Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:51 pm

I understand that Abby was hit on the front left side of her head and the force caused her to spin around and fall on her face. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I have been to the Lizzie Borden house and Abby must have known her killer because the space is very small; an unknown killer would have had to run around the bed, but that would have given Abby time to yell, grab something for defense, throw up her hands, etc. At least, Abby would have backed up against the wall (and she would have hit the dresser or bed on the way to the floor and been slumped instead of where she lay). So, it’s safe to say that Abby’s killer faced Abby.

However, I am unsure of where Andrew’s killer stood. Andrew was asleep (or resting). Was the killer in the doorway to the dining room, or was the killer in front of Andrew? The autopsy doesn’t state how the blows occurred (if I understand the records). I believe the records state that the back part of an axe was used (not the blade) as the gash was very wide.

Any insights are appreciated.

MysteryReader · Post by **MysteryReader** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:14 pm

I'm not sure Abby faced her killer. I think that most records say she tried to get away from the killer, hence the blows on the back of her head. As for Andrew, I'm not certain. Off hand, I can't remember where the blood spatter was, which would tell you where the killer stood.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:17 pm

From Abby’s autopsy: “THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side.” Abby was clearly hit on the front left side of her face - once she was on the ground, Abby was hit on her right side (back of head).

I’ll have to read more about the blood spatter to try to figure out where the killer could have stood while pummeling Andrew.

In any case whoever bludgeoned Abby and Andrew really hated them and was pretty fit. 19 & 10/11 swings of an axe are hard to do.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:11 am

Gosh, it has been years since I have read up on the blood splatter. However, here are my thoughts and beliefs, without refreshing my memory about the blood splatter.

I believe that Abby was facing her attacker, when the first blow was delivered, and she fell backwards, rolled over onto her stomach, and then tried to get away from her attacker by attempting to crawl under the bed. The brutal overkill of Abby, indicates, to me, that her murder was committed by someone who was in a state of rage, with an underlying hatred.

Andrew may or may not have been standing when he received the first blow. His murder was also overkill, but not to the degree that Abby's was. His murder also indicates, to me, that the protractor displayed rage, but not necessarily hatred. I think the killer wanted to deface him, which they certainly accomplished.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:46 am

It is unlikely that Andrew (5’11”) was standing and got axed in the face without defense wounds. Andrew was clearly laying and trying to get to sleep or sleeping. I don’t know if the killer was behind Andrew’s head (at the dining room doorway) or in front of Andrew (facing the dining room doorway).

I’m not sure if the lack of blood spots in an area of the room may indicate that the killer stood in that space (and therefore took the blood spots that did not hit the wall, etc.).

It seems unlikely that Lizzie killed her father (due to the timing and the fact that Lizzie was small - it’s hard for me to think of Christian Lizzie swinging a heavy axe 11 times), however, Lizzie may have been in on it. Maybe Lizzie sang a lullaby to relax (and distract) Andrew while someone else (that Lizzie let in) chopped Andrew. Maybe in her Christian mind she was helping Andrew - Andrew was old and was probably going to die soon anyway. Maybe Lizzie was putting Andrew out of his misery (in Lizzie’s head).

However, I do not believe that Lizzie had anything to do with the killings. Lizzie’s personal character (Christian, volunteer, Sunday school teacher, animal lover, etc.) doesn’t match with a double-axe murderer. R.I.P. LizBeth!

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:08 am

From my research... there was more splatter on the parlor door, behind Mr. Borden's head, than possible trace amounts on the kitchen door at his foot. (And obviously the blood on the wall and hanging picture to his side.) This would imply the attack came from behind his head. I believe the running theory is that the suspect entered from the dining room door and stood there.

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:11 am

Ps! Sorry. Ha. It wasn't an axe. It was a small hatchet with around a 3 to 3 and a half inch blade. I believe a shingling hatchet? Nothing near as heavy or akward to weild as an axe.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:33 am

Thanks - hatchet versus axe - a hatchet head weighs less than 2 pounds.

Behind the head seems plausible, plus the sneak from behind where Andrew wouldn’t see the killer. Did you mean the parlor door or the dining room door? I believe the dining room door is nearer Andrew’s head. I have to reread the blood splatter evidence.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:31 pm

BeeQueen wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:46 am It is unlikely that Andrew (5’11”) was standing and got axed in the face without defense wounds. Andrew was clearly laying and trying to get to sleep or sleeping. I don’t know if the killer was behind Andrew’s head (at the dining room doorway) or in front of Andrew (facing the dining room doorway).

