Crowe Axe

[chuckciao]

I recently read "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe" a tiny pamphlet written by Robert Flynn which describes an axe found on the roof of the Crowe Barn just behind the Borden Home. Although the axe was found sometime after the murders, it was cleaned and analyzed by police investigators but no blood was found on it. The finding of the axe was never brought up at the trial. Although there is no evidence that this was the murder weapon, Flynn makes a statement presuming that this indeed was the murder weapon. Does anyone have any further info. on this "mysterious axe"
By coincidence, after cleaning the axe, police did discover some gilt metal that still remained on the blade. Those of you that read "Fourty Whacks" by David Kent remember that he describes how two doctors examining the wounds on Abby's skull found a bit of gilt metal imbedded in one of the wounds. Amazingly, this evidence, although known to the prosecutor, was never brought up at the trial.

[Angel]

I've always been extremely curious about that axe. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about it which puzzles me. I should think, in such a sensational murder like this, that the discovery would have set off fireworks. Instead, there's just a small article about it in the newspaper at the time of discovery, and then it just seems to disappear into thin air. Where could it have gone, and why wouldn't it have been kept because of possible importance in the future?

[Tina-Kate]

...Although the axe was found sometime after the murders, it was cleaned and analyzed by police investigators but no blood was found on it. ...

Does he state a reference when/where/how it was "cleaned and analyzed" and no blood found? I'd never heard of this.

I had only heard some man claimed it...he said he had been working in the area around the time of the murders and had lost it. Also, it was a hatchet, not an axe.

I thought only the weapons used as evidence at the trial were examined.

I've always found the story of it having been lost & claimed as somewhat dubious. Seems like a cover-up to me.

[Tina-Kate]

OH...& probably the MOST interesting is that the Crowe barn hatchet (tho rusty) still had gilt paint on it.

Traces of gilt paint were also found in Abby Borden's wounds.

[mbhenty]

There are those who are very fervid about the axe found on the roof of John Crowe in June of 1893----- that is, whether it is the murder weapon or not.

Robert FLynn's little book "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe" is a wonderful little scribble. If one can be found, you are likely to pay a premium of 75-plus dollars.

Flynn's contributions in the world of publishing of the Borden murders does not slip by without a decorum of respect from this collector. Though it may appear faint, I do give Mr Flynn the credit he deserves for his work on the case. I also reserve the right to give him or, (to the distaste of some on this site) to render any quota of esteem to Mr. Flynn as a publisher.....with just/good cause.

Though that is not the issue here, once someone opens the door when it comes to Mr. Flynn I will take my swing and punches.

The reality that the axe found on the roof of the Crowe barn is the murder weapon is highly unlikely, and in my opinion, preposterous . The fact that the police would miss it, that it was not seen from the windows of the Borden house, that is sat up on that roof for almost a year to be found by a child (son of C.C. Potter) is highly unlikely.

To this student of Lizzie Borden Studies, there is no proof that the police had the Crowe Axe tested for blood.

[Tina-Kate]

I imagine it could be possible if there were other debris on the roof as well. Seeing as it was a flat roof in an area surrounded by trees, it's very possible there could have been accumulations of leaves, small branches, etc. If such was the case, it would have been a very effective hiding place. To access it, one would only have to step up on the woodpile at the back of the Borden property & toss it up.

[mbhenty]

The conclusion of Flynn's little pamphlet is that the axe found on the Crowe barn is the murder weapon.

Of course, he does so without any new revelations or credible proof. He just makes a declaration and exposition on the particulars which led up to his assumption. He mostly concentrates on the condition of the Crowe Axe, that it was probably new when discarded, with proof that "Gilt" was found beneath the rust. And, that such like gilt was found in the wounds of the Bordens testified to by Dr Draper then ignored by Dr Darper.

The fact that there was no fuss made about the finding of the axe may be due to many factors. In the paper there was just a short story about it at the time. This, at the height and climax of the trial. If there was any hint that this was the Axe it would have blown off the lid on the case.

