Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Well, if Uncle John showed up he would have to be let in. If Bridget came downstairs while Lizzie was killing Andrew what would Lizzie say? I don't have time to feud with you Allen - mostly because I like you. I usually don't have time to read all the posts because, especially now, they're so superficial. I just picked up on the "opportunity" crime angle and don't think it's right. Otherwise you're always correct.

Well, first I'm not sure Bridget would've heard him rapping on the door from her third floor attic bedroom. Did she have the door shut as well? That's something I'd like to experiment with on my next visit. If Uncle John showed up and Lizzie was in the act of killing Andrew, my guess would be she could...quickly hide or drop the axe...start yelling...and say 'Oh Uncle John...someone has killed father." I also think that someone who is really comtemplating a murder, doesn't think as rationally as the rest of us to a certain degree. No matter who that person is.

Uncle John's visit was unexpected. I have been thinking about this further.She may have planned if for a few days. Emma was away in Fairhaven. Bridget may have been easily distracted and have out of her way due to her schedule of chores, naps, whatever. Most of he police force would be gone. Andrew would be out on his rounds. Then Uncle John shows up. Lizzie figures, who knows how long the old geezer will stay, I can't wait any longer. I think there was something that was going on, something that caused this to happen, that also resulted in Lizzie not being able wait. The time was now. Then Uncle John leaves to go visiting, is told to come back to supper, and Lizzie again has the house exactly as she planned it. The locked doors meant he wasn't going to barge in.

If the hatchet was found she could've said that's where the killer dumped it on his way out. In my opinion, that's what she would've said. Lizzie wasn't very inventive when it came to lying, that is something I agree with Lincoln about. If he came back after she had already cleaned up, the same thing, start yelling..the whole bit. I think that actually would've been more believable if Lizzie had Andrew's blood on her. What daughter doesn't rush to her father's side after he is killed if she is really shocked by the murder? I've put myself in that scenario. A guilty daughter that doesn't want any blood evidence on her dress because she had just finished cleaning up so she can say she was in the barn. But then again this is just my opinion. And I know not everyone will react in the same fashion in any given situation. But I ask everybody, if you walked into a room and found one of your parents laying there like that, what would you do? How would you react? Everyone is welcome to disagree with it, thats how opinions work.

The only thing I don't understand about it, is why didn't Bridget ask someone to call the police?

In her inquest testimony, Lizzie said that she only told Bridget that "Father is hurt." In fact, she quotes herself as having said, "Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can. I think father is hurt." If that's true, it probably made sense to get a doctor rather than the police.

Let's see now. One person has complained that it's too difficult to use sources when posting, and another thinks our posts are too superficial. Can't win, can we?

By "superficial" I mean that there is a lot of reiteration without reaching a conclusion among the normal posting which isn't intendended to lead to anything, such as the picture of the Fall River house.
If a conclusion is made on a matter then that matter can be waylayed and other issues considered in respect to that conclusion. A good example is the locks. There's tons of type about the locks and the opinion is still at the beginning of the issue.
If the man used this method we'd still be actively looking for Judge Crater.

john @ Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:16 pm wrote:By "superficial" I mean that there is a lot of reiteration without reaching a conclusion among the normal posting which isn't intendended to lead to anything, such as the picture of the Fall River house.
If a conclusion is made on a matter then that matter can be waylayed and other issues considered in respect to that conclusion. A good example is the locks. There's tons of type about the locks and the opinion is still at the beginning of the issue.
If the man used this method we'd still be actively looking for Judge Crater.

I don't think there really is a way to settle on a permanent conclusion to any question concerning the murder, and then move on to consider that subject closed. Why? Because most issues dealing with this case cannot be investigated satisfactorally enough to reach said conclusion (evidence wise) 100+ years after it happened. We can only speculate. So unless we can find a way to invent a time machine and go back and gather first hand accounts and evidence, and be there to actually experience all that occurred during that time, no conclusion can really be settled on as a certainty. But that's just what I think.

We get stuff done sometimes!
Besides we like to talk about everything.
We never know what might lead somewhere.

You would think that whoever killed the Bordens might very well have been prepared to kill someone else there too, if they had to. That's a valid point. Even if it was Lizzie. I'd think any murderer would have to be ready to go all that way down that road- I just don't know how they could get psyched to kill someone *innocent*- as in *innocent bystander*.