I’m not sure if the lack of blood spots in an area of the room may indicate that the killer stood in that space (and therefore took the blood spots that did not hit the wall, etc.).

It seems unlikely that Lizzie killed her father (due to the timing and the fact that Lizzie was small - it’s hard for me to think of Christian Lizzie swinging a heavy axe 11 times), however, Lizzie may have been in on it. Maybe Lizzie sang a lullaby to relax (and distract) Andrew while someone else (that Lizzie let in) chopped Andrew. Maybe in her Christian mind she was helping Andrew - Andrew was old and was probably going to die soon anyway. Maybe Lizzie was putting Andrew out of his misery (in Lizzie’s head).

However, I do not believe that Lizzie had anything to do with the killings. Lizzie’s personal character (Christian, volunteer, Sunday school teacher, animal lover, etc.) doesn’t match with a double-axe murderer. R.I.P. LizBeth!

I agree that it is most likely Andrew was reclining on the couch went he was attached. Many people believe that no one would take a nap in the position Andrew was in, because he appears to be in a very uncomfortable position for taking a nap. However, my father used to take 10 minute afternoon naps in very much the same position Andrew was in when he was killed. My father always napped with his feet off of the couch, because he did not take his shoes off; he did not want to put his shoes directly on the couch.

Many people do not believe that Lizzie was the perpetrator of Andrew’s murder, because of the timeline. They claim there was too little time to clean herself up, and hide the weapon. Yet an intruder had the exact same amount of time. Furthermore, not only would an intruder have had to clean themselves up and hide the weapon, they would have also had to escape the crime scene unseen by anyone in the house, and unnoticed by everyone who may have been on Second Street.

I find it hard to believe that Lizzie’s size makes her incapable of physically killing her father. If a woman’s size is a key factor in determining if they are capable of murder, then how do you explain the 90 lb, 18 year old, Frankie Silver, who killed her husband, Charlie, with an axe, and then dismembered his body and burned it in the fireplace? I believe that if Frankie Silver could kill in such a brutal manner, then so could Lizzie. In other words, ANY woman, regardless of their size, is capable of murder given the right circumstances. (BTW, there is an excellent documentary on the Frankie Silver case, by Legacy Films Ltd. If anyone is interested, here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/ybany4yp )

IMHO: Going to church, being a Sunday School teacher, being a member of the Christian Endeavor Society and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, does not make anyone a Christian. I think Lizzie was a religious person, but she may or may not have been a true Christian.

On Tue May 04, 2010, Harry posted:

At the time of the murders she was not a Sunday School teacher. This is from the Boston Globe of August 6th:

"... The Congregational church is a great missionary institution, doing a great work among the mill operatives.
They have a special Sunday school for this class and Lizzie applied for a position as instructor.
She was given a class of rough, untutored boys and labored with them until her courage was almost gone, and then she was given some girls to teach.
Also connected with the church is a Chinese Sunday school and Miss Lizzie took one of the men to instruct. She had good success and her pupil has since left Fall River. ..."

Later in the same article:

"...When she went to Europe she necessarily gave up her class in Sunday school, and did not resume it upon her return. She continued, however, to attend church regularly, ...."

She went to Europe on June 21, 1890 and returned November 1, 1890.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/y7gc9lcu

Now then, Lizzie may or may not have been a Christian at the time of the murders, and she may or may not have been a Christian in her later years; we really don’t know what her status was on this issue. Even if she was a Christian at the time of the murders, doesn’t mean she didn’t swing the hatchet. All of us have a breaking point, where we lose control and do things we normally wouldn’t do.

We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs. I just happen to believe that Lizzie was the sole perpetrator of both Abby and Andrew's deaths. I think, for whatever reason, Lizzie had reached her breaking point.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:36 pm

LABRhush wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:08 am From my research... there was more splatter on the parlor door, behind Mr. Borden's head, than possible trace amounts on the kitchen door at his foot. (And obviously the blood on the wall and hanging picture to his side.) This would imply the attack came from behind his head. I believe the running theory is that the suspect entered from the dining room door and stood there.

I agree, LABRhush.

Number 1 in the diagram below is the door between the parlor and the sitting room, where Andrew was killed. It was this door that Emma removed blood splatter from. (Click on the image to enlarge.)

Diagram of first floor.jpg

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:47 pm

Here is a link to the Blood Evidence, by Kat Koorey: http://tinyurl.com/ycaar3ts

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:29 pm

The crime scene photos are not crime scene photos - the bodies were repositioned for the photos. Perhaps even undressed and redressed (hence the shoe controversies) prior to the photos. Even furniture is missing. (I wonder what happened to JM’s toiletries.) So, we don’t really know either body’s true position.

