weeks steady work."

The letter is dated 19 days after the murders. Would it not, if they were sick and vomiting have had some irritation in their stomachs no matter what the cause? If so would the presence of this irritation disappear in a stomach (even one sealed in glass) during this time period?

[shakiboo]

Welcome Steph! I think that's an interesting twist to the plot, I don't believe I've ever heard of that one before. But I don't think the evidence backs it up, and killing in the heat of the moment is one thing, but going back to swing the hatchet on a corpse is, to say the least, gruesome. And they found no poison in either Abbie or Andrew, when the autopsies were preformed.

[doug65oh]

Would it not, if they were sick and vomiting have had some irritation in their stomachs no matter what the cause? If so would the presence of this irritation disappear in a stomach (even one sealed in glass) during this time period?

It's an interesting question you pose, Harry. I'd think the answer would be yes, primarily because of the generally acidic quality common to vomit.

As far as evidence of any such irritation post-mortem, again that should be a yes, because all normal bodily functions would effectively cease at the moment of death or very shortly after - including any "restorative" or healing processes involving the stomach linings. Any evidence of irritation should be preserved I would think.

[FairhavenGuy]

I do not think that ordinary "summer flu" or food poisoning, which is bacterial, would cause the kinds of recognizable damage to the stomach that the chemical poisons would. I'm also very confident that Prof. Wood would understand the differences. Otherwise people would be accused and tried for poisoning every time somebody ate some bad shellfish.

[Kat]

Hi Uozumi!
I'm not caught up yet with this topic.
Will try to read it all tomorrow.

As for what was going on in the wider world at the time, in the Evening Standard, Aug. 4th, there was at least one case of mass arsenical poisoning in a restaurant reported, and continued to be reported whilst it was being investigated (out of Haverhill). Arsenic was found to be in the pepper- where anyone could have used it and die a horrible death. More than one did die.

[Harry]

As to the stomachs showing signs of irritation from being sick and vomiting, Prof. Wood testified at the Preliminary (p376+):

"Q. You say these stomachs showed no appearance of inflamation or irritation?
A. No Sir, they appeared healthy.
Q. Suppose one had been suffering a day or two, or three or four days, from what are common this time of the year, an attack of cholera morbus, or the complaint where one vomits, is unable to retain food, and they die, and the stomach was then examined, what would the appearance of the stomach be under those circumstances?
A. It would not have any special appearance.
Q. There would not be any appearance of any special irritation?
A. No Sir."

Then at the Trial (p994) he testified about the tests he performed upon receiving the stomachs:

"Q. That stomach had not been opened?
A. That stomach had not been opened. It was in the same external condition as the stomach of Mrs. Borden. Both of those contents of the stomachs were immediately tested for prussic acid, because prussic acid, being a volatile acid, it is necessary to make an immediate test for it, as it would very shortly after its exposure to the air escape, and escape detection therefore. Therefore those were both tested for prussic acid, with a negative result. Afterwards they were analyzed in the regular way for the irritant poisons, with also a negative result.
Q. In other words you found no evidence ---
A. I found no evidence of poison of any kind.
Q. Of any kind whatever?
A. In either case. Both jars of milk were also tested in the same way, and without obtaining any evidence of any poison in either the milk of August 3 or the milk of August 4."

Since there were no signs of poison or irritation it would appear that Dr. Bowen's diagnosis of summer complaint would be correct. What Abbey thought about them being poisoned, however, is an open question. Dr. Bowen was questioned on Abbey's visit to him on the 3rd at both the Inquest and Preliminary. Surprisingly he was not questioned about it at the Trial.

Dr. Bowen testified at the Trial before the attempt to introduce the testimony of Bence, et. al. was ruled inadmissible. Perhaps the prosecution wished to avoid the issue at that point in the trial.

[FairhavenGuy]

Thanks, Harry.

Even though they seem not to have been poisoned, Mrs. Borden's fear that they may have been certainly says sometime about her state of mind just prior to the murders.

If it was a food related illness, Lizzie may or may not have had a touch of it. It doesn't seem as though she had shared many meals with the others lately. If she was somewhat ill, but not as ill as Mr. & Mrs. Borden, it could have been because she was younger and had a better immune system than the older folks.

[Kat]

What would be the point of poisoning Abbie to death, and then returning to chop her up? To make it seem that she died closer in time to Andrew- hence one killer with no waiting time between?
If so, than any proof as to who died first would not have been considered by the killer, and that would negate a motive of inheritance.

But it took a long time for Dr. Draper to get on board with the others and agree as to TOD, so why was that? Maybe he was influenced by his friends on the defense side who later might have wanted Abbie to have appeared to have died later, nearer to Andrew's death. If that was so, then the defense might be giving up proof of inheritance of their client Lizzie, in exchange for a proof that someone else must have done it. That's a big gamble and I can't picture Lizzie- if she did kill- would give up her last best chance of an inheritance in exchange for her freedom. I think they might have been rolling the dice by this time, with Lizzie as a client.