So, why was there so little news about the axe at the time it was found?" You may subscribe to some of these or have new ones of your own:

Could it be that the police were covering up the fact that they did not find it in August of 92 and played it down to save face?

Could it be that police were so positive that they scrubbed the roof of that barn back in 92 that little mention was made of it.

Could it be possible that it could be missed from the back upper windows of the borden house. (ask Shelley)

Why was no fuss made about it when it was found?

What happened to the axe? Why was it not considered new evidence, even after the fact. (that is, the trial and verdict.)

Could this be the murder weapon?

[twinsrwe]

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

I did a forum search and found several threads regarding the Crowe hatchet, which you may find interesting:

Lizzie's Hatchet
viewtopic.php?t=1821

Crowe's Roof Hatchet
viewtopic.php?t=2507

Where the ax could have gone?
viewtopic.php?t=1848

The Borden Privy
viewtopic.php?t=744

[Tina-Kate]

"Twins"...Excellent you found links to other threads!

MB...there is no mention in any testimonies re the search areas that the Crowe barn roof was searched. They did extensive searches of the surrounding yards, but no mention of looking UP. Several people climbed up on the fence, but no one mentions looking up while doing so.

It's possible the roof of the Crowe barn may NOT have been visible from the windows in the Borden house at the time...there were pear trees in the borden yard, in full fruit & full leaf...this could have obscured a view. Also, as mentioned, there may have been other debris on the roof.

I wish I had notes here...but around the time the Crowe barn hatchet was found, during the trial Robinson made a crack about how the F/R police kept finding hatchets and dismissing them & that he wondered if they might still produce another one...I wondered if that wasn't a way of playing down the recent Crowe barn discovery. Of course, at that point in the trial, the government had already finished presenting their case.

[mbhenty]

One more comment please:

In his little book Mr Flynn makes mention that David Kent was:

"no doubt, the greatest student of the Borden Mystery. More than anyone else, he studied the case to the very core and his literary works are the culmination of that effort."

To that I must add there is no doubt that David Kent was and authority on the Borden Murders and has written a couple of marvelous books on the case. But, today I don't believe that the statement is any longer true,or can stand without a measure of provocation.

There are a handful of scholars on this site, LizzieAndrewBorden.com, who would equal, match or dare I say, surpass David Kent's abilities and knowledge, if not his contributions, in this case.

David Kent had the advantage and help from two major collectors and authorities on the Borden case, Mr. Neilson Caplain and Robert Flynn, along with the material in their vast libraries. The collection of books, newspapers, and such material supplied by these two sources were invaluable to writing David Kent's books. Put this together with Mr. Kent's abilities as a writer, actor, collector and business man and you have the Literary Borden Dream Team.

To those who may be new to LizzieAndrewBorden.com, such a team exists here on this site of scholars, who for the love, minus the profit, have the knowledge, skill, proficiency, and expertise to rival most sources anywhere.

In a game of "Jeopardy" in the category called "Lizzie Borden", it would be even money between the Kent, Flynn, Caplain team and the LizzieAndrewBorden team. (without naming names.)

[mbhenty]

Yes TINA-KATE. You may be right.

It is true that there could have been trees or vegetation blocking view from the windows of the Borden house.

And, there is no proof that police searched up there. (mention that they stood up on the wood pile only etc.)

Of course, it is just my passion and beliefs being expressed here.

You make a good point about Robinson's crack about other weopons, hatchets, axes etc. I to do not have that information on hand.

I just find it hard to believe that not one officer did not climb up on that barn or search the surrounding properties extensively.

When I was a child we played baseball in a field by the mills. Someone would hit the ball over the fence into the tall grass along the Quequechan River. We almost never lost a ball. The entire team would search every inch of ground and the ball was almost always found. If not that day, the next. (even when it rolled into the Quequeshan River we would find it.

Everytime I think of the police searching for that weopon, which they dearly needed, I think about us kids looking for that baseball. How could police have missed it? Why would we as children serch harder. Why would not one cop think that it was possible it was on that roof and go looking. It would be one of the first places, as a child, I would look.....

[Tina-Kate]

I must admit, I do like Kent---esp for Forty Whacks and The Sourcebook.