Per the time, Lizzie didn’t look unkempt (according to Alice - who, btw loosened Lizzie’s dress but yet couldn’t describe the dress). So for Lizzie to have snapped and kill both her stepmother and father yet leave no footprints, blood stains, murder weapon, etc., and still look fine, that would have been a better acting job than even Nance could perform!

I can’t get a good handle on the blood splatter from Andrew. It seems like blood was everywhere. The room is SO SMALL that the killer had to have been splattered which would have prevented splatter to hit anywhere behind the killer. Were there any “cleaner” spots either on the wall or the dining room or parlor doors? What about the opposite wall - is that the west wall where the windows are?

I’m sticking with my innocent belief. I wish I could have known LizBeth!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:56 pm

It is my understanding that John Morse didn't have any toiletries with him, for his trip to see Andrew on August the 3rd. He didn't even have a change of clothes with him.

Yes, it's true that Lizzie's appearance was pristine. However, that doesn't prove she was not the killer. Keep in mind that if an intruder were the killer, then they didn't leave any bloody footprints, blood stains or the murder weapon, etc., either. The truth of the matter is, we don't know who the killer was, and I'm afraid we never will.

You may be able to find the answers to your questions regarding the blood splatter in the link I provided above.

As I stated previously, you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, as I am entitled to mine.

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:35 pm

This is a fun conversation! And yes, I meant the suspect entered through the dining room door. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am work so not able to engage as deeply as I'd prefer right now. I can't wait to check out the blood evidence link! Thanks Twins! I believe it was mordern forensics that suggested the suspect's positioning behind Mr. Borden, but I could be wrong. While we're tossing our hats in, I personally believe Lizzie did it. I do not believe she was a psychopath. She doesn't display any of the markers before or after... in what we know about her. I agree with Twins. She broke. I believe there were circumstances that put Lizzie in a desperate position and she felt this was her only way out. But, as we've all said, everyone is entitled to there opinions! That's what makes the forum fun. And I agree BeeQueen... I would have loved to have met Miss Lizbeth

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:05 pm

“However, that doesn't prove she [Lizzie] was not the killer.” Lizzie and I live(d) in the USA - we don’t have to “prove” not guilty - Hosea Knowlton and William H. Moody had to prove that Lizzie was guilty. They failed to do so and thus Lizzie is not guilty! I agree!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:33 am

I agree, LABRhush, this is a fun conversation! I think you were very clear when you stated that the suspect entered through the dining room door. I posted the image of the 92 Second Street first floor layout, to show where the location of the door was that had blood splatter on it.

You're welcome for the link containing the blood evidence. Since Kat Koorey is the author, you can be assured it is accurate. After you have a chance to read and study it, I hope you will post your thoughts.

I don't believe that lizzie was a psychopath, either. It is obvious to me, that the primary target was Abby; she received almost twice the number of blows that Andrew received. This indicates to me that the killer was filled with hatred, and raged. Abby's death was a crime of passion, which resulted in overkill. Andrew's death was also a crime of passion, in which the killer was enraged, but they did not have the hatred toward him that they did for Abby. Andrew's death was also overkill, but not to the extreme that Abby's death was. Both victim's most likely died with the first couple of blows. An intruder is going to swing the hatchet just enough times for death to occur; they are not going to take the time to keep hacking away at a dead body.

I believe that something big was going to take place the day of the murders. Whatever it was, Lizzie found out about it, perhaps though a remark that Abby may have made, which caused Lizzie to see red, and she simply snapped.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:45 am

BeeQueen: Yes, you are correct. Hosea Knowlton and William H. Moody did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lizzie was guilty, and she was acquitted. However, just because the jury found Lizzie not guilty does not mean she was innocent. All the jury's not guilty verdict means, is Knowlton and Moody did not have the physical evidence to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:18 am

Twins - thanks - I do know that “not guilty” does not = innocent. That said, I have read nothing on this board or anywhere else that “proves” Lizzie hacked Abby and Andrew. No evidence = not guilty.

What I am interested in are the clear confusion and conflicting accounts - like the Doctor burning papers, Alice not knowing the dress Lizzie was wearing even though Alice loosened the dress (but remembered all the other dresses and even when one dress was bought), the Doctor giving Lizzie morphine, the Doctor saying Abby died from fright, everyone (including policemen) eating the pears (they must have been delicious), lack of blood evidence, repositioning the bodies, removing furniture, etc. All of that is fascinating to me!

