20 Minutes (1045-1105hrs) Why did Lizzie call for Bridget so soon!

[Curiousmind2014]

Hey friends,

I have mentioned this in other posts. However, I wanted it to be a primary point of discussion to evaluate the same.

Andrew was a man in his early 70s; which might be considered to be very old, given that life expectancy of general population was around 49yrs in North America between 1900-02. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n ... 54_14.pdf) . He was not feeling well on that very day too. I would definitely like everyone to focus on this aspect while considering the pace of action in 20mins.

When it comes to the death of Andrew Borden, the time line is very well defined. It is approximately 20mins between 1045am to 1105am. Apparently all the events stated below happened in this short period of time.

1. Andrew enters and takes his coat off.
2. Goes across the house, to use the back stairs, unlocks all the doors given his paranoia over privacy. Unlocks his safe, and puts in the package (apparently a will) he got on his way home.

3. Andrew comes down. Noticing his wife is not at home (well technically she is), inquires with Lizzie and Bridget about her whereabouts to spend a few more minutes over the conversation.

4. He finds his way to the sitting room. Apparently Lizzie helped him take off his shoes, and comforted him to rest prior to the meal.
5. Lizzie goes to Bridget and talks about the sale at Sergeant, as Bridget complains about a bug in her stomach.
6. Bridget ambles upstairs to settle herself in her room before the meal.

Track A: We don't know what happened
7a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
8a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
9a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
10a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
11a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
12a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
13a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)
14a. (---------------------------------- void--------------------------------------)

Track B: Lizzie did it camp!

7b. Lizzie sees the opportunity, and cautiously goes downstairs to the cellar, to like a hatchet like weapon.
8b. Lizzie comes back upstairs, slowly, to make minimal noise.

floorplan.jpg

9b. Now the way someone has attacked Andrew, they would be standing behind him, on his left, while he was laying on the couch. I think the only way to enter the cellar from outside, and inside by the stairway near the kitchen. Assuming that's the case, Lizzie had her options.

i. Get upside from the cellar entrance near the back door entry
ii. Enter the kitchen

iii. a. Enter the sitting room directly, by which she would be face-to-face with Andrew, which will also mean risking Andrew noticing her entering the room with a hatchet-like weapon
iii. b. Enter the dining room, and then get to the sitting room, by which she would be in a perfect position behind Andrew.

10b. Lizzie then literally blows up Andrews brain. 11 blows would take a minute if done in rage and anger and probably 2 more minutes to gather the strength and composure, and another minute to gain consciousness to decide her actions further.

11.b. Lizzie cleans up the room to keep it almost spotless.

12b. Lizzie carefully makes her way to the kitchen or cellar. She cleans up the axe, she then cleans up the sink.
13b. Finds a secret place to hide the hatchet.

14b. Lizzie goes to the privy, undresses out of a dress that no one remembers. She takes a shower to literally be "spotless". She gets into another dress which no one remembers.

15. Lizzie "surprisingly" finds her father dead and screams out "Bridget Come down quick; Father's dead; somebody came in and killed him".

FYI: Took me more than 20 minutes to type that cautiously and carefully!

Firstly, I would assume all of this, would taken longer than 20mins. Secondly, if I was the murderer, I would like to take my time to regain composure, clean up the trails, and let someone else discover the body. So why would Lizzie, call for Bridget so soon?

My version of this story is something like this.

Track C: My opinion

In my opinion, I do not see Lizzie killing her father, as the love for him, during Lizzie's lifetime is consistently expressed by her, through the high school ring, her father's will to spend for her leisure, Lizzie's regular visit to the cemetery after the trials, and finally in her will to maintain her father's grave perpetually. However, I won't be surprised if she was an accomplice for it

7c. Lizzie sees the opportunity, and gets the murderer, hiding in Emma's room (Maybe Emma herself was the murderer), for the final leg of the murder.