In all fairness, we now know more than Kent did in his day. We have the marvellous Leonard Rebello & his many, many, many finds...in addition to new things that are unearthed from time to time.

Here is a picture I snatched from Lizzieandrewborden.com showing the pear trees in the Borden yard. Crowe's barn roof was more or less behind & to the right of the 2 trees on the right.

[chuckciao]

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

I did a forum search and found several threads regarding the Crowe hatchet, which you may find interesting:

Lizzie's Hatchet
viewtopic.php?t=1821

Crowe's Roof Hatchet
viewtopic.php?t=2507

Where the ax could have gone?
viewtopic.php?t=1848

The Borden Privy
viewtopic.php?t=744

Excellent information. Thanks

[chuckciao]

...Although the axe was found sometime after the murders, it was cleaned and analyzed by police investigators but no blood was found on it. ...

Does he state a reference when/where/how it was "cleaned and analyzed" and no blood found? I'd never heard of this.

I had only heard some man claimed it...he said he had been working in the area around the time of the murders and had lost it. Also, it was a hatchet, not an axe.

I thought only the weapons used as evidence at the trial were examined.

I've always found the story of it having been lost & claimed as somewhat
dubious. Seems like a cover-up to me.

Sorry for misleading you. Flynn does not say that the police examined this. Only that it was cleaned and found to have a reminant of gilt metal on the blade. I only assumed that the authorities had examined it. Thanks for calling my attention to this

[Angel]

If Lizzie had killed Abby and had planned to leave when her father came home early, then I am visualizing this: she planned to go out to establish her alibi and she was going to take the hatchet with her to get rid of elsewhere. When her dad came home she had to quickly revise all her plans, so she killed him and then had to find a quick way to get rid of the hatchet. She couldn't go through with her original plan to leave the premises, so she panicked that she had no way to get rid of the weapon. Her impulsive reaction was to throw it on the roof of Crowe's barn to get it as far away from the house as she was able. Maybe that was when Lubinsky saw her near the barn. Just a thought.

[twinsrwe]

"Twins"...Excellent you found links to other threads! ...

Thanks, Tina-Kate.

[twinsrwe]

... Excellent information. Thanks

You're welcome, Chuck. Hope you find those threads helpful.

[chuckciao]

If Lizzie had killed Abby and had planned to leave when her father came home early, then I am visualizing this: she planned to go out to establish her alibi and she was going to take the hatchet with her to get rid of elsewhere. When her dad came home she had to quickly revise all her plans, so she killed him and then had to find a quick way to get rid of the hatchet. She couldn't go through with her original plan to leave the premises, so she panicked that she had no way to get rid of the weapon. Her impulsive reaction was to throw it on the roof of Crowe's barn to get it as far away from the house as she was able. Maybe that was when Lubinsky saw her near the barn. Just a thought.

It's plausible. The very very short time frame for the murders has always puzzled me to no end. Based on what Andrew's business associates and neighbors said, he could have not arrived home before 10:40 which is verified by Bridget. Given his time to sit and read in the dining room, sitting and then settle onto the sofa, and Bridget's statements regarding when she went upstairs, I would say that the murder took place between 10:50 and 11:05. In that time, Lizzie could certainly have gone out and tossed the hatchet on the roof and walked back to call for Bridget.

[Yooper]

It is certainly possible, apparent in fact, that the hatchet on the barn roof would go unnoticed by people living in houses around and near the barn. It was there until discovered by someone climbing up to the roof. It was there for however long it was there and no one noticed it.

[mbhenty]

Yes TINA-KATE. True. At the time Kent wrote his book, not as much was known then as it is today.

Yes, David Kent is highly respected by many, including yours truly.

In another tread I give a list of books highly recommended. The first one I list is Kent's Forty Wacks for good purpose.

Kent's book may very well be the best narrative on the murders. He is one author without a personal agenda or platform to launch biases or scenarios . It is a straight forward read. And, his Source book is a fun book to flip through, very visual and informative, not to mention quite a beautiful book. (a nice copy could be picked up for 20 to 25 bucks)

The only negative to reading the Source book is that for some of us older folks, some of the print is very small and difficult to read. Some great first hand newspaper accounts and yarns though.

