Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Why wouldn't Abby have all the keys Andrew had, or was that Victorian normalcy?
Were ANY keys mentioned found on Abby when she died?
What if she wanted to get into the parlour which it seems was locked? Did she go down and find Andrew at the bank?
I still think Abby was contained, and it would have been pretty easy to do.
Andrew is probably a pattern. He took his bedroom key that morning to keep Uncle John from his room. Sure Uncle John left first, but he could come back instantly. Andrew grabbed the bedroom key instead of his front door key to try to get back into the house. He said he forgot his "key" and perhaps the key ring was on the mantle. Andrew gets back in, and goes to his room to check his safe which he's left the combonation number at 37, and finds no one has touched it. Andrew comes back down and his ring of keys is still on the mantle. Uncle John is expected back so he keeps the room key in his pocket. He is killed. Lizzie nabs the room key from his pocket and checks the Sr. Borden's room for who knows what. Lizzie thinks Andrew is dead, but wants to get the situation over, so she calls Bridget. She tells Bridget not to check on Andrew, but to go to neighbors for a doctor, because she doesn't want police around yet. Lizzie has Andrew's room key forgetfully in her pocket. Bridget comes back and goes again, and amazingly Dr. Bowen shows up and...............................

Further, both Bridget and Lizzie are lieing. Their little discussion after Lizzie woke Bridget up is contrived, and makes no sense.
Just a part of it,"where was you Miss. Lizzie?"
Would you after just being woke up and told of an assault in the house you were sleeping in firstly look to reasoning and analysis? Bridget would want to get out of town. And why in such a crutial matter wouldn't Lizzie go looking for a doctor, or the police, herself?
Anybody tell me why Lizzie would find her Father attacked and bother to wake up the maid.

If Andrew took the only key to his bedroom then Abby couldn't get in there- I don't think he would do that. There's no telling what the woman would need from that bedroom while he's downtown. I think in a situation like that, he'd more likely get with Abby before leaving and they'd arrange somewhere temporary to keep it, if they are wary of Morse.

But if someone else took that key (if it's the only one) then Abby could be contained, by not being able to change her dress, and her front door key taken from her could be part of that same plan. There's nothing to eliminate that scenario, unless we find out there were more keys to the Borden bedroom.

The question as to why Bridget might first ask Lizzie where she was might be her way of asking why weren't you killed too? She might not think right away that she herself could have been killed because somehow she thinks it was an enemy of Andrew. Her terror later that day might be once she realized her close call. After-shock.
Yes, I think the parlour was Abby's domain and she'd have a key.
No one said what came from Abby's pockets. I would think her skirt had pockets and her apron.

It has always been a great debate as to the amount of time Lizzie had from allegedly killing Andrew and calling Bridget as to if she would have had enough time to dispose of the weapon and possible clean herself up... Now we want to think she might have had time to toss the old folk's rooms?

Mr Churchill SEES Bridget dart across the street to the Bowen house and Lizzie is in the back doorway. She goes over immediately. Lizzie wouldn not have had time to sneak into the sitting rrom with the key.

Lizzie's decision to call Bridget from upstair is odd. If innocent one would think she would have sprinted out of that house as if the hounds of hell were at her heels.. (Thinking the killer was lurking in the house somewhere)

She did NOT holler "Maggie- lets get out of here! Danger in the house!"

By the time Lizzie is seen at the back screen door by Mrs. Churchill, she is ready. No matter what she got up to in the meantime, right?

Lizie wouldn't have called Bridget if she wasn't as sure as she could be that she was ready for whatever came her way...

I would tend to agree.
Keeping Bridget out of the sitting room and sending her off did gain her some time, tho, intentional or not.
It's like Lizzie was protecting the scene.

Mrs. Churchill stopped to tell her mother she was going next door- who knows how long that took if her mother questioned her? Maybe an extra minute?

Kat @ Thu May 12, 2005 2:16 am wrote:
By the time Morse died those girls were on the outs with him, so that must mean something...