If Lizzie locks that screen door then she is the only one who could have killed Abby seemingly- so she doesn't.
It's in the movie she did, right, but Bridget didn't see her hook the screen that she says, does she- in real life? Lizzie can't be ever locked inside with either dead body- and when she comes back from the barn (supposedly) she even says the door was open. She found it open. On Friday she wants it to be thought that even the cellar door was open- so did Morse on Thursday while walking around the yard all day. It seems his only purpose was to instill the impression that the cellar door was unlocked. For some reason he doesn't say both cellar doors were unlocked, tho. Why didn't he think of that? Surely he's been in the cellar and knows there's 2 doors to the outside?. She wants unlocked doors, not locked doors.

Morse more than likely had something to do with the crime of killing Abby, and there's the rub. Can anyone fathom either Lizzie or Morse wanting Andrew dead? I think Andrew's killing was a faux pas of the plan and probably the reason for Morse' hesitation when he returned to the house. Morse may not even have gone back there if he knew Andrew was dead, he would have no reason to unless in some way his being there supported Lizzie.
Andrew was probably planning on turning most everything over to Abby, which would create an intolerable situation for a normal person, Abby ruling the roost, to say nothing of how Lizzie, who seems pretty whackey anyway, would deal with it.
I feel sorriest for Abby who was close to having the world her oyster.
"The oyster is my world," said the pearl diver, and the barber smiled, and said, "the world is a snip and a cut."
This is old stuff, of course, but as Kat and Allen say, it's fun to talk about everything.

Kat @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:21 am wrote:We get stuff done sometimes!
Besides we like to talk about everything.
We never know what might lead somewhere.

You would think that whoever killed the Bordens might very well have been prepared to kill someone else there too, if they had to. That's a valid point. Even if it was Lizzie. I'd think any murderer would have to be ready to go all that way down that road- I just don't know how they could get psyched to kill someone *innocent*- as in *innocent bystander*.

If Lizzie locks that screen door then she is the only one who could have killed Abby seemingly- so she doesn't.
It's in the movie she did, right, but Bridget didn't see her hook the screen that she says, does she- in real life? Lizzie can't be ever locked inside with either dead body- and when she comes back from the barn (supposedly) she even says the door was open. She found it open. On Friday she wants it to be thought that even the cellar door was open- so did Morse on Thursday while walking around the yard all day. It seems his only purpose was to instill the impression that the cellar door was unlocked. For some reason he doesn't say both cellar doors were unlocked, tho. Why didn't he think of that? Surely he's been in the cellar and knows there's 2 doors to the outside?. She wants unlocked doors, not locked doors.

She could've locked it during the murders. Then unhooked it after she was finished. She wouldn't want Bridget walking in on her I would imagine, if it could be helped. But if something went wrong and Bridget had to be killed, then yes she probably would have. Lizzie probably would've killed Bridget if she had to, but I think she would try to avoid it if at all possible. Why should she want to? She had no motive for killing Bridget. She would gain nothing by it.

But from what John was saying, he said why didn't she just kill Bridget first? First, if she killed everyone in the house, and left herself alive, that would've been even more suspicious. "Where were you when Bridget was killed?"..."Where were you when Abby was killed."...."Where were you when Andrew was killed?"....I think Andrew was an intended victim. I think if he would've suspected Lizzie, and Lizzie knew that. It also makes absolutely no sense, to me, to say that Lizzie killed Abby because Andrew was going to leave her everything, but left Andrew alive. So she gets rid of the competition for the money, and the estate, but is then prepared to wait...well..how ever many years it took until Andrew finally died to get her hands on it? And if he had any suspicions that Lizzie did it, he could've left her absolutely nothing. Not one penny. So it would've all been for nothing.

She could not just whack them all and then say I wasn't home I was out. Ok, then where was she? Who could testify to seeing her, or to her having been there to back it up? Nobody. There were so many witnesses to Andrew's day, and to Uncle John's day, but there would be none for Lizzie's day? And that wouldn't look suspicious? She couldn't say she was wondering around in the yard, or waiting up in the barn for all that time. These ridiculous alibi's were part of the reason she was arrested, then bound over for trial, in the first place.