Yes, GREAT WRITER...... I was just making a point above that we have some very informative people here on this site.

[Tina-Kate]

...Kent's book may very well be the best narrative on the murders. He is one author without a personal agenda or platform to launch biases or scenarios ...

I have to slightly disagree on that one---Kent is pro-Lizzie---he thought she was innocent. He makes much of suggesting the killer was lefthanded while Lizzie was righthanded. He also picks & chooses trial testimony to quote, and much like Porter, leaves out what doesn't fit.

However, yes, Kent's Forty Whacks is the one I would recommend as a 1st book. In spite of his bias, it's excellent overall. Certainly more factual than say Lincoln (which was 1st read for a lot of people) or Spiering.

[Yooper]

If Lizzie had killed Abby and had planned to leave when her father came home early, then I am visualizing this: she planned to go out to establish her alibi and she was going to take the hatchet with her to get rid of elsewhere. When her dad came home she had to quickly revise all her plans, so she killed him and then had to find a quick way to get rid of the hatchet. She couldn't go through with her original plan to leave the premises, so she panicked that she had no way to get rid of the weapon. Her impulsive reaction was to throw it on the roof of Crowe's barn to get it as far away from the house as she was able. Maybe that was when Lubinsky saw her near the barn. Just a thought.

It would make sense to have a hatchet found around workmen, people who might use hatchets. If Lizzie was panicked about disposing of the hatchet, it makes a degree of sense to throw it toward Crowe's yard.

Crowe had said the last time his barn roof was worked on was two years prior to the time the hatchet was found, making it 1891. A workman claimed the hatchet as his property saying he left it there. If that was true, then neither the police nor the neighbors saw the hatchet during the investigation. If that was false, then perhaps someone in a unique position to have been working on Crowe's barn wanted a possible murder weapon as a souvenir.

[Yooper]

oops! double post!

[mbhenty]

Yes TINA:

The "Kent Pro Lizzie" conclusion is one that I may have overlooked on purpose since I to believe Lizzie did not do it. That is, I believe her guilty of the crime, but not guilty of the murders.

I really need to go back and read all the narratives, RADIN, SULLIVAN, KENT, etc. once again. I read KENT over 15 years ago but from what I remember he was not so pro-Lizzie as he was truthful about how he deduced the series of events. But that is good to know. I thought it was a good book. Probably because the one I read just before it was
SPIERING

But that is good to know. You sound like you read it recently........

[mbhenty]

Though I never met David Kent those who have say he was very articulate and a gentlemen. To that I have no doubt.

In his book FORTY WHACKS he dedicated the book to Robert Flynn. It reads:

"To ROBERT A. FLYNN, not so much to repay but to acknowledge a very large debt. And...perforce, to LIZZIE."

ROBERT FLYNN wrote the forward. He owed flynn a great debt. Flynn's library on Lizziana was tremendous.

"To all who hold no somber thoughts of mr. flynn or think fondly of him stop reading this and go on to the next post."

[mbhenty]

Not this post, the next one.

The copy of FORTY WHACKS I purchased directly from Robert Flynn.

He told me it was limited to 1000 copies.

Unless I am informed by the publisher, or it is made clear to me by Mr Kent himself, I don't believe it........because, it was told to me by flynn. (Mr. Kent can not be of any help since he died many years ago)

In the copy I have, Flynn has laid in a book plate that says,

"with our best wishes, signed David Kent and Robert A. Flynn, of 1000 copies in this Autograph edition, this is number 225."

Two pages over there is another book plate layed in "again". This one says,

"I hope you find the same pleasure reading about Lizzie as I found in writing about her. Signed, by David Kent, of 1000 copies in this Autograph Edition this is number 636."

So which is it 225 or 636? ..................who knows? Understand, I just this moment found the second book plate. I didn't even know it was there.

Besides, no where in the book does it state it is limited to 1000 copies. The slips of paper were laid in loose by Flynn. The book is not signed.