8c. Both get downstairs cautiously, to enters the parlor, which leads to the sitting room.
9c. The murderer blows Andrew's brain out while Lizzie moves to the kitchen to look out for Bridget coming down. The murderer uses a rag to cleanup the room, to make it spotless.
10c. The murderer changes (or peels off a layer of clothes) into a fresh pair of clothes, while giving away the hatchet like weapon to Lizzie to clean away.

11c. Meanwhile, as Lizzie cleans up the hatchet-like weapon and the sink, the murderer, goes around the house, to open up the locks for entering Andrew's room and his safe.
12c. The murderer takes away the package brought by Andrew along with any relevant documents very cautiously.
13c. The murderer cautiously gets out of the back door, along with the cleaned up hatchet, returned back by Lizzie, and the package.
14c. Lizzie is left all by herself in the Kitchen, as everything that has happened this morning dawns upon her. She then find courage, to enter the sitting room to see her father, fiendishly murdered.

15. Lizzie screams out "Bridget Come down quick; Father's dead; somebody came in and killed him".

I would appreciate if all the "Lizzie did it!" aficionados would reply back to this post.

[mspitstop]

You can narrow it down even further. Bridget said she went upstairs to lay down at about 10:55. She says she heard the city hall clock chime "11" about 5 minutes after she got to her bed. The next "time" event we know is the FR Police log the call from the newspaper man reporting a disturbance at the Borden house at 11:15.
This has always been the crux of the fascination for me. Not just did she do it? but how did ANYONE do it given this time frame.
Think of it..here's what happened...Bridget goes upstairs, Lizzie would have to get her weapon, kill Mr. Borden, hide or dispose of the weapon. Clean herself. Call Bridget down and send her for the Dr. Bowen. Bridget goes across the street and speaks to Mrs Bowen. Bridget comes back and Lizzie sends her for A. Russell. Mrs. Churchill, coming home from market, sees Bridget going up the street toward Borden street where Alice lives. Mrs. C takes her groceries to her kitchen and looks out her window. Lizzie is in the side door where she is spotted by Mrs. Churchill. They have their exchange. Mrs. C. walks back through her large house, out the door to the Borden's side yard and comes to LIzzie, then goes into the house to look at Mr. B quickly. She then goes outside and goes across the street in search of her handyman. She finds him at the stable downstreet from the Bordens and tells him to get help. Passing her, a newspaperman overhears her and then goes into the paint store up a few doors and calls his newspaper FIRST to report trouble and only then calls the police who log in the call at 11:15. So the time for the crime to be committed really breaks down to about 7-8 minutes. How did anyone do it? How did it happen? And, you're right, If you think it was Lizzie, she controlled the time frame in her calling up to Bridget, but after that and for the next several days, Lizzie was NEVER alone. Even when she went down cellar to clean up her rags, Alice went with her. She was never alone.

[violette]

The fact that the crime scene needn't be cleaned up saves quite a bit of time. I believe that if Lizzie did it then she must have thought something along the lines of 'They will think that an intruder has came in and knocked off both of them, so need to clean up the scene.'

So with the allotted time frame Lizzie would have needed to:

1. Clean and hide (or not) the weapon - A wipe down with a menstrual rag, which could have then been put into the bucket in the cellar. Either find a really good hiding place for the weapon or hide it in plain sight (ashy hatchet for example).

2. Clean herself up - Depending upon the angle she was standing at and the spray of blood this could have been fairly easy or she would have had to have been more meticulous. Clothing also would have needed to be changed. Shoes changed or wiped down. (There's also that Prince Albert coat theory).

Not a lot of time really if you think about it. Running around like a mad woman.

As for why Lizzie would have called Bridget so soon, I had an idea that maybe she didn't want Bridget to wake up from her nap and Andrew's body in the sitting room. I think that it was essential that Lizzie 'find' it first to deflect suspicion from herself.

[Nadzieja]

Two things that I have read from various sources.

