New to the forum, not to the case!

[PossumPie]

Hi all.
I have studied the Lizzie Borden case off and on for years. I am no detective, but I have a Master's Degree in Psychology so I approach it from the psychological/sociological frame of mind. There is a logic-argument called "Occam's razor" which says the simpler answer tends to be correct. There are several problems in the books I've read...all about illegitimate sons, strangers with no connection sneaking in for hours...the simplest explanation can explain evidence, motive, opportunity, and come up with a suspect. Evidence is slim...poor evidence retrieval techniques back then gave no fingerprints, no DNA, etc. There was a bloody rag bucket, but the Victorian prudishness forbade that from being investigated further. Motive...brushing aside the outlandish claims with no evidence, there seems to be a handful of people who hated Mr. Borden enough to want him dead. Here we must be careful. It is like the childhood game of Chinese Whispers. One person tells someone else, who tells someone else, soon it is blown up out of proportion. I have read accounts that down-play the passionate hatred supposedly felt towards Andrew, and they mostly say he wasn't much liked or hated by people. Opportunity...Only someone with access to the house for 1-1.5hrs. This is the most important fact I feel. the time of death was drastically different in both so crime of passion seems illogical. Only Bridget and Lizzie were present for the whole time period.
So, we are left with some facts. Mrs. Borden was most definitely killed 'some time' before Andrew. Nothing seems to have been taken, ruling out robbery. A crime of passion or opportunity wouldn't have included hiding about for an hour or two waiting for the second person to come home and fall asleep. If I sneaked into someone else's house, one that potentially had 6 people coming and going, I wouldn't hide out for an hour. The potential for Mrs. Borden's body to be found would bring a swarm of police and I would be trapped. It seems to have to be someone who's presence in the house was normal.
I know I haven't shed any light here...I just listed some things I observed. I used to think Lizzie hired someone to do it, but logically if she did, she would have given herself an air-tight alibi like being across town. Why put yourself in the position of being a suspect?

[Yooper]

Welcome to the forum, PossumPie!

I agree with all of your conclusions. I can only add the idea that Abby's murder seems to be the product of rage given the number of hatchet blows. Who might have hated Abby with that intensity? Probably not an intruder whose primary target was Andrew.

[Franz]

Welcome to the forum, PossumPie!

I can only add the idea that Abby's murder seems to be the product of rage given the number of hatchet blows. Who might have hated Abby with that intensity? Probably not an intruder whose primary target was Andrew.

I really don’t permit me to say that the killer hated more Abby than Andrew only because of the difference of the blows numbers. An intruder (if there was one), even though his primary target could have been Andrew, could have attacked Abby as well with more blows, the reason is quite simple: he had plenty of time to kill Abby, because after the first murder he must hide still in the house (most probably in the guest room) and wait Andrew’s arrival, but he must escape as quickly as possible after the second killing. That’s why he attacked Andrew with less blows (10 or 11) than Abby (19).

My conclusion: The murder could have been an intruder because of the difference of blows numbers.

[PossumPie]

Welcome to the forum, PossumPie!

I agree with all of your conclusions. I can only add the idea that Abby's murder seems to be the product of rage given the number of hatchet blows. Who might have hated Abby with that intensity? Probably not an intruder whose primary target was Andrew.

Agreed, ferocity usually means passionate knowledge, but sometimes it means the perpetrator wants to render the person dead as quickly as possible so as not to have them scream out...Jack the Ripper's victims probably didn't know him, but he was savage, especially at the end. He killed on public streets, and any call for help would have been heard. He was vicious in the throat cutting, in at least one case almost severing the head. By the last victim, his inhibitions were gone, and he hacked viciously. In "general" ferocity means intimate connections...but not always.

[DJ]

Welcome, P.P.!

Doubtless (and I've heard a retired homicide detective state this), "overkill" wounding indicates rage, which is generally associated with "a relationship gone out of whack, so to speak" between the perp and vic.

Also, overkill wounding could indicate an inexperienced or incautious killer, not an experienced one who would be as "efficient" as possible with a minimum of blows in order to flee the scene asap, before being identified or apprehended.

I would thereby theorize that Abby's killer either (a) Knew her well enough to hate her, or (b) Had never murdered before, or (c) both.