I would say they were on the outs with him at the time of the murders. Or at least Lizzie was. Otherwise why did she claim to not have seen him or talked to him during his visit at all? Wouldn't this be considered rude to completely ignore a house guest, even if it was family? I think the fact that he was as much of a miser and a tight fist as Andrew was had something to do with that. What time was the next meal to be ready? What time would Bridget have to begin her preparations for this meal? Were there any chores that would have normally been performed before the meal? Because if Lizzie was even a little afraid that Bridget may wake up and come down stairs before she has everything back in order and the scene all set, then I would wake her up and send her away also. She never let her get near any part of the house where it might have been possible for her to see anything suspicious. Or it could be possible that after she did have the scene all set, she could not wait for Bridget to wake up and accidentally "stumble" on Andrew's body. She may have woken Bridget up and sent her for the Doctor just to get the show on the road. If Lizzie just ran out of the house, she would have no control over what happened or how it happened. She wouldn't even know what was going. That also leaves Bridget alone in the house to discover the body/bodies. She would have no way of knowing what she would be walking into when she got back. I just cannot see Lizzie being able to stand that kind of suspence.

That latter part makes sense- like guarding the scene, as I proposed. I wasn't sure why, tho. Control..hmmm.

As for Morse, some think it was an arranged thing that Lizzie and Morse would not meet this trip. There are news articles that the girls visited him on & off in the country, just previous to the murders. Someone asked about that earlier.

I guess it's a personal decision whether Morse & Lizzie and Emma did not meet in Fall River, even tho he stayed at their house, because of some kind of animosity or because they needed to avoid any appearance of connivance with him over a plan.

You directly bring up the point Allen. If Lizzie did it, why discover Andrew's body herself? Why not go shopping for fishing equipment and let Bridget or someone else find the body.
This rules out Lizzie as the hatcheter.

Now lets rule out Emma. If she (Emma) did it wouldn't she leave some protection for Lizzie to not be involved? Her most lovedly sister? If Emma did it in conjunction with Lizzie, which would almost have to be a fact, then Emma just dunks, and Lizzie is left alone with the mess. If Lizzie was a part of this kinda planning, she'd say, hey, I wanna be somewhere else. So if Emma did it she would have to be it alone.
What if Emma let someone into the house? Emma waits, lingering at the fence, the job is finally done and they scoot?
Lizzie still probably wouldn't have bought that if she was a participant.
But she might have bought a quickie in and out to kill Mrs. Borden that developed into a more involved crime.
Same for Emma.
But the monster question is, if Lizzie was anyway involved, why would she discover her Father?
Even if she was partially involved, there is absolutely no reason to tell anyone her Father is now dead.
Why would she tell anyone, if involved? The only answer is just to get it over with. If she's not involved, of course, there should be a new website.
So she tells Bridget, but doesn't ask her to go for the police, and on and on...................

john @ Fri May 13, 2005 3:23 am wrote:You directly bring up the point Allen. If Lizzie did it, why discover Andrew's body herself? Why not go shopping for fishing equipment and let Bridget or someone else find the body.
This rules out Lizzie as the hatcheter.

I don't think that rules her out as the killer. In my opinion it shows that she could not wait for Bridget to get up and come downstairs for some reason. Whether it was because she was impatient and ready to get the show on the road, or whether it was because she was afraid she wouldn't have enough time to get everything in order, or some other reason I haven't mentioned, I cannot decide. I know she made it a point NOT to find Abby's body...I'm trying to figure that out as well.

Since we don't know any better, I tend to agree with Allen here.
This , I guess, is where imagination comes in. Why make the distress call when she did?
I think that might involve Morse. His perfect alibi consists in part of Lizzie telling everyone he didn't come home until after Andrew's body was found. So she's protecting him.
And Emma's protected by being away. Probably really away.

With all due respect to each of you, I see illogic.
For Morse, Sawyer recognized him and said when he came. To say that he actually came back earlier, or came back and went again is conjecture. His relative said he visited her by statement, and that is what we rely on, though as I stated above, it may not be very reliable, but why would she lie, especially about Dr. Bowen? If Lizzie sent Dr. Bowen to look for Morse then that opens a lot of other questions.
The mostly illogical act in the whole crime, if we say that Lizzie is involved as most do, is the timing of waking up Bridget.
That act says explicitly that Lizzie had no idea that her Father was dead and was surprised by his body. It also makes it seem, that since Lizzie was near the back door when it happened, she saw the killer run away, and most likely knew who the killer was, or she would have screamed, as she would have screamed and for the police when she found her Father dead. Now if you put yourself in her shoes, they don't work. You just spent a normal morning around the house and suddenly find your Father hacked while he was napping on the couch. You call for a doctor, even though his face is hamburg, but you don't call for the police. You sit around until someone finds your stepmother's body and you think you're really in trouble because all this junk went down while you were ironing handkerchiefs. So you have to play dumb, but I don't think Lizzie was really dumb, and I think the plot was just to kill Abby which could have been a shoot and scoot. Then it would have been reasonable that no one was around at the front of the house. But Andrew is a totally different story. If there was an obfuscatious killer, how would he (she) know Bridget's whereabouts or when Uncle John was coming back, or where Lizzie was? Hand signals? Who would have signaled?
There's really only one conclusion, and it isn't possible that Lizzie killed her Father.