Rebello page 162:

The Court's Judgement

"This long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say,' Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by the guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden, was the first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers, then he was out in the yard, then he was out for something else. Would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be-- the judgement of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court."

Kat @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:21 am wrote: She wants unlocked doors, not locked doors.

If this was true, then why didn't she unlock the cellar door?

John, you've made a couple of intriguing statements: "Morse more than likely had something to do with the crime of killing Abby..." and "Andrew was probably planning on turning almost everything over to Abby..." Can you tell us how you know these things? For example, can you explain for us Morse's motive for killing Abby or being involved in her murder? -- And what documentation is there for Andrew's intent to turn most of his assets over to Abby?

My take on it is that she came inside and locked the cellar door again. Someone leaving wouldn't care if the cellar door was locked or open. If she was in the barn the screen door would be unlocked.
An interesting point.
Why didn't the woman at the Chagnon house who canstantly looked out the window say that she saw anything? Did she just shut up about what she saw? This comes right back to the topic of this post subject. The woman said she was looking out the window all of this time, but never saw Lizzie or anything happen at the Bordens. Only a driver said he saw a woman walking from the barn at an about right time. So women come to this house and aren't afraid in spite of the fact that horrific murder has just happened, and did they know it was going to happen and so they are safe? Why didn't Bridget go running for the police or for her own safety? Why didn't Lizzie?
It's too bad that a few cops couldn't have hooked a few people up to a lamp right away, including Dr. Bowen, to find out what went on.
Yes Allen is right - probably too late to figure out now.

Oh, another question, John...who was that woman at the Chagnon house who was looking out of the window the whole time? I thought the Chagnon family was out of town on the day of the murders.

Oops Mrs Churchill's house, and it was her mother. The Chagnon's weren't out of town because they testified to evidence the night before the murders - unless they left early.

The Chagnon's were out of town but Lucie Collette was outside their place that morning. Mrs. Dr. Bowen was looking out her front window sporadically that morning, through the shades. Watching for her daughter.
There were people watching somewhat- we don't know what Mary Doolan was doing at the Kellys and I think Harry posted that Mrs. Chase was outside on a roof hanging her wash?
I get the impression that Mrs. Churchill's mother was on the north side of her own house because Adelaide popped in there to tell her mother she was going over to the Bordens.

"She could've locked it during the murders. Then unhooked it after she was finished. She wouldn't want Bridget walking in on her I would imagine, if it could be helped. But if something went wrong and Bridget had to be killed, then yes she probably would have. Lizzie probably would've killed Bridget if she had to, but I think she would try to avoid it if at all possible."--Allen

I think if Lizzie was willing to kill Bridget if she absolutely had to, then she would leave the door unlocked. Alocked door directly implicates her and no one else. It would be the chance she took- especially if she was willing to kill Bridget.
Meaning- Lizzie hopes that Bridget doesn't come in but if Bridget tried that door and it was locked- Lizzie's goose is cooked.

We don't know what Andrew may have done if Abby only was found killed. If he suspected Lizzie and she had anything on him incriminating- there might be a standoff- he might send her away, but might not speak against her. Especially if he had no proof. He didn't prosecute her for the robbery- which might have taught her a lesson. Admitted, robbery is not the same as murder- but the rich just did not want scandal in those days.

I don't think Lizzie would unlock the cellar door because:
That was Bridget and Andrew's thing. Bridget would probably know Lizzie did that- again implicating Lizzie directly if Bridget felt like she neded to explain that open cellar door.
Lizzie went to the effort of asking Bridget in front of a cop early Friday morning. Bridget answered no- it wasn't left open. That was Bridget's *thing.*

Also maybe Lizzie didn't think of it until later
or
She was supposed to as part of a plan and forgot or she did unlock it but someone re-locked it, either accidently or on purpose.
Bottom line- Lizzie does want unlocked doors, and it has to be for real. (IMO).

Sorry this is long. It's from The Evening Standard and explains why some people think Morse was involved, that Abby might have profited more than the girls would find acceptable and mentions the comings and goings at the Davis cottage which implies a conspiracy of some sort between Morse and Emma and Lizzie. For information purposes:

..."Yesterday afternoon local interest centred in the news regarding the will which appeared in the Standard. It is known that along with the theory which the State has been pursuing, there is a motive which prompted the killing, and that that motive will probably be made to play an important part at the final trial.