The only limited item is the slip of paper he placed in the book. I can stick it in any book I like and say, 'hey look, this book is limited to 1000 copies."

(And if this is the Limited Autograph edition, does it not mean that there is an "unlimited edition". As a matter of fact my edition is pristine and fine but now not limited since the book plate just fell to the floor)

Just because you put a piece of paper inside a book and call it limited does not make it limited, nor does it make it a autograph edition. (The only thing I can be sure of is that it is a first edition, and that is because the publisher has said so on the copyright page.)

Just the way Flynn did things. Very unethical and reputably incorrect.

[Tina-Kate]

My first full book was Spiering. Messed me up for years thinking Emma was the culprit.

My second read was Evan Hunter's Lizzie. Even worse!

My third book was Williams's Casebook. Much, much better.

Fourth and fifth were David Kents's Sourcebook and finally, Forty Whacks. I've read thru Forty Whacks several times now.

Book five was Lincoln.

Book six was the kicker---Rebello's Lizzie Borden: Past & Present. Book to end all books!

Since then I've read Porter, Pearson, various fictions...

The best reading of all, of course, is the source documents on www.lizzieandrewborden.com

[mbhenty]

Wow TINA: Good for you. Now you must read ARNOLD BROWN.

As a work of fiction (though he it was not written as such) it is a great book. Even makes the well versed Bordenian think twice or ask questions.

His ideas are so bizarre that they begin to make sense. Naaaaaa!!!

But to the new reader on the case he is very persuasive, and as a casual read, brings all the pieces together for a good yarn.

(Sorry TINA, your posts are intertwine with all my criticism above )

[Tina-Kate]

Egads. I forgot Brown for a reason I think.

My fav Brown story I tell is one night when I was writing on the computer & there was a big blow fly dive bombing me. I picked up my copy of Brown in an attempt to squash the thing. After repeated failure, I laughed to myself, "Well, that does it! Billy Borden couldn't even kill a fly!"

Hehehehe...

[mbhenty]

[chuckciao]

[quote="mbhenty @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:40 am"]

Yes TINA:

The "Kent Pro Lizzie" conclusion is one that I may have overlooked on purpose since I to believe Lizzie did not do it. That is, I believe her guilty of the crime, but not guilty of the murders.

Dear mbhenty,
I am very interested in our take on the above statement, that you believe that Lizzie was guilty of the crime but not the murders. If you have already discussed it, a link to your original thread would be welcomed.

[mbhenty]

Yes CHUCKCIAO:

Of course it is only my opinion, one which has developed over many years of reading and studying the crime. Nothing more than a gut feeling, and not better or worse an idea than anyone else. I do have my arguments and reasons why I feel so.

It mostly has to do with the time line, that is, the events of the day between the time Bridget last saw lizzie and Andrew, before going upstairs to nap, and the time she saw Lizzie when she was called down by Lizzie.

There was just not enough time for Lizzie to clean herself of blood and rid herself of the axe, unless someone helped her. Unless the maid was in on it the time period just does not fit for me. Things were to spotless for Lizzie, considering the bloody mess.

(one possible small example: Once Abby received the first blow she must have fallen to the floor; ok, by the second blow, the third blow....... The killer had to straddle or climb up on Abby's back, considering the tight space between the bed and dresser, to finish the crime. Almost impossible not to get a drop of blood on a long sweeping dress.)

So, over the years I have at last concluded that someone else did it, an outsider, friend of or person hired by Lizzie. Thus, I think Lizzie was guilty, but did not swing the axe.

Probably why she used the barn loft scenario, piece of iron, sinker, screen repair, and the yard and pear alibi. I believe she waited outside while the killer did his deed and made sure the coast was clear for his escape. (And the killer took the ax with him)

But, who knows

[chuckciao]

Yes CHUCKCIAO:

Of course it is only my opinion, one which has developed over many years of reading and studying the crime. Nothing more than a gut feeling, and not better or worse an idea than anyone else. I do have my arguments and reasons why I feel so.