Lizzie said a few times that Morse came back after her father's body was found. Of course he was seen by everbody else but it's Lizzie who states who could have done it and who couldn't: it couldn't be Morse because etc.. it couldn't be Bridget, the men on the farm are blameless etc.

If you want a signal I've got one.
Lizzie stood by that window in the barn loft which faced the street she says, eating pears, and she let down the curtain there.

74 (31)
Inquest
Lizzie
A. No, sir, I went to the west window over the hay, to the west window, and the curtain was slanted a little. I pulled it down.

Bingo Kat!

When Lizzie says who she knows could not have done it, it implies she knows who did do it. Or it calls attention to those very people she has named.

I guess it's a standard cop question to ask the one who is closest to the victim, *Who do you think did this?*
But not *Who do you think didn't do this?*

It's highly unlikely that Lizzie or Emma had any connections with the criminal element, so, if they wanted to find someone to do the dastardly deed, a good source for that could have been the mentally unstable Billie Borden, who would have some motivation himself. Could Lizzie and Emma made this plan to involve him as the actual perpetrator? They could have had him hiding the the barn even the night before the murders (remember the indentation in the hay where someone may have slept?) and Lizzie would have been able to let him know when his best chances were to enter the house. He could have hidden there after Abby's murder and then, when Lizzie went out to the barn, she could have told him her father was home and where he was in the house. This could have explained what someone said about seeing a wild eyed man going down the street. Maybe he was leaving the scene after Andrew's death. It would also explain his suicide some time later.
If he had been caught, Lizzie could explain his possible rantings about her involvement by saying he was just insane.

Kat @ Sat May 14, 2005 6:46 pm wrote:When Lizzie says who she knows could not have done it, it implies she knows who did do it. Or it calls attention to those very people she has named.

I guess it's a standard cop question to ask the one who is closest to the victim, *Who do you think did this?*
But not *Who do you think didn't do this?*

I do agree with you on one point, she does know who did it. She did it. Therefore she knows none of these other suspects could possibly be guilty. I think she told the police that basically every suspect they named could not have done it, because deep down she could not bare the idea of someone else being convicted of her crime. Even though I believe Lizzie committed murder, I still believe she was not diabolical enough to let someone else hang for the crime. Especially someone she knew, and was close to.

Dr. Handy's Wild-Eyed Man was really Dr. Handy's Pale-Faced Man. The newspapers changed his description!

Here is some info as him as suspect.
Also, we read that Hyde said he saw the loitering man, but I don't think I ever saw Hyde's statement to this? Anyone know where it is located?
Please consider all of the below in quotes.

Dr. Handy — Rebello, pg. 65, 251:  Boston Daily Globe, Thursday, June 15, 1893: 1 : "Dr. B. J. Handy Testifies About A Pallid-Faced Man."  Also, W.S., pg. 14-15, Harrington, Wed., Aug. 10, notes, that when the police took Dr. Handy to Boston to I.D. a man, he was not at home.  Dr. Handy was shown a photo of the man he said he had seen that day (Aug. 4th), Henrick Wood.


. . . Dr. Handy so readily pronounced him not the man, is, to my mind, very significant.  His social relations with Miss Lizzie are very close.  She was to spend her vacation at Dr. Handy's cottage at Marion, with his daughter . . .  



Also, W.S. pg. 19, Harrington, Sept. 25, notes,  Dr. Handy explains,

Now Mr. Harrington, I never told you I thought the man I saw committed the crime, did I?  I never said the man I saw committed the crime, and don't think he did.




Also, W.S., pg. 19, Harrington, Sept. 25, notes, 

James E. Cunneen . . . Drove up Second street that day, and the only strange thing I observed was Dr. Handy's actions.  His carriage was drawn up to the west side of the street, about opposite Dr. Kelly's yard.  He sat in the buggy, and was quickly turning his head from right to left, and left to right.  He seemed very nervous, and his strange actions caused me to look around to see what was the occasion of this;  but I observed nothing.  Before I reached where he was standing, he started and drove slowly down the street by me. [see Henrick Wood].