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:04 pm

Thanks, Twins! And I'm glad you posted the pic. The house has a very confusing layout. And I absolutely agree. I believe 100 % that Lizzie was down to the wire that day and that something pretty impacking was about to occur. I think most humans are capable of killing if put in the "right" circumstance... and desperation can change perspective to the extreme.
Also, to add to your crime of passion point, nothing was stolen or even rifled through. So theft is clearly not the motive. By my thought, even going w the Mr. Borden had an enemy (most likely busuiness related) theory... that completely disregards Abby's wildly violent death when her husband wasn't even home. All of this put with the weird layout of the house, while 2 women were coming and going in and out all morning... helps lead to my being skeptical of an outsider doing this. I've staid the night in that house twice. You can hear a random person simply walking, not stomping, up on the 3rd floor from anywhere in the house. I cant imagine 2 violent murders went under the radar. But... just my opinion!
Also BeeQueen... Im facinated by all the unanswered little qurks in the case too! Ive always wondered about Dr. Bowens note that went in the fire. Though I believe it was commanplace to burn trash that way in that time, it doesnt account for whatever mystery was tossed in immediately in front of police. Interesting!

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:48 pm

Hatchet, axe, flat iron, or something else - we don’t even know the murder weapon type let alone the murder weapon. The flat iron theory is interesting - hide the murder weapon in plain sight. In addition, the wounds are not parallel (which may occur with an axe or a hatchet). Moreover, sometimes killers with sharp weapons injure themselves in the act.

Also, for all of you “Lizzie-did-it”s, imagine Lizzie bashing in Abby’s head and saying, “ironing is done!”

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:33 am

BeeQueen wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:18 am Twins - thanks - I do know that “not guilty” does not = innocent. That said, I have read nothing on this board or anywhere else that “proves” Lizzie hacked Abby and Andrew. No evidence = not guilty. ...

You are correct. There isn't anything on this board or anywhere else that “proves” Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew - that's why the Borden murders are referred to as unsolved mysteries.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:56 am

BeeQueen wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:48 pm ... Also, for all of you “Lizzie-did-it”s, imagine Lizzie bashing in Abby’s head and saying, “ironing is done!”

I don't find this statement a bit funny. I find it downright distasteful. You are showing a lot of disrespect toward the people who believe Lizzie was the killer. Furthermore, Abby Borden's death was not a joke, and she certainly doesn't deserve this sort of a comment being made about her demise.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:34 am

LABRhush wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:04 pm Thanks, Twins! And I'm glad you posted the pic. The house has a very confusing layout. And I absolutely agree. I believe 100 % that Lizzie was down to the wire that day and that something pretty impacking was about to occur. I think most humans are capable of killing if put in the "right" circumstance... and desperation can change perspective to the extreme.
Also, to add to your crime of passion point, nothing was stolen or even rifled through. So theft is clearly not the motive. By my thought, even going w the Mr. Borden had an enemy (most likely busuiness related) theory... that completely disregards Abby's wildly violent death when her husband wasn't even home. All of this put with the weird layout of the house, while 2 women were coming and going in and out all morning... helps lead to my being skeptical of an outsider doing this. I've staid the night in that house twice. You can hear a random person simply walking, not stomping, up on the 3rd floor from anywhere in the house. I cant imagine 2 violent murders went under the radar. But... just my opinion! …

You're welcome, LABRhush. I'm glad you found the pic of the first floor layout helpful. I agree with you - most people are capable of killing when put in a situation where they feel trapped or threatened.

I have not been to the house, but from other forum members I’ve gotten a better understanding of the house. The following thread explains what I am talking about. Here is the link (Scroll down to where I quoted violette, and highlighted the word ‘eavesdropping’): http://tinyurl.com/ya79zhgu

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:13 pm

Thanks for the link, Twins! Gives me a whole new thread to devour

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:14 pm

You're welcome, LABRhush . Since you have been to the house on Second Street, it would be interesting to get your thoughts on this thread, or the thread the link takes you to.

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:01 pm

Absolutely! Well, just in my experience, this last August 4th I was in the house and when I realized there was a child talking to himself in the sitting room I tried out the evesdropping test. I was staying in Lizzies room, so I went in and left the door open. The child was doing not much more than murrmering, playing alone, and I had no problem hearing him. I couldnt make out every single word, but purposefully listening, I could make out most of what he was saying. For anyone curious, he was asking the ghosts questions ha. He was maybe 10.