It mostly has to do with the time line, that is, the events of the day between the time Bridget last saw lizzie and Andrew, before going upstairs to nap, and the time she saw Lizzie when she was called down by Lizzie.

There was just not enough time for Lizzie to clean herself of blood and rid herself of the axe, unless someone helped her. Unless the maid was in on it the time period just does not fit for me. Things were to spotless for Lizzie, considering the bloody mess.

(one possible small example: Once Abby received the first blow she must have fallen to the floor; ok, by the second blow, the third blow....... The killer had to straddle or climb up on Abby's back, considering the tight space between the bed and dresser, to finish the crime. Almost impossible not to get a drop of blood on a long sweeping dress.)

So, over the years I have at last concluded that someone else did it, an outsider, friend of or person hired by Lizzie. Thus, I think Lizzie was guilty, but did not swing the axe.

Probably why she used the barn loft scenario, piece of iron, sinker, screen repair, and the yard and pear alibi. I believe she waited outside while the killer did his deed and made sure the coast was clear for his escape. (And the killer took the ax with him)

But, who knows

Thanks mbhenty,
Very interesting and it certainly does explain the lack of blood on Lizzie. I am still bothered by the time gap between Abby's and Andrews's murders. (Unless one holds to Masterton's "Lizzie Didn't Do It" premise that Abby was killed much later than originally thought). Assuming that Abby was killed at around 9:30AM, could a co-conspirator have waited around the house until 11AM to murder Andrew? No reason why it is not possible I guess. So many questions in this fascinating case.

[mbhenty]

Yes CHUCKCIAO:

It is what makes this case so fascinating to so many over the ages. One can twist the facts and scenario to fit in so many ways..... Everyone thinks he/she has the answer.

The time line between the two murders, Andrew and Abby, is for me another reason why Lizzie knew the killer. I believe she hid him in the house.

If you remember that it was testified that Lizzie was at the top of the stairs laughing when the maid let Andrew in the front door?

In my mind she did so as the killer scrambled to hide. She must have found humor in it. Not that it happened that way, just that I envision it so. A possibility. One of millions.

[Angel]

I just can't believe she had someone else do it. My gut feeling is that Lizzie was a very odd, secretive loner who did not share much of anything with others. I cannot imagine her confiding or trusting anyone else enough to get them to do murder for her. I think she probably made life miserable for Abby and spent years building up resentment. Something happened to push Lizzie to act more quickly than she had intended. I do not know how she didn't get blood on herself (or, if she did, how she got rid of the evidence), but I believe she did it and managed to hide anything that might implicate her, as she handled the rest of her life. That's why there's so little information about her before, during or after the murders. She lived her life keeping things a secret, whether it was her feelings, actions, or motives. The only safe ones she was able to trust were animals.

[chuckciao]

I just can't believe she had someone else do it. My gut feeling is that Lizzie was a very odd, secretive loner who did not share much of anything with others. I cannot imagine her confiding or trusting anyone else enough to get them to do murder for her. I think she probably made life miserable for Abby and spent years building up resentment. Something happened to push Lizzie to act more quickly than she had intended. I do not know how she didn't get blood on herself (or, if she did, how she got rid of the evidence), but I believe she did it and managed to hide anything that might implicate her, as she handled the rest of her life. That's why there's so little information about her before, during or after the murders. She lived her life keeping things a secret, whether it was her feelings, actions, or motives.

Angel,
I think your personality analysis of Lizzie is excellent. For years, I have been trying to get a handle on the "real Lizzie" and agree with your characterization of her. As a school counselor for 35 years, I have come across many young women who fit the traits that Lizzie seemed to exhibit: i.e few friends, somewhat offish and quiet, generally underachievers (Lizzie never graduated from HS), somewhat moody, etc.

[Angel]

And god only knows what is brewing underneath.

[Yooper]

I think that's a good assessment Angel, Lizzie seemed to bear that out during her life after the murders. I don't think Lizzie would have called anyone to help her with the murders, either. When and how would they be summoned, and why for that particular day with Morse as a house guest and Andrew not feeling well?