A Man, Wild-eyed — W.S., pg. 14, 15, 19.  Also, Rebello, pg. 251 (really 'pallid-faced'), pg. 132:  Fall River Daily Herald, Tues., Jan. 10, 1893: 8:  "Mike the Soldier / The Man of Mystery Located At Last / Months of Active Search / Rewarded By a Chance Discovery / The Individual Whom Dr. Handy Claimed to Have Seen on Second Street."  Also pg. 115:  New Bedford Evening Standard, Tues., June 6, 1893: 5 : " An Old Story Revived / Rumored: Revival of the Tale of the Wild-Eyed Man / One Way of Looking At It."  Also, Porter, pg. 50-1: 


Dr. Handy's statement was that at some time within fifteen minutes of 10:30 o'clock that morning he was driving down Second street. When he was passing the residence of Dr. Kelly, -which is the next house south of the Borden premises,-his attention was attracted to a pedestrian walking slowly along the sidewalk near the Borden house . . . he looked twice at the passerby, and even turned in his carriage to inspect him more closely . . . There was a peculiarity about the man . . . The individual was about 30 years of age, five feet five inches in height, weight perhaps about 125 or 130 pounds.  His clothes were of light gray of just what cut and texture the doctor could not positively state;  nor could he tell whether the man's hat was of felt or straw . . . He was pale, almost white;  not with the ghastly pallor of a sick man, but rather the whitish appearance of a man whose face had not been touched by the sun's rays;  who might have been in confinement, or whose work was of such a nature as to keep him constantly in a cellar . . . he appeared to be in a state of intense nervousness . . . Column after column of the leading newspapers were devoted to the discussion of the stranger until he became known as 'Dr. Handy's Wild Eyed Man' . . . There was a man known to the police as 'Mike the Soldier' and he in a measure seemed to fit the description of the 'Wild Eyed.' 




Also, Ashton, Proceedings, pg. 216, Jenning's notes,

c.  Handy Dr.  His strange looking man 'I was up St. (street) bet 10:20 and 10:40 perhaps after as near as I can guess I know Tom Boles well for years.  Dr. Bowen said his driver says he called his attention to a strange man--the man struck me as very singular he was moving between D. Kelly's and Wade's store.  There's a detective on his track Furlong, conductor Should say he had a small mustache.  I told that night and Frank Trafton (?) said the police are looking for this very man—Dress, suit all of one color common short coat.  I should say he was pretty well dressed.  Can't say about hat, think it was straw.' [See Nephews][See Mike the Soldier].

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... tPart2.htm

The great Daniel Webster once quipped: "Suicide is confession."

My question is not whether he was "wild eyed: or "palefaced", or if he had a moustache, but whether it seems plausible that Lizzie and/or Emma could have gotten him to hide in the barn, be told where the victims would be so he could commit the murders, and been motivated enough by his own reasons to have hacked them up so. If the sisters knew he had mental problms and a grudge they may have thought he would be the perfect person to commit the crime for them.

Thanks guys, now I know!

Angel @ Thu May 19, 2005 7:13 am wrote:My question is not whether he was "wild eyed: or "palefaced", or if he had a moustache, but whether it seems plausible that Lizzie and/or Emma could have gotten him to hide in the barn, be told where the victims would be so he could commit the murders, and been motivated enough by his own reasons to have hacked them up so. If the sisters knew he had mental problms and a grudge they may have thought he would be the perfect person to commit the crime for them.

How do they keep him quiet?
This William Borden who supposedly already had a father but who did die mysteriously, didn't die until 1901.