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:03 pm

Ps the windows were closed and the air conditioning was running.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:31 pm

Lizzie always kept her door closed and locked: “She said that it was impossible for anyone to get in or throw anything in her room, because she always kept it locked.” With the door closed, it would be difficult to hear conversations, etc. (I have stayed in Lizzie’s room as well.)

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:58 pm

This keeps getting funner

Well... yes, but I'm thinking she'd make an exception if she were specifically trying to listen. Not to mention, I think by her own inquest testimony, she said that the voices downstairs (Andrew and Uncle John) were annoying her while she was in her room August 3. Implication being, she not only heard them... she didn't have to make a special effort to hear them down in the sitting room.
And I could very be wrong, but I believe she said she kept her door open or closed according to the weather. If you've been in her room... you have to admit we are by no means close to sound proof. The walls are paper thin. And even if it were as closed up tight as a panic room, opening a door for the intention of evesdropping changes things. She could have crept halfay down that staircase and sat down on a stair for a good listen. She could have stood on the landing or... the middle of her room and deciphered that "annoying" conversation.

KGDevil · Post by **KGDevil** » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:30 pm

dalcanton · Post by **dalcanton** » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:47 pm

"An intruder is going to swing the hatchet just enough times for death to occur; they are not going to take the time to keep hacking away at a dead body."

I absolutely respect that point of view (in fact, I'm half-convinced of it myself), but what if the suspect (Lizzie or an intruder) had never killed before and needed to make sure the victim was dead? Sure, Abby may have looked "dead" after the first couple blows, but was it 100% certain? Wouldn't it make sense for the suspect to keep hacking away just for good measure? Especially if the blows were rained down on Abby's head while Abby was face-down on the floor? Her face couldn't be seen, thus the visual evidence of the face & it's reactions wouldn't be there.

Andrew, on the other hand, was murdered while face-up. The face's reaction could be seen - shock or glassiness in the eyes, thus signifying death? The eyes closing? Also, after having killed before (just 90 minutes earlier), perhaps the killer had quickly learned it only took a handful of blows to finish the job - 11 is still overkill, but not as bad as 19.

dalcanton · Post by **dalcanton** » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:03 pm

"...Lizzie didn’t look unkempt..."

Other things to ponder:

If Lizzie committed the crime just 10 or 15 minutes prior, wouldn't her face have been flushed from the exertion of swinging the hatchet 11 times, especially if she had been wearing a heavy dress combined with the heat of the day?

Wouldn't she have been somewhat out of breath? Sweating?

Her hair a little tousled?

How could she have looked so "pristine"?

I have studied the case for over 30 years & I'm still on the fence about her guilt.

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:06 pm

I’m not sure where the “just enough times” comes from - certainly not from empirical data. Candace Montgomery killed her ex-lover’s wife with 41 blows of an axe and was acquitted. Criminal escalation (also known as overkill) is a criminological classification and is found in serial killer cases. The serial killer isn’t happy with the victim’s reaction or the serial killer just likes the torture/kill.

From the testimony, it appears Abby was trying to crawl under the bed - hence the serial killer used overkill - either because he was angry or excited. The serial killer seemed to enjoy overkilling Andrew as Andrew was probably dead after the first blow.

LABRhush · Post by **LABRhush** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:54 pm

Throwing this out for fun....
Doesn't it make her seem just as guilty being so clean? She didn't run to her father? Try to check on him or help him? She called for a doctor. That implys he could be helped. Plus, if she had been in a hot and dusty barn fingering around through things looking for pieces of iron, that would have made her sweaty and probably made her hands dirty. At very least, not pristine.
I love these discussions! They always open up new ideas and make me think

BeeQueen · Post by **BeeQueen** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:08 pm

We don’t know how hot the barn was, but the temperature was not hot - it was a high of 78 degrees (mild for New England in August). https://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/LBFo ... php?t=4986 has a good report on the weather.

We don’t know if Lizzie was in shock and maybe washed her face. There was no reason to rush to her father. I doubt if I saw my blugeoned father that I would run to him. I may yell for Maggie to call 911, and I may go to the sink and wash my face (splash water on my eyes trying to get the sight out of my head). So, now we would call 911. Then, they probably called the doctor (who lived across the street). This was not odd to anyone.

Also, there was water in the barn. See Trial vol. 1, page 231: “Q. Now where did you get your water from in washing these seven windows? A. In the barn, except the first pail I brought from the kitchen.” Maybe Lizzie washed up in the barn if she became dirty.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?

Re: Was Andrew’s killer facing Andrew?