First-Andrew did not have a will. He spoke of making one, but one was never found. He did have a lawyer but he did not file one.

Second: There was one time Lizzie was alone. During the night she was observed by the police going into the cellar, this time she was with Alice Russell. However not long after they went back upstairs, Lizzie returned to the cellar alone. The officer outside couldn't see what she was doing but she was alone.

[Curiousmind2014]

Hey Ms. Pitstop,

Thanks for adding on the necessary details.

I personally find it very much impossible for a murder to be committed in such a short period of time. I believe she had an accomplice who did it, with her consent.I don't know why everyone basically wants to credit it to one person. May be coincidences such as Morse's visit, his Alibi, Emma's rare outing, missing note, never found packages and many more were just a part of a Master plan.

In regards to her being accompanied by Alice, I always wondered why she accompanied Lizzie downstairs to the privy. Did Lizzie ask for a company or did Alice insist on her accompanying Lizzie? Also, it is interesting in other ways too, as Lizzie slept in her room, and Alice slept in Andrew's. Did they open up the adjoining door that night? If not, how did they co-ordinate coming downstairs together?

[Curiousmind2014]

@violette

1. I guess theoretically, one can commit a murder, clean the weapon, clean herself, hide the weapon, and make a package disappear by burning it in an extremely short time span. However, it all looks good if you precisely knew the following:

a. Morse won't come back home soon enough in the middle of the fifth strike to the head, or even worse, Morse rings the door bell when she is about to strike the head
b. Bridget would head to bed
c. Andrew will decide to take a nap (even though we don't know for sure)
d. No one wakes up while she is running around the house as a Mad woman.
e. Andrew doesn't wake up before Lizzie decides to strike.... and so on.

Theoretically it maybe possible to travel faster than light, but it takes a lot more to execute it in reality. After all, her life is on line, for killing her own parents, in presence of a maid, in a house on a busy street, with a possibility of her Uncle showing up at any point in time. If we give Lizzie credit for being smart enough to plan it all, we should also consider her smart enough to be cautious in this short period of time, to leave no trail which can get her in trouble.

[Curiousmind2014]

@Nadzieja

I agree that he did not have a will. But does it say across various sources that he was not even in the process of making one? What happened to that package?

[violette]

I agree CuriousMind, it would have taken extreme luck to have everyone out of the house at the time of the crime.

However, to address some of your points:

A. Lizzie could have overheard Uncle John leaving earlier that day and heard Andrew ask him back to dinner or she could have heard remarks being made that he would be back for dinner. So that takes Uncle John out of the equation for a few hours.

B. Bridget had been washing windows and had vomited earlier in the yard. She mentions telling Lizzie that she could lock the side door, and she would get her washing water from the barn. Lizzie knew that Bridget was outside washing windows, a task that would take up a chunk of time (during which Abby was murdered). Did Lizzie witness Bridget's sickness? We know that Lizzie told Bridget about a dress sale at Sargent's.

C. There are so many differing opinions on whether Andrew was napping or not. I myself am inclined to believe that he was lounging on the sofa and was caught off guard.

D. True, but she only had to worry about Bridget waking while she was running around, as Andrew would have already been killed. Bridget slept on the third floor, so I imagine that it would be somewhat easy to hear someone coming down the stairs from the third floor.


Thank you for this discussion, by the way. Things have been sort of slow here lately so it's a delight to post again.

[Curiousmind2014]

Hey Violette!

Thanks for a response. Always great to have a healthy discussion! I think both of us would agree that the only things that are for certain about this case is the fact that an elderly couple got murdered in the middle of the day, in presence of a maid and their daughter at home, with a sharp instrument.

Coming back to our discussion, let us ignore the nuances that took place in 10mins from 1055hrs-1105hrs. It could have been easily done in that less of a time, as you have suggested, or it might be impossible to be done as I have suggested. Both of us are looking at it retrospectively.