If Lizzie did it she would have had to make herself completely presentable two times. Now say she had on a raincoat, and something akin to a beekeeper's headgear, and she entered the guest room where Abby was working on the bed, don't you think Abby would have been startled, and would probably have started screaming long before the hatchet was pulled? The same would probably hold true if a stranger entered the room and was observed by Abby.
The more I think about it, the more this seems likely: it would have been odd to Abby for Emma to have been there that morning, and would most likely have led to some form of struggle from Abby if Emma approached her in dark clothing; it would have been odd to Abby for Bridget to be on the second floor, with the same results possibly, and Bridget would have a very great problem cleaning up, getting back to her room, etc.; Lizzie, however could have approached her stepmother easily with a basket of pillowcases or towels which hid the hatchet, but there is the problem of Lizzie making herself presentable after two bloody murders, and effectively hiding hatchet, headgear and possibly dresses, surely stockings and shoes.
If an unknown stranger was hiding in the dress closet outside the guest room, how would they get into it in the first place (since it was kept locked) without someone's help, and how would they know that Uncle John and Bridget were not in the house, which was important since the stranger intended to stick around. The stranger would have had to have an accomplice on the first floor. What if Lizzie's laugh from the stairs was a signal to someone hiding in the guest room that it was Andrew who was coming in the front door, and not Uncle John?
What if Lizzie distracted Abby. As Abby walked around the bed, Lizzie could say to her from the doorway of the guestroom, "on my way upstairs I saw that there's something under the bed." Abby gets down on her knees and peers under the bed, sees nothing, and gives the killer time to sneak into the room, and Abby gets back up and the killer is behind her and coughs, and she turns around and bam.

john @ Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:28 am wrote:If Lizzie did it she would have had to make herself completely presentable two times. Now say she had on a raincoat, and something akin to a beekeeper's headgear, and she entered the guest room where Abby was working on the bed, don't you think Abby would have been startled, and would probably have started screaming long before the hatchet was pulled? The same would probably hold true if a stranger entered the room and was observed by Abby.
The more I think about it, the more this seems likely: it would have been odd to Abby for Emma to have been there that morning, and would most likely have led to some form of struggle from Abby if Emma approached her in dark clothing; it would have been odd to Abby for Bridget to be on the second floor, with the same results possibly, and Bridget would have a very great problem cleaning up, getting back to her room, etc.; Lizzie, however could have approached her stepmother easily with a basket of pillowcases or towels which hid the hatchet, but there is the problem of Lizzie making herself presentable after two bloody murders, and effectively hiding hatchet, headgear and possibly dresses, surely stockings and shoes.

Well, I do not see the necessity for any kind of "headgear". Though if you want to make a necessity for some kind of head covering, all she needed to have done was wrap a handherchief around her hair and disposed of it after the murders. For all we know this could be the handkerchief which was found by Abby's body, and everyone just assumed it belonged to Abby. It doesn't have to be anything so complicated as a beekeepers head gear . I do not see why Abby would start screaming merely because one of the girls approached her wearing dark clothing. I do not even see her screaming if Lizzie approached in a gossamer. She may have thought it odd, and may have at least begun to ask her why in the world she was wearing such a thing, but I do not think she would just have immediately began screaming. If my husband were to walk in the room wearing a raincoat on a hot dry day in August I wouldn't scream, I would simply believe he had lost what is left of his mind. I do see her making noise when and if she saw the instrument of death. I think Lizzie was an opportunity killer. The perfect opportunity arose for the murder of Abby so she took it. She could've worn the gossamer and a handkerchief over her hair for the murder of Abby. She could've worn Andrew's Prince Albert for the second murder. In that case I do not really see a need for her to cover her hair or face.

Wow, that scenario just gave me a thought and a chill! Lizzie trying to detain Abby up in the guest room and Lizzie telling Abby that her gossamer had a torn seam or hem and asking Abby to sew it for her on the sewing machine as Abby's stitches are so nice and even. Abby finishes and calls Lizzie into the room to try it on and see how it came out and then WHACK!

Yes, I also don't think that Lizzie would need to have a very elaborate head covering, just something that protected her hair from blood spatter, her face would be easy enough to wash off.

We have theorized before that Lizzie may not have known what to expect as far as splatter, etc goes. She learned quickly with Abby and may have taken more precausitons with Andrew. Of course she had plenty of time between Abby and Andrew to clean herself, change clothes or whatever...

I'm glad you guys revived this topic. I want you to dissuade me from my fantasy!
Lately, I've been wondering about *KEYS* (I wonder why?) and thinking about that connecting door to Andrew's room, and why Andrew may have been kept from going upstairs when he returned home. The scene still includes the safe or something someone wants to get at in his room, but now I'm seeing that door to Lizzie's room as open, a convenient way to safeguard her or someone secreted in the house. With that door closed and locked we have a cunundrum- with it open, and Andrew's door unlocked to the back stairs, we have less of one. It's less because now the whole house is open to an intruder, and they have easier avenues of escape. If we were going to arrange these killings, why wouldn't we make sure those doors were viable exits?