The government has already said that it had good grounds for believing that the butchery was the work of some member of the Borden family, and it has pointed out that member. It has, of course, its views as to the motive which inspired the prisoner to commit the deed. If it were to secure a fortune, the fortune is at hand; if it were to satisfy a mad impulse, there is evidence bearing on that point. The estate involved was a large one, and everything connected with its disposal is of the utmost consequence; on the one hand, to prove that it could not have disturbed the brain of the murderer, and, on the other hand, to prove that it could and probably did.

In considering this subject it is necessary to be conservative. People who were regarded as the best authorities are not infallible; they're liable to err in their conclusions. Furthermore, at this stage it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate information. Nearly everything comes indirectly, and a great deal of allowance must be made for that fact. The judge, district attorney and marshal may or may not know that Andrew J. Borden was about to make a will when his life was taken, and that there was a debate in the family over it. All that the newspapers can fairly tell their readers is that they have heard such a story from a source which they regard as reliable. If there is no foundation for it, speculation along this line is worthless; if there is ground for it, its importance cannot be overestimated. In the latter event, members of the family in Fall River and elsewhere will be able to recall a great deal that was said about the will and the feeling in regard to it. Money arrests the attention, and impresses itself on the mind sometimes, when a sermon will not.

Mr. Borden may never have referred to a will in the presence of his wife and daughters, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he did, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the matter interested them. In the absence of undeniable facts, it is easier to believe that there was a controversy over this subject than it is to pin one's faith to the wild-eyed, white-faced man, or the stranger seen by Manchester's dead brother on a country road. If the family relations were not pleasant a quarrel would not have been improbable. If there is any one thing that can create greater estrangement and a more enduring bitterness in the most harmonious household than dollars and cents, it has not been discovered up to date. If Miss Lizzie were not fond of her step-mother, it would not be unnatural for her to protest that Mrs. Borden should not enjoy more than her legal share in the property. It would not be unnatural for relatives, near and remote, to take sides on the question. Were such a discussion once launched, it might be expected that certain relatives would plead for the daughters, and others for the wife.

In other words, there is nothing far-fetched or impossible in all this, provided, as stated, the subject was ever broached. A sane being can hardly conceive, it must be admitted, how such a dispute, however passionate, could end in a double murder, but history contains some strange chapters. A sane being finds it difficult to comprehend that a double murder could have been committed at all, what ever the pretext or motive. The mind is only partially satisfied when it reasons that the deed was the work of a maniac, with the strength of an ox, and the arrest and surrounding circumstances will not allow it to reason long in that channel.

However, Miss Emma Borden, and perhaps Bridget Sullivan, can throw light on the theory of a will, and the former can readily explain her absence from home on the day of the tragedy, while John Morse will be able to state whether or not he attempted to interfere in behalf of the daughters, in case Mr. Borden's fortune and its disposition ever entered his head. It is safe to assume that all three have already given every scrap of information they possessed. It may or may not have covered the ground outlined above. It is hinted that it did, but it is only a hint.

An out-of-town official, who has been working on the case, had this to say yesterday regarding the subject of a will:

'Soon after the murders were committed it was learned that Mr. Borden said to Charles C. Cook, an insurance agent, who occasionally transacted business for him, "I must make a will. I am getting to be an old man and I have put it off too long already." This statement was made by Mr. Borden about three weeks before he was killed, and the city marshal heard of it soon after he began his work.

Early in the case, too, the Government employed Officers John C. Parker and Frank Hathaway of this city, who have been busy on the Dartmouth end of the case, and are still engaged on it. They have held frequent interviews with occupants of the William Davis cottage on the Smith Mills road, and have supplied many missing links. John V. Morse visited at the cottage, and I am informed that both Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie had been there, and consulted their uncle on business, though I haven't talked with Parker or Hathaway recently and don't know just what discoveries they made.