On the big picture, let us put ourselves in the shoes of the murderer, and ask ourselves these questions:

1. Do I need to hurry up to complete the murder and cleanup in 10mins? Or should I take an extra amount of time to hide/destroy possible clues? (We can assume that Bridget is up for atleast 30min nap and Morse won't be home by 12 if she overheard him)

2. Would it be smart to just burn the wooden handle of a hatchet like weapon and keep it in the house, or find an opportunity to just take it out and let it be lost forever?

3. Should I take a quick shower, or really clean myself up well, to make sure nothing shows off on me?
4. Should I burn my clothes, hide it, or let it be taken away from the house never to be found again?

Once you answer these questions, you would probably wonder why in the whole world did Lizzie have to wrap it all up in 10mins between 1055hrs-1105hrs.

I hope you find my insights useful! I wish this forum was more active too! Maybe all of us have probably discussed everything :). I personally find it much more easier to learn more about this case, if I do not fixate myself to a plausible killer. I have done that before, and it just creates biases in my mind, and I tried to backward rationalize all the data to validate my belief.

I have kept my mind open now. However, not as open as Abby's or Andrew's ;)

[violette]

To be honest, I have went back and forth between thinking that Lizzie is guilty and she is innocent, so I find too that it's good to keep an open mind.

1. I think that time would have been the biggest concern to Lizzie, an intruder, or anyone. Get it done as quickly and efficiently as possible.

2. Personally, it wouldn't be very smart to burn a wooden hatchet handle. Wouldn't the fire have to be extremely hot for the handle to burn throughly? If it were me, I would take it off of the property and bury it in an at least semi secluded area. This makes me think of the hatchet that was found on top of a neighboring barn, I believe. However, one of the biggest mysteries in the case is what happened to the murder weapon.

3. Her hands were testified as to having been pristine after the murders. No one noticed dirt, blood, or anything out of the ordinary at all. Her hair wasn't in disarray. Her clothing wasn't disorderly, except for her shirt being untucked from the waist of her skirt a bit. I was recently doing yard work and was using a hatchet (metal handle surrounded by a rubberized material) to cut some branches from a juniper bush. After swinging it (I would estimate) about 8 - 10 times I was sweaty and tired. It was about 75 degrees here, and I was sweating. Mind you, I had on a t-shirt and knee pants. I wasn't wearing a full length skirt, shirt with long sleeves, boots, and the underclothing of the period. It was difficult and hot! My clothing was rumpled and sweat covered. In order for Lizzie to have committed the murders in the heat while wielding a hatchet, she would have had to do some cleanup of herself. I do have to wonder about Victorian hygiene practices though.

4. The clothing would have been nerve wrecking had she been the murderer. What to do with it in such a small time frame?


The entire time frame is extremely limited, but I do think that it is possible to carry it out given the time.

Between the murders of Abby and Andrew would have also been a crucial point. The perpetrator would have had to wipe themselves down not once but twice (if blood splatter was present). In Abby's case the blood splatter was little (bed railing, base board in front of her head on the wall) but it had congealed underneath her in a large quantity. Andrew's blood splatter varied in size and was even found at the top of the photo hanging above the sofa. I would think that the cleanup after the murder of Andrew would have had to have been more intense. There's a theory as to why the coat was beneath his head was that it was worn by the murderer as to not soil their clothing.

There are just many things that had to go perfectly for it to all come together.

[Nadzieja]

In response to Andrew making a will. Everything I've read, he didn't have one and he wasn't in the process of making one. I think he mentioned it to John Morse once, but he never acted on it.

When we talk of cleaning up after the murder of Andrew. There was no bathtub or shower. He had running water when the pipes were finally laid down on Second St. I know there was a faucet out in the barn. The only other faucet would have been either in the sink room or kitchen, but that was all. Everyone used those pitcher & bowl sets in the room. The toilets in the cellar also had water but when that was installed, I'd have to look it up the date.
They used slop pails because it talks of Andrew emptying his in the back on the day of the murder.