The thing I'm also seeing is Abby being chased upstairs like the earliest reports said. And cornered and killed. This would necessitate her yelling or gasping or making some noise as she flees. Bridget is outside or in- she knows what's going on- maybe not until the moment.
I don't know why I'm seeing this. Maybe you all can talk me out of it.

Audrey @ Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:47 pm wrote:We have theorized before that Lizzie may not have known what to expect as far as splatter, etc goes. She learned quickly with Abby and may have taken more precausitons with Andrew. Of course she had plenty of time between Abby and Andrew to clean herself, change clothes or whatever...

Thats probably closer to the truth, Lizzie doing Abby in and learning from the experience. But, one thing does keep coming to my mind, Lizzie's hair. Washing her hair if she got blood on it wouldn't be that much of a problem, but, drying it would be, no blow dryers. I think a woman of that era would possibly have this thought on their minds while doing any sort of task that might mean that their hair might get dirty. So, could it have been possible that Lizzie would have covered her head the first time around?

Just a couple points.
So she uses a handkerchief on her hair for two killings as you say, and drops it next to Abby's body? There would be a lot of blood drips from upward swings of the hatchet which is very different from pooling or splattered blood, and known to police even in mideviel 1892.
The hair is excellent, how would she have time to wash, dry, and style it especially since one witness saw her coming from the barn, and she had to clean the rest of herself up as well. What did she do with her shoes and stockings? Bridget saw her a few minutes before Andrew was killed and didn't say she was barefoot.
Also, do you think the police are so stupid that they would not consider blood spatter evidence on the part of Andrew's coat which was laying in part under him as questionable? They wanted to nail Lizzie anyway, but really found no evidence as to her guilt.
Realistically it doesn't make sence for Lizzie to leave the house when her Father arrives home. If she has to do something outside, she hasn't left the house all morning. She also can stay in the kitchen now, where she seems to cluster to, or go upstairs. Now she would have the kitchen area to herself with Bridget upstairs napping and her Father napping.
Bridgett says, "didn't I hook the door," expectant of an intruder. Why doesn't she ask where the heck is the intruder?
Bridget also says "where was you Miss Lizzie," a direct implication that she would expect Lizzie in the kitchen.
Yet Bridget nor Lizzie show any fear of being there at that time.
I think that the reason she asks for a doctor instead of the police is her subconscious belief that he is not supposed to be dead.
Also on the keys, Abby's stolen keys could have well included a key to the door between Lizzie and her parents rooms.
Abby said "they have taken my key," but at the time she was talking about only one door.

One key yes.
I should modify my statement that the whole house would be open to hide or exit if Lizzie's room and Andrew's doors were opened ahead of time. I think the attic remained locked but not the cellar. (Mainly because Allen bolted the cellar while on guard is why I say not the cellar locked earlier.) So cross the attics off the list unless Bridget was in on it and lying.

Now where did I just read about blood in a woman's hair? Advice was given not to wash it out- it only gunks up. Rather wait for it to dry and then brush it out thoroughly. Can't think where I read that recently- I've been filing on my desktop.
When I run across it I'll post it.

I meant that she said the singular "key" when talking about the taking of her key or keys because she was talking about the singular door. Meaning "they have taken my key to that door," while that key could have been more likely with other keys.

Also on the keys, Abby's stolen keys could have well included a key to the door between Lizzie and her parents rooms.

--john, out of context

Everything is cool except this statement which will confuse people. Since I brought out the single key info to begin with, I am being a purist here.
Otherwise, yes you can extemporize that if one was taken from her and she remarked upon it, it's possible another was that she didn't remark upon, but being careful to say it is your opinion that there were more keys taken (not "stolen").
Er, please. Thanks.

You'd think the only one with the power to "taken" her keys would be Andrew. She said "they" have taken, meaning plural. The only "they" could be Lizzie and Emma unless she was using the word they as the suspicious world beneath them, as famous people do. I suspect her key was "lost," but actually upscounded by Lizzie.
Regarding Lizzie doing it, there would be a lot of evidence to get rid of. I always thought it suspicious that Uncle Morse went to the post office -did he dump it somewhere? Other than that I don't see how Lizzie could have cleaned up and gotten rid of everything.
The big questions still remain. If Lizzie did it why discover her Father's body. That alone says she didn't kill him at least. Also, when she said she thought she heard her stepmother come in she would have had to be upstairs. Lets take it from each scenario, either she's lying about that or telling the truth.
If she's lying, then the only reason to say that would be to lead the searchers to Abby's body, since she doesn't seem to give a rip about Abby as far as comforting Abby regarding Andrew's death at that time.
If she's telling the truth, then she would have to have been upstairs when she heard Abby come in, or she would have seen her, and what would have been upstairs with her at that time, but a body and a killer, her or someone else.
Now here's the logic - if she's telling the truth about hearing Abby coming, Abby has to already be dead!
Did she later recant the story of saying she may have heard Abby come in, because it would place her upstairs after the murder if she's saying Abby went out and came back (without her key!)
I'd like to read more about what Alexander Woolcott thought about this crime.