[Shelley]

You can't get around the common sense factor here. Okay, Lizzie hires someone. What fool would do the job under those circumstances? He would have to be looney to even listen to such a hare-brained plan.

Which leaves The Disgruntled Villain hellbent on getting revenge for some dreadful wrong against- ANDREW. So, this vengeful killer walks stealthily into the yard, maybe hides behind a tree or if it is after Andrew unlocks the barn, inside the barn to watch the house and sees - John leaving, then the maid thowing up in the back yard, then his intended victim leaving, then the maid coming out with window washing equipment. Why even go inside?- His intended victim has LEFT the building. Emma, Lizzie and Abby are probably inside for all he knows. What's the point? A smarter killer would have bopped Andrew on the head when Andrew came out to the barn early.

Lizzie has planted the seed of "father has an enemy". The defense is banking on this intruder with an axe to grind. So, why does the killer murder Abby? Why does the killer stop at Abby and not go on a rampage against Lizzie and Bridget in the house too? Even if the intruder crept around the house looking for Andrew and Abby surprised him- after he killed her, why does he hang around on the off chance he can hide out and wait for Andrew, not be seen by Lizzie or Bridget, and make a clean getaway on the busy street with Addie hanging out her window snooping and half of town parading up and down the street?

No, there are to my mind only two possibilities. Either Lizzie planned it, hid the killer in the cellar and cued him when to go up and down when the coast was clear- or she did it herself. I tend to go for the simplest and most common sense approach- she did it.

[Yooper]

There is a logical inconsistency inherent in believing an intruder was involved. The general reasoning is that Lizzie supposedly had no blood on her, so someone else must have swung the hatchet. Because we believe that the murderer must have been spattered noticeably with blood, it couldn't have been Lizzie and it must have been someone else. Because of this, we must believe that an intruder entered the house unnoticed and left the same way, except noticeably spattered with blood when he left. It is too far-fetched to think that the murderer might NOT be noticeably spattered with blood, but it is not too far-fetched to believe that someone could have left the Borden house spattered with blood and gone completely unnoticed! Either one or the other happened!

[Fargo]

The theory of Lizzie commiting the crime alone or having either an acomplice or having someone else commit the crime entirely has many facts going for it. Like Lizzie being in the house while emma, morse and andrew ( for awhile ) were elsewhere.

To me the biggest thing I don't understand about this, if it is true is why would Lizzie sound the alarm only moments after andrew was killed?

By doing that, lizzie without a doubt puts herself at the scene of the crime when it happened. Why didn't Lizzie go somewhere else for awhile and have the bodies discovered later?

Of course there was the problem of bridget being there, and that could also have been a problem for lizzie leaving the house before andrew came home, if his murder was not planned but took place because he arrived home early.

I have always believed that if abby was killed around 9:00 to 9:30 that lizzie would have had enought time to clean up and leave the house. As for bridget lizzie could have sent her on some errand to take her away from the house for awhile. Then leave the house herself leave the door unlocked or have even cut the screen to make it look like a forced entry.

Or does it seem more likely that lizzie leaving the scene would make her look more guilty than if she had stayed there?

Maybe lizzie did not realize that the police would be able to tell that there had been as much time as there was between the two murders occurring.

[Yooper]

There may have been alternatives to calling for help right away, but it seemed that Lizzie was in a hurry to get it over with. She wanted Abby discovered right away, even sending the search party "upstairs", which could only mean the guest room at that point.

An adrenaline rush would likely have accompanied each murder and coming down would probably include shivering or trembling uncontrollably. Lizzie would have had time to compose herself after Abby's murder, and it would have been necessary to do so. After Andrew's murder, trembling might indicate she was upset and it could be used to advantage if she appeared to have the shakes.

It might seem more incriminating for Lizzie to have interrupted Abby's assigned chore of window washing to send Bridget on an errand while Lizzie disappeared for a while. It might have been unusual for Lizzie to send Bridget on an errand of any kind.

What strikes me about the case is a seemingly inordinate amount of consideration by Lizzie for Bridget not being considered a suspect. Lizzie tried to keep Bridget out of harm's way. This was someone Lizzie couldn't even call by her proper name. It might be done if the focus had to be concentrated on an intruder and away from the household, or if Bridget was somehow involved in the murders.