[Nadzieja]

I should have put this in the last post. I too have gone back & forth over the years, thinking that yes she did it then I'll hear something else & then it's no she didn't. The forensics at the time were almost non existent. I mean they buried their clothes in the backyard then dug them back up to give them to the police. Can you imagine the number of people that walked through that house and barn unattended. It was one big crazy circus.
The one point which brings me to think that this was planned in advance was the fact that the Fall River Police dept was very short staffed that day. Most of them were at Rocky Point Park for their annual outing.

[mspitstop]

Nadzieja.....I go back and forth, too. That's why I call it the desert Island crime. I could ponder it for hours if I were on an island. I also go back and forth between planned or spontaneous and guilty or innocent. Andrew came home unexpectedly early that day, not fitting into a plan. And everything Lizzie said she was doing had physical evidence to back it up: there was a magazine on the kitchen table, the ironing was on the dining table, some done, some undone, her hat (that she had said she had worn was on a table (I think) in the dining room and remember the ice cream man saw a woman with a hat coming from the barn toward the house, wearing a hat, who was not Bridget. And, yes, Curiousmind, there was no shower! Only running water was in the sink room off the kitchen and that was a pump, not the faucet that we are used to. Most of the time I am more inclined to believe it was a crime of opportunity, especially with Mrs Borden and then Mr Borden had to be killed because he would know who had done it. But who would want her dead? I have a couple of theories but no way to verify them.....but they make sense to me. What really made me think of Lizzie's innocence was her inquest testimony. By that time it was given, she had had time to come up with a story that would have made more sense then what she did. And I defy you, on what you believe to be an ordinary morning, to tell me what you were doing at any given moment. And then add the shock of the event to that. I have trouble believing she was lying. And that is the only time we hear her "voice".

[violette]

Nadzieja, if Lizzie did do it I'm convinced that she used menstrual rags to clean up with. That would have cut out any suspicion considering the Victorian thoughts towards it. No one would have checked a bucket full of the rags. She could have cleaned up in the cellar using the rags and water.

It's also convenient that most of the officers were on an outing that day.

[Nadzieja]

There was a pail downstairs, but you're right, they sort of looked & passed over it. There is no mention of how big etc.... so I wonder if it would have been big enough to hold everything from a clean up. I read that for some reason at that time ( I don't know if it was a regional thing) they referred to their menstrual cycle as having the "fleas". It would have been a little difficult because she would have had to get a lot of water from either the barn or the pump in the sink room (or kitchen). they found one underskirt that had one drop of blood smaller than a pinhead, and Lizzie referred to it as her fleas.

[twinsrwe]

The defense didn't know if the clothes that Lizzie gave them were the clothes she actually wore that day. They didn’t have a reliable description of what she was wearing during the time Abby and Andrew were murdered. The pinhead drop of blood that was found on Lizzie's dress, was explained away as menstrual blood, so therefore, the spot on her dress was the result of "having fleas". However, testimony from Dr. Dolan indicates that it is impossible for that particular blood spot to be from menstrual blood. (Highlighting and underlining are mine).


The Preliminary Hearing, Dr. Dolan questioned by Mr. Adams; page 168:

Q. What was it, a dress skirt and an under white skirt?
A. Yes sir and her waist.
Q. Did you examine them?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you find some blood on them?
A. One blood spot on the skirt.
Q. How big was it?
A. The size of a good pin head.
Q. That is on the white underskirt?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you know whether it came from without, in or from inside out?
A. From without, in.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Simply because the meshes of the cloth on the outside were filled with blood, and it had hardly penetrated on the inside.

IMO: If the pinhead spot of blood was from menstrual blood, it would have come from the inside out. Wouldn’t it?

[violette]

The blood would most certainly have came from the inside if it were menstrual blood. The spot would have started out larger on the inside while ending as a smaller pinpoint on the outside of the garment. It would have been fainter on the outside as well.
You can even do an experiment by pricking your finger and pressing the droplet to a cloth. You will see that the above is true.