john @ Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:41 pm wrote: The big questions still remain. If Lizzie did it why discover her Father's body. That alone says she didn't kill him at least.

I'm not finding the logic of that line of thought. Why does it mean she didn't kill him?

My guess is if Lizzie did it she would not have flipped out over finding her father

Allen -
Lets say Lizzie killed her Father. There would be no reason for her to discover the body. She could have waited in the barn or yard and let Bridget find it.

Some murderers pretend to find the body themselves, hence, making it look like they did not do it. Pamela Smart planned the murder of her husband with the 4 teenagers. She went home knowing his dead body would be there and she was the one who found it. She had tried to make it look like a botched robbery. The Ice Princess, as the tabloids called her, never showed any emotion at all, sound familiar? Lizzie (if she did do it) at least was smart enough to have no witnesses.

john @ Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:39 pm wrote:Allen -
Lets say Lizzie killed her Father. There would be no reason for her to discover the body. She could have waited in the barn or yard and let Bridget find it.

That is a matter of opinion, I guess. I don't see where her finding the body is especially compelling proof of anything. She could've waited around for someone else to discover the body, or bodies, but what excuse could she give for loitering around outside or in the barn for all that time? She could barely come up with an excuse for being in the barn while he was killed. She changed her story how many times? To account for 20 minutes? What if it were 45 minutes she had to account for? What could she possibly be doing in the yard or up in the barn for that amount of time? I think that could be another reason why she woke Bridget up.

Also, I think the reason she didn't just leave was the fact that she knew when she got back, the house would be full of people. She probably knew the police would be there. She would have a whole crowd of people studying her reaction to the news that her parents had been killed. She would have to fake a response for a crowd of people. If she woke Bridget up, that initial reaction would be for a party of one.

That's true, ghost, and possible, but highly unlikely.
Lets say Lizzie kills her Father. Now she has about a fifteen minute window to work with before she wakes up Bridget. So she cleans up and disposes of dress and other coverings and the weapon. Now she calls Bridget. Why send Bridget away if not for the police? She sends Bridget away because she forgot something? Why would Bridget go away if she feared danger to Lizzie? The puzzle is solving. The only reason Bridget would have left is that she knew what happened.
And the only reason Lizzie would have (serruptiyiously) awakened Bridget was that she was afraid Uncle John was coming back.
Now what would have happened if Uncle John would have come back before anyone else was there? Would he have killed Lizzie thinking she had killed Andrew? Or simply implicated her? He never did implicate anyone so he must have known something about the crime. Otherwise he would have said, "well who could have done it, Lizzie was the only one there, or Bridget," but he never said anything in spite of his abruptness.
So one of the biggest questions is, why did Uncle John come back? They asked him to stay for dinner at his neice', but he'd rather trolly back to the Borden's.
Seems to me that if Uncle John knew that a murder was committed, he wouldn't want to go back. Certainly if he committed a murder he wouldn't want to go back.
So Uncle John didn't do it - did he come back for lunch?
So the big questions are:
why would Lizzie wake up Bridget?
why would Uncle John come back?
The only conclusion is that Uncle John had no idea that any crime would be committed, and that Lizzie had only a partial idea.
This stuff has been gone over many times.

john @ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:48 pm wrote: The only conclusion is that Uncle John had no idea that any crime would be committed, and that Lizzie had only a partial idea.
This stuff has been gone over many times.

I have to say I don't agree with at least part of that conclusion. I don't think Uncle John had anything to do with it. But I think Lizzie was guilty as sin. So you've reached your conclusion, and I've reached mine .

We're certainly not disagreeing, Allen. We are partially agreeing. I know I don't have a fancy picture and havn't been here for ten years, but there is a point we have to address. If Lizzie killed her Father why would she even wake up Bridget?
Now you tell me .....................