[Angel]

Somehow I can't see Bridget being involved. Her reaction was more normal. She was terrified of going up the front stairs by herself when she was told to look for Abby because she was scared for her own safety. If she had known who did it she wouldn't have acted that way. And she was terrified of staying in the house any longer than she had to. Maybe at that point she may have been suspicious of Lizzie and was afraid to be alone with her in the house. If she was in cahoots with Lizzie I don't think she would have been so hell bent on getting away from there because she knew no strange maniac might come back.
I think that Bridget probably pieced together a lot of things after the murder and knew Lizzie did it but didn't say anything because she was a poor Irish immigrant who knew she could get the short end of the stick with future employment, reputation and even indictments. Years later she probably felt guilty for letting Lizzie get away with murder and it preyed on her mind enough to want to tell someone before she died.

[Cheryl]

Angel, I too have always believed that Lizzie killed her father because he came home too early and she paniced.

If the crowe hatchet is indeed the murder weapon, I wonder if she ever wrestled with the idea of getting it off that roof and disposing of it in a more permanent way?

The gilt deposits found in both Abby's wounds and on the crowe hatchet is huge in my opinion. It's interesting how little attention this find received.

[Yooper]

Bridget could have been trying to cover up Lizzie's involvement in the murders. She may not have been aware of Abby's murder at first, only Andrew's, and she might have thought she was helping to cover that. Her hesitation at going upstairs to look for Abby might be the result of the realization that Abby might be dead, too. She might have only then realized the magnitude of the situation.

If Lizzie told Bridget that she had been in the barn while Bridget was still in the house with Andrew, Bridget might have recognized that suspicion would fall on her rather than Lizzie. This might have been enough to get Bridget to help in a cover-up. Bridget seemed very intimidated by the authorities, perhaps even terrified of them. Wasn't there an incident when she went all to pieces when she thought the police were coming for her as a suspect rather than just for questioning?

[Angel]

The gilt deposits found in both Abby's wounds and on the crowe hatchet is huge in my opinion. It's interesting how little attention this find received.

I know what you mean. I have always thought the same thing.

[Angel]

Bridget could have been trying to cover up Lizzie's involvement in the murders. She may not have been aware of Abby's murder at first, only Andrew's, and she might have thought she was helping to cover that. Her hesitation at going upstairs to look for Abby might be the result of the realization that Abby might be dead, too. She might have only then realized the magnitude of the situation.

If Lizzie told Bridget that she had been in the barn while Bridget was still in the house with Andrew, Bridget might have recognized that suspicion would fall on her rather than Lizzie. This might have been enough to get Bridget to help in a cover-up. Bridget seemed very intimidated by the authorities, perhaps even terrified of them. Wasn't there an incident when she went all to pieces when she thought the police were coming for her as a suspect rather than just for questioning?

I don't think her hesitation had to do with a realization Abby might be dead too. I think her saying "I'm not going up there alone" smacks of fear for her own safety because some unknown person had just killed someone and no one knew where he was.

I don't think Bridget necessarily went to pieces because of guilt. I think anyone in her situation (a lowly immigrant servant being one of only two people in the house at the time of a gruesome murder) would be pretty darned intimidated. She probably felt that, if it came down to believing someone in her lowly station or believing a well to do respected member of society, people would choose Lizzie.

[Yooper]

Still, Bridget entered the guest room, having gone upstairs first, while Mrs. Churchill only looked under the bed from the stairway. Bridget ultimately went upstairs by herself.

[Shelley]

I always thought it significant that she LEFT the house after Mrs. Borden was found. John had to walk her over from across the street to fix breakfast Friday morning and then she packed up and fled. Yes, I think once she saw Abby on the floor, Bridget got the full measure!

[Yooper]

By the way, I didn't mean Bridget went to pieces out of guilt, only that she was intimidated by the authorities. Her social position and the realization (fear) that she might be a prime suspect would make it all the easier to recruit her help.