The assumption on which the State has been proceeding, however, is that the daughters Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie learned of their father's intention through their uncle. It is presumed that the latter was on very intimate terms with Mr. Borden, at least certain members of the family convey that impression, and it was understood that the will would give the girls $25,000 apiece, and that the residue of the estate would go to Mrs. Borden. Mr. Borden knew of course that the daughters and particularly Miss Lizzie, were not on the best of terms with his wife, and their relations were not becoming any more pleasant as time went on.

At this point I have got to put a case. Suppose Mr. Borden had concluded that the sum above mentioned would support his daughters comfortably, and that his wife deserved and ought to have a large share of his estate, as she had helped him to save it. If he came to such a determination, and I do not say that he did, it would be next to impossible to shake him in it. The daughters would naturally object to such a division, and Miss Lizzie might contend that her own mother had worked hard and had been economical during her life, and that her rights in the estate ought to be considered. Mr. Morse had always been interested in his nieces, and he might be expected to work in their behalf and to endeavor to persuade Mr. Borden to deal more generously with them. He is said to have had a long and confidential talk with Mr. Borden the evening before the tragedy, but what the nature of it was I do not know; I do know, however, that just before Mr. Borden was killed there were frequent journeys between the Dartmouth cottage and the Borden house on Second street, and it looked as if considerable business was being transacted. I am also pretty positive that more or less of the motive theory has come.'"

--Thursday, August 18, 1892 Page 2

"A MOTIVE FOR MURDER."

I think it would be very odd of Andrew to put Abby in such a dangerous position upon his own death...but maybe he didn't think of it like that- if any of this was in the works.

So right from the beginning, how could Lizzie lock the screen door behind her?
Tons of junk mail, and respectively, no substance.
If Lizzie wanted Abby killed, she got the job done. If she also wanted Andrew killed then that was done also, but do you think that after several hours she was capable of killing Uncle John and Bridget too?
But she would have to be if she did it.
This is so old, but there's an interesting thing - say she has Abby killed, why doesn't she get out of Dodge?

The Evening Standard was a source for you, John. You had said you hadn't your books. It's also for anyone without the Standard.
Edisto has this all down pat.

what john refers to as the woman at the Chagnon house -- this might be the Chagnon neighbor, Mrs. Aruba Kirby (Trial, pg 1197). she claimed to be in her kitchen all morning (murder morning), which supposedly had view of the chagnon yard (the visibility from here is just not clear though).

Note: the pear orchard is directly behind the borden lot, but i don't recall the police ever searching it though it seems a large area. as far as a killer escaping through the back, it would not seem to be difficult to pass unobserved through these trees. (in the transcripts, the pear orchard may be referred to as someone else's property, but i forget whose)

I once used that overhead neighborhood plat map and placed everyone with a coloured dot as to where they were that morning. The only drawback to that is specifying when the dots were in their spots. That I didn't do. I think it would be helpful. Maybe a map for each hour from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.?
You know- 3 maps.

Kat @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:07 pm wrote:I think it would be very odd of Andrew to put Abby in such a dangerous position upon his own death...but maybe he didn't think of it like that- if any of this was in the works.

I agree with you about that, Kat! And Andrew possibly asking for Morse's advice about the will, when I would think he would side with his blood relatives over Abby. Yet it sounds as though Andrew didn't take his advice or Morse gave contrary advice to him, but, he was playing both sides of the fence! Being Andrew's confidant then ratting him out to Lizzie and Emma.

Or, perhaps Andrew had already made up his mind and just told Morse of his plans and was steadfast in his decision? Makes me wonder if Andrew had been a bit more secretive about his will making would we be here discussing this case or would it just be Abby's murder after Andrew had passed away? Oh, BTW, thanks for posting that article, Kat.

If there was the makings of a will, or a new will, why didn't whoever was drawing up the will come forward and tell the police about it. Surely if it was through an "insurance salesman," as the editorial in the Evening Standard implied, there would be no professional anonimity.
This too brings up the tense of this room, "Could All The World..................," and makes me think did the insurance salesman know, and not want to get involved? It also make me think of the way Lizzie was ostracized. Who knew what?

Charles Cook would have known but he would only speak to the guy in charge of the investigation because he admitted he didn't know who he'd be working for in the very near future. So mostly his statement was private or maybe even privileged. There was hope something like that might show up in The Hilliard Papers..
Cook did end up being the Borden sister's man of business and he died rich with no immediate heir.