I did explain why I thought she woke Bridget up a couple of posts back.

Well, Allen, ok point by point.
Firstly I deal with facts, and when unknown I stste it as conjecture or similarly.
Really I don't have the time or interest in this, but ok -
Allen says she/he ? doesn't find Lizzie's finding of the body as compelling proof of anything - I'll let that stand as just an immature statement.
Allen says Lizzie could barely come up with an excuse for being in the barn and she came up with several which were accepted. Now if those excuses were questioned granted there may have been a different outcome to the case.
Twenty minutes or forty-five minutes means nothing in a murder if no one is around. She could have waited five hours but she knew that wasn't possible. The point is that if she had killed her Father she probably would have waited for somone else to discover the body.
She seemed to want the house full of people - not police. You say by waking Bridget she wouldn't have people around - by not waking Bridget she wouldn't have anybody around.
I agree with you, Allen as to her guilt, just question the degree.

john @ Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:37 pm wrote:Well, Allen, ok point by point.
Firstly I deal with facts, and when unknown I stste it as conjecture or similarly.
Really I don't have the time or interest in this, but ok -
Allen says she/he ? doesn't find Lizzie's finding of the body as compelling proof of anything - I'll let that stand as just an immature statement.
Allen says Lizzie could barely come up with an excuse for being in the barn and she came up with several which were accepted. Now if those excuses were questioned granted there may have been a different outcome to the case.
Twenty minutes or forty-five minutes means nothing in a murder if no one is around. She could have waited five hours but she knew that wasn't possible. The point is that if she had killed her Father she probably would have waited for somone else to discover the body.
She seemed to want the house full of people - not police. You say by waking Bridget she wouldn't have people around - by not waking Bridget she wouldn't have anybody around.
I agree with you, Allen as to her guilt, just question the degree.

You keep coming back to the same question over and over. No matter how many times someone argues their point. Someone can argue until they're blue in the face. It's like being stuck on a merry -go -round you can't get off of. I could post a whole paragraph stating my reasons for Lizzie finding her father's body and waking Bridget up, and you would just come back to..."If Lizzie killed her father why would she find the body?"As for the immature statement...I think the only thing you find immature about it is it doesn't agree with yours?

I've stated my opinion before and I hate to say it again because I'm not really learning anything new when I repeat myself- but from what I surmise, Lizzie called Bridget down and *found* the body because Morse was due back for dinner. Bridget heard Andrew ask Morse to come back. Morse said *sure* but Bridget didn't hear his answer. Morse didn't know that Bridget didn't hear his answer so he has to come back.
Now Lizzie knows he's coming back and she doesn't want him finding the body. Maybe somehow she knows that person will be a suspect and since Morse has been at great pains to have an alibi, why screw that up for him? Andrew's wounds were still dripping. Officials may have immediately arrested Morse for the murder. He was suspected anyway for a time even with a perfect alibi! Probably because he was a man and a relative and the doctors couldn't tell within say 15 minutes either way when Andrew died.

So I think Lizzie had to find the body before Morse returned. Which involved calling down Bridget. She knew not to call out for Abby, obviously.

OK lets examine something new. Allen says that Lizzie is an "opportunity" killer when killing Abby, and supposedly is the killing of Andrew opportunistic too. If she was waiting for an opportunity why would she choose the morning when Uncle John was apt to barge in the door?
Also, regarding Bridget, her actions were no opportunity, they were probably what Bridget did everyday; instead of chancing Bridhet's discovery of her, why not just kill Bridget first, then Andrew, then since she's so apt at cleaning up in five minutes, just scoot off to the store, and let Uncle John discover the bodies.
Whoever killed Abby and Andrew had to be prepared if need be to kill Uncle John too.
Perhaps Lizzie Hated her Stepmother. Is there any evidence that she hated her Father? Is there any evidence that she cared much one way or the other about Uncle John?
So she is just a churchiemarm who suddenly kills two people expertly and is prepared to kill another, and perhaps Bridget if she woke up and discovered the act?
Hmm.

Why would she just kill Bridget first? Is there a motive for her killing Bridget? Or Uncle John for that matter? Why would she kill either one of them? That is why she waited for the opportunity to kill just Andrew and Abby.If she hooked the screen door as Bridget assured her she could, Bridget was not getting into that house unless Lizzie let her in during the murder of Abby. Uncle John wasn't going to barge in anywhere with all those doors locked either. He was going to knock and wait to be let in.