[Nadzieja]

I totally agree about what Dr. Dolan had stated. The only way that I can see it possibly happening is when she was changing. it was so tiny I was surprised it was mentioned.

[violette]

I was surprised that it was mentioned too since it was so very tiny. I suppose it is possible to have that happen while changing your clothing and not even notice it because of its size.

So her underskirt was checked, but not her actual undergarments?

I cannot believe that someone could wear undergarments, an underskirt, a skirt, a blouse and survive in the heat of August. How times have changed!

[KGDevil]

Mspitstop I would like to make one revision in your recounting the events of what happened after Lizzie called Bridget down. Mrs. Churchill never went in to look at Andrew's body. Actually, Dr. Bowen asked Alice and Mrs. Churchill to come in to see him after he arrived and they both refused. Mrs. Churchill did not want to see him.

Any clean up you apply to Lizzie appearance wise also has to be done by an intruder before leaving the home.They can't walk down the street covered in blood. To say that cleaning up her appearance in that short amount of time is impossible is saying no one could have done it. But someone did.

Cleaning up the scene was not needed. It's a murder. There is supposed to be blood when someone is murdered by a hatchet. She couldn't hide the gaping wounds so why hide the blood?. The fact that there were no blood trails, transfers from bloody clothing, bloody fingerprints, or bloody footprints indicates the killer took some care with how blood spattered they became in the first place. They left no trail. Not one witness noticed any blood other than at the scenes. Not even the newspaper reporters, when it was their job to sensationalize the story for their readers, mentioned blood anywhere but at the scenes.

The fact that Lizzie was so clean and pristine to me indicates that she did clean herself up, or she was lying about being in the barn. She was far too clean to have spent 20 minutes in the heat of the dusty barn loft.

Lizzie's best bet would be to be fast and efficient and call Bridget down before she had a chance to come down on her own. Lizzie stays in control if she is the one who sets things in motion. She can't clean up at her leisure because she cannot control when Bridget might decide to come down, or what she might do if she finds the bodies. The only way she can control Bridget's reaction is to call her down, keep her from seeing the bodies, and send her away. This way Lizzie is still running the show. She controlled everything right down to when they found Abby.

[mspitstop]

KG, you are correct about Mrs Churchill..my bad. For the rest...that's my point ..it was a crime NOBODY could have committed and yet it happened. That is the fascination for me. I agree that if Lizzie did it she was in control of everything up to the point of people coming into the house...police, friends etc. and after that she did not have control. She had to have one cool head! Personally, I think both of the Bordens were stunned, at the very least, by the butt end of the hatchet. In the autopsy reports, both had CONTUSED WOuNDS in the forhead area. This would have slowed down blood flow and help to explain why there was so little blood spatter about both victims and no trail of blood. ohnd, therefore, someone needn't be covered in blood and if you were a blacksmilth, say, you have an apron on that would probably be quite dirty. Just sayin'....

[violette]

The fact that Lizzie was so clean and pristine to me indicates that she did clean herself up, or she was lying about being in the barn. She was far too clean to have spent 20 minutes in the heat of the dusty barn loft.

Lizzie's best bet would be to be fast and efficient and call Bridget down before she had a chance to come down on her own. Lizzie stays in control if she is the one who sets things in motion. She can't clean up at her leisure because she cannot control when Bridget might decide to come down, or what she might do if she finds the bodies. The only way she can control Bridget's reaction is to call her down, keep her from seeing the bodies, and send her away. This way Lizzie is still running the show. She controlled everything right down to when they found Abby.

My thoughts exactly KGDevil! I think that Lizzie had to stay in control of the situation with both cleaning herself up after the murders to when the bodies were found.

[Nadzieja]

ok, so let me ask you all this question: do you think Bridget was part of it?