I was thinking that maybe if Andrew did have a will, maybe Abby did also? Wouldn't you- if you were she? And let it be known to those girls?

Taking a cue here from john- sending people to another topic: Did anyone read Len Rebello's message/commentary on the weather Wednesday in Fall River at "Fall River and its Environs?"
viewtopic.php?t=1150&start=50

I did. ... and am very appreciative that he took the time to check in with that. I think it adds a lot to our sense of what the weather would have felt like on 'the day'.

Yes, and I have been appreciative of everyone's opinions and input on the weather angle.
Thanks ever'body! (As Craig Fergusen would say).

Kat @ Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:40 am wrote:"She could've locked it during the murders. Then unhooked it after she was finished. She wouldn't want Bridget walking in on her I would imagine, if it could be helped. But if something went wrong and Bridget had to be killed, then yes she probably would have. Lizzie probably would've killed Bridget if she had to, but I think she would try to avoid it if at all possible."--Allen

I think if Lizzie was willing to kill Bridget if she absolutely had to, then she would leave the door unlocked. Alocked door directly implicates her and no one else. It would be the chance she took- especially if she was willing to kill Bridget.
Meaning- Lizzie hopes that Bridget doesn't come in but if Bridget tried that door and it was locked- Lizzie's goose is cooked.

We don't know what Andrew may have done if Abby only was found killed. If he suspected Lizzie and she had anything on him incriminating- there might be a standoff- he might send her away, but might not speak against her. Especially if he had no proof. He didn't prosecute her for the robbery- which might have taught her a lesson. Admitted, robbery is not the same as murder- but the rich just did not want scandal in those days.

I don't think Lizzie would unlock the cellar door because:
That was Bridget and Andrew's thing. Bridget would probably know Lizzie did that- again implicating Lizzie directly if Bridget felt like she neded to explain that open cellar door.
Lizzie went to the effort of asking Bridget in front of a cop early Friday morning. Bridget answered no- it wasn't left open. That was Bridget's *thing.*

Also maybe Lizzie didn't think of it until later
or
She was supposed to as part of a plan and forgot or she did unlock it but someone re-locked it, either accidently or on purpose.
Bottom line- Lizzie does want unlocked doors, and it has to be for real. (IMO).

You don't need direct evidence of murder to cut someone out of your estate. All you need are suspicions. At 32 years, old I don't see Andrew sending Lizzie anywhere she didn't want to go. All of this would be avoided, the suspicions, the worry, the continued bother of it all, by simply killing him. Who know's how much longer he would've lived. I don't see her killing Abby because she is afraid he will leave everything to Abby, and then waiting another 10 or so years to get her hands on the money. IMO that's what she wanted in the first place. She wanted that money. She was tired of living below her means. She killed for the money, and to get the money, they both had to die. I don't see where Lizzie would have any incriminating evidence on him that would keep him from cutting her out of his will due to his suspicions.The dead can't be blackmailed. If there was anything incriminating, I would imagine it would've come out during the trial, and the police investigations.

I'm using the assumption that Abby was the true victim intended to die.
If Lizzie and Emma loved Andrew and thought they wouldn't need to kill him, they can wait. Once hated Abby is dead, they can wrap him around their fingers supposedly. I mean they thought Abby had, so why not think with Abby gone two against one they would get their way.
I did state that Andrew "might not speak against her"- Lizzie- even if he thought Lizzie had killed Abby and that includes his will. People may speak more in their will than they ever may speak in words to their faces.
So I'm not concerned with Abby dying and worrying about Andrew cutting Lizzie out of a will anyway- but you're right that he could have.
But my speculation that she might have something on him- means that in his lifetime she controls the ouflow of Borden info, which includes whether he makes, changes or destroys a will. If there was abuse in that family is to what I refer.
If she had abuse issues and he had murder issues, that could actually be a standoff.
I think Abby was killed out of pure rage- hate. I think the money was a bonus. That's why I still think it's possible that Abby was killed by one person and Andrew another. Or two differing motives.

The Victorian days were odd. I don't know how conversant we moderns can really be with understanding the mindset back then.