Then when the mention of poison being sought by Lizzie on the Wednesday before the Thursday murders was excluded from the trial, that became moot. I'm not sure how long the *insiders* debated this very point- poison or no poison, or how much weight they gave it in defending or prosecuting the case.

Yes snokkums, there were plenty of ways to acquire poison back then- thru the mail even, or soaking flypapers, or buying rat poison- things like that. It's a weird statement attributed to Morse that said if he had wanted to kill the Bordens he would have used chloroform in the night! Who would Say that?

[doug65oh]

It's a weird statement attributed to Morse that said if he had wanted to kill the Bordens he would have used chloroform in the night! Who would Say that?

An odd statement for sure at best! Interestingly tho, what does that say about the speaker? We might surmise (not without reason) that among other things the person who made that statement is:

1. Of a somewhat more compassionate nature. While the method might be lethal such as it is, it's also a kinder, gentler means of death - more fitting to humans than a common "hatchet job."

2. No fool in that he realizes that chloroform would require virtually nothing in the way of cleanup.

3. One who could if need be, get down and dirty (in the figurative sense) doing all he could to assure that the deaths would in fact occur. Chloroform poisoning for instance might demand that the perpetrator do such things as keep a restraining hand upon his victims even as they struggled - even up to and including sitting atop the bodies while the deed is done.

In that sense, the literal hatchet job may be taken as a more "impersonal" way to die, because the murderer is set apart from the victim - even if by just a few inches or a foot. A chloroformer wouldn't be able to do that.

[Uozumi]

What would be the point of poisoning Abbie to death, and then returning to chop her up? To make it seem that she died closer in time to Andrew- hence one killer with no waiting time between?
If so, than any proof as to who died first would not have been considered by the killer, and that would negate a motive of inheritance.

But it took a long time for Dr. Draper to get on board with the others and agree as to TOD, so why was that? Maybe he was influenced by his friends on the defense side who later might have wanted Abbie to have appeared to have died later, nearer to Andrew's death. If that was so, then the defense might be giving up proof of inheritance of their client Lizzie, in exchange for a proof that someone else must have done it. That's a big gamble and I can't picture Lizzie- if she did kill- would give up her last best chance of an inheritance in exchange for her freedom. I think they might have been rolling the dice by this time, with Lizzie as a client.

Then when the mention of poison being sought by Lizzie on the Wednesday before the Thursday murders was excluded from the trial, that became moot. I'm not sure how long the *insiders* debated this very point- poison or no poison, or how much weight they gave it in defending or prosecuting the case.

Yes snokkums, there were plenty of ways to acquire poison back then- thru the mail even, or soaking flypapers, or buying rat poison- things like that. It's a weird statement attributed to Morse that said if he had wanted to kill the Bordens he would have used chloroform in the night! Who would Say that?

If Abby and Andrew were poisoned, the blame would automatically be placed upon Lizzie. I've read somewhere that most of the wounds were shallow. Is there any truth to that? Above someone said that hacking up a dead body would be grotesque and that this type of killing must have happened in the heat of the moment. I don't think that can be possible if the murder weapon wasn't found that seems to take prior planning. She could have worn gloves, killed them, and then dropped the weapon at Andrew's feet if it was in the moment. Or just use the argument, "someone must have stolen the family's ax out of the basement, since the basement door was found unlocked."

[Shelley]

Here is a clipping from a crime scrapbook from Pennsylvania 1897 which reminded me of Eli Bence and his story- a story which I have always believed. Poison was everywhere -and in so many household preparations and products. Women who kept house were very well-informed about antidotes and poisons- every household manual gave a thick chapter on the topic in case a child ingested something toxic. There were so many arsenic poisonings in England in Victorian times- a test had to be invented to detect it out of sheer necessity. It was even called "Inheritance Powder". Some poisons hang around in the body a long time- some do not. After violent purging, any trace of poison Abby swallowed on Tuesday night could well have been gone from her system by Thursday late afternoon.
The poison, like the break-in, could have only been meant to frighten Abby, Andrew might have had the misfortune to get some of the tainted food by accident. When Abby broadcast her fears to Bowen, maybe a "follow-through" was imperative to shut her up- and a hatchet will take care of flapping lips very effectively.

[Uozumi]

That's so true, Shelly. Poisons were everywhere back then and how strong did a poison have to be to kill two people nearly 70 years old? I guess we should be open to the possibility of poison though we can't make much of it because there was no proof that it was present. I'm wondering if it could have been something for their sick stomachs. Wasn't there a post on here about old stomach tonics containing what we consider poison today (like a lot of the medicined back then)? I wonder, would Dr. Bowen consider a stomach tonic a poison?

~Steph