[violette]

I really don't believe that Bridget was a part of it. By all accounts she was fond of Abby. She was treated well, and her work load wasn't as difficult as some servants had during that time. She lacked motive.
In the manner that the Borden's were killed shows a clear rage. It's almost like the murderer wanted to completely obliterate them (this is seen from the intensity of the blows and the fact that they were concentrated on the head of both victims - the murderer didn't go for the chest or the torso or anything but the head area).
However, I think that it's possible that Bridget could have seen or heard something suspicious and kept her mouth closed. Personally, I think that she wanted nothing to do with all of it, which could be evidenced by the fact that she didn't stick around Fall River for very long after everything was wrapped up.

[KGDevil]

I do think that Abby was struck in the face first. Since she was found lying face down, this is a logical assumption. The killer would have a very tough time striking her in the face after she was face down on the floor. The "flap wound" was inflicted in an attempt to take her down. Then the butt end was used. There is another possibility that accounts for Abby's wound. She was dazed by the flap wound, stumbled, then fell on her face and struck something. Either way the facial wounds had to be inflicted before Abby was face down on the floor.

Andrew's report says there was an incision and a contused wound that penetrated the brain. I tend to think these happened after the attack began.

Simply stunning them both wouldn't slow the blood flow so much because the heart would still be pumping. My theory is simply that they died very quickly. Most of the blows were to the head. The first hit is free. If the first or second hit is a killing blow the heart stops. Very little blood. Taking caution to not be blood splattered would have made very little clean up.

I don't believe Bridget knew beforehand or was involved. But I do believe she may have pieced things together for herself afterward. She was there. If she knew Lizzie was in the kitchen most of the morning she knew Lizzie did it. If she really left Lizzie in the house still worried about her handkerchiefs when she went for her nap, and not headed for or in the barn, she probably figured it out. If the side door was hooked most of the morning so no one could get in or past her in the kitchen...well...etc.

True, someone with a profession that required wearing an apron might have an easy time hiding blood spatter on the apron. But someone wearing a filthy apron coming from the Borden house on a busy street might be a cause for curiousity. And most of the people leaving or arriving at the house were seen by witnesses. I find it difficult to believe a strange person in a dirty apron leaving the house would have escaped notice or mention.

[KGDevil]

Also, if Lizzie stood in the doorway of the diningroom to strike the blows from behind, this probably would have shielded her from most of the blood spatter. The spatter seemed to all be directed away from the doorway and inside the sitting room. Hardly any even hit the door to the parlor except the few spots. And one on the doorjam between the sitting room and diningroom.

[mspitstop]

I do believe that the side door latch was on in the morning, at least before Andrew came home. Mrs Kelly, late for a dentist appointment, observed him coming FROM the side of the house to the front door. I believe that he tried to get in the side door, found it latched and came around to come in through the front door. I've often wondered why he didn't knock of the side door for someone to come and open it but I guess he thought he could use his key at the front door.

[violette]

I

Simply stunning them both wouldn't slow the blood flow so much because the heart would still be pumping. My theory is simply that they died very quickly. Most of the blows were to the head. The first hit is free. If the first or second hit is a killing blow the heart stops. Very little blood. Taking caution to not be blood splattered would have made very little clean up.

I believe the same to be true. If they hadn't died quickly I believe that the blood splatter from the heart pumping would have been much greater. Instead the blood largely drained out. There was a puddle of blood on the carpeted floor near where Andrew's head lay on the couch. Abby had a large amount of blood beneath her head and upper portion of her body. If I'm recalling correctly the blood saturated the carpeting and a piece of it was removed. If a heart is pumping the blood will spurt or create a lot more spatters than the crime scene tells us.
In Andrew's case there was a small spot of blood located near the top of the framed painting. I believe that this could have occurred when the weapon was being swung back and forth.

[gerontologist]

I am new to the forum and am still learning things, although I've read several books (including some by forensic experts) on the Borden case. I have always asked the question posed here about why Lizzie called Maggie/Bridget so quickly after the murder of Andrew must have occurred. Also, the 20-minute time-frame could have been longer or shorter based on how dependable Bridget/Maggie's testimony was about her nap and the clock chimes. (She may have been mistaken. She may have been less than truthful.) I have not been able to form an opinion as to whether Lizzie did it, though.

I recently read Troy Taylor's book, "One August Morning: The True Story of Lizzie Borden" published a year ago by Whitechapel Press (I have read other books, also, and I don't take any particular perspective as "gospel".) Taylor introduces some written and oral testimony about the amount of blood spatter that suggests the killer would have had to clean up after both murders, even if he or she had been able to find ways to minimize exposure.

I do enjoy reading everyone's comments and am glad that I was able to join this forum.

[mspitstop]

Welcome, Gerontologist, The time frame is really kind of fixed for the murder of Mr. Borden. Mrs. Kelly saw him going toward the front door at 10:40 by the City Hall clock and the police log in the distress call at 11:15. Those are the maximum parameters of the crime. Then, assuming that Mrs Churchill and Bridget are telling the truth, the actions that I and the others have written about above have to take place. My favorite books, for what it's worth, are Forty Whacks by David Kent and Lizzie Borden:The Untold Story. To me, these are the least error-filled and really bring that timeline to the fore, which to me is the essence of the crime. How could anyone have done this and virtually left no evidence?

[violette]

The timeline is absolutely essential in understanding the case, in my opinion.

I've been browsing the site, because recently I was reading through older threads and found one on the timeline of the murder and when Dr. Bowen arrived and departed. I cannot find it now, talk about frustrating! I wish I had bookmarked it for easier access.

[violette]

I am new to the forum and am still learning things, although I've read several books (including some by forensic experts) on the Borden case. I have always asked the question posed here about why Lizzie called Maggie/Bridget so quickly after the murder of Andrew must have occurred. Also, the 20-minute time-frame could have been longer or shorter based on how dependable Bridget/Maggie's testimony was about her nap and the clock chimes. (She may have been mistaken. She may have been less than truthful.) I have not been able to form an opinion as to whether Lizzie did it, though.

The accuracy of Bridget's memory is definitely debatable. I also read a thread here from quite some time ago that questioned her ability to tell time. It's possible that she was shocked by the murder and misremembered some details about the day.

[Nadzieja]

First I want to welcome all the new people to the forum. This case will keep you guessing. I've been guessing for quite awhile, but I love seeing different opinions and questions. Remember---No question is too small and No question is ever ridiculous. ALWAYS ask what your thinking because it gives us a chance not only to review, but also might pop up something we never thought of before.
Unfortunately because of my totally crazy work schedule I'm not always on, but always try to catch up if I have time.

So again-----------WELCOME to all of you.

[gerontologist]

Nadzieja, thank you for making us feel welcome. I'm trying to resist the urge to make posts until I've done more reading. (It's slow going because I have to be a social gerontologist most of the time. I think that when I have put together my arguments for the Dean on how Lizzie Borden, the case, and Fall River society fit into my research on aging, I'll feel less like this is my guilty pleasure. I've already figured out how to use Lisbeth Borden's obituary in one of my research projects, but actually doing the project will still take me away from this site. Sigh.)

Meanwhile, I will ask questions as they arise, or comment if it seems that I can add something -- or if I can't help myself. Reading existing threads is rewarding, the discussions on here are so fascinating.

[Nadzieja]

There is a book called Parallel Lives from the Fall River Historical Society. It goes through the history of Fall River and Lizzie's life is interspersed throughout. It makes her life more understandable. You learn an awful lot on how people lived and what it was really like back then. So it's not just a "Lizzie Book".
Remember Gerontologist (actually I've never heard that word before!!) you can always pop in whenever you have time. That's what I have to do and some days I just don't get here. It's that thing called "life" that sometimes eats up our time!!!