If there was some form of abuse back then, in my opinion, Lizzie would be just as adamant about keeping it a secret. Back then I would think it would also be harder to prove this happened. All she would have is her word. I'm still thinking they wouldn't want to wait. She was already 32 years old. She was already past her prime, according to the standards of the time. What if he had lived another 10-20 years? Would Lizzie have wanted to wait until she was in her 50's to finally start enjoying what she believed she should have been enjoying all along? Which was her rightful place in society, and the money to back it up? I am trying to think what the motive would've even been to kill Abby at that time,but not Andrew.
I don't see a stand off with a dead man. If it was his will, his daughters didn't necessarily need to know the provisions of it. They could most likely find out if they had been left anything upon his death. By then it would be too late.

It's a stand-off with a live man, I'm talking about.
And the girls have time to get rid of a will or manipulate a new one if they keep Andrew alive.
I think they could have done OK leaving him alive and manipulating him.
One of the main published motives anyone comes up with for Andrew being killed is that he would be suspicious of Lizzie as killer of Abby.
I just think it was more complicated than that.

Interesting view Kat, but just a couple points - that perhaps your wisdom can explain.
The same hatchet was used.
The only person who could have aftertheAbbyfactly killed Andrew would be Lizzie.
Emma would fit, but she's not conclusively there, and certainly more there for the murder of Abby than Andrew if at all.
No one else had motive or opportunity.
Say someone just out of some form of vengance, wanted to kill Andrew or Abby singularly, it could be done on the street with much less chance for personal loss on the street. Perhaps they could both been easily killed there as they walked, if they occasionally did - to church if nothing else, and that would be a good choice.
Your implication is that Abby was killed and thene either by extreme coincidence or by observance, someone else decided to kill Andrew.
The odds against being killed by an axe or hatchet are almost incalcuable. To have two independent hatchet slayings on the same morning falls off the map, but I agree so does having four airplanes successfully hijacked in one day.
For incalculable things that happen first motive has to be looked at. The only motive if Abby was dead would most probably be money. I see no evidence that Lizzie or Emma was in such dire need. Leads one to believe by Lizzie's actions especially that Andrew's killing was a fluke killing and unexpected by her, but that Abby's probably was.
Many issues we've brought in are all falling into place here. Why would Andrew be directed to the front door and not the back? I think if he came in the back he would be much more likely to just go upstairs and take his nap - putting him away from the sitting room. If there was someone else in the house that Lizzie knew of who wanted to speak clandestinely with Andrew, Lizzie would want Andrew in the sitting room. So he comes in the front, in spite of the fact that he probably banged on the back rather than walk around. So he goes to the sitting room, or upstairs and back to the sitting room where it may have been cooler for his nap, and Bridget goes upstairs, and Lizzie leaves because women aren't around when men talk in those days especially and comes back after seeing the visitor leave to find Andrew's face bloody, and gets his keys from the mantle, and checks his room for a will, and comes down and yells to Bridget (to lessen implication on herself,) but gets rid of her, sending her for a doctor in case Andrew can still talk, and calls Mrs. Churchill over when she thinks Andrew is surely dead, but forgets that the mantle keys are in her pocket.
And later Dr. Bowen shows up who is the only person Andrew seems to hate (because of a relationship with Lizzie?) and Fall River has a bed & breakfast.

Is Bridget going upstairs a strong indicator that she also knew someone was in the house.
Did she always do that, invariably so that someone would completely depend on that habit?

john @ Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:58 pm wrote:Is Bridget going upstairs a strong indicator that she also knew someone was in the house.
Did she always do that, invariably so that someone would completely depend on that habit?

If she felt she was in danger would she have essentially trapped herself on the 3rd floor?

Quite true, Audrey, but what are her options?
Go upstairs acting like nothing is happening, or believing nothing is happening.
Stay on the first floor perhaps believing nothing is happening or be in harms way.
Leave with only two notions - either something is happening or she believes nothing is happening.
She went upstairs so she believed either something was happening, or nothing was happening. At the time she went upstairs there is no evidence to her to believe that anything was happening, so she went upstairs.
I agree that if she felt something was wrong she wouldn't have trapped herself.
Conclusion seems to be that she felt she was in no danger or she would have opted otherwise.
I have always wondered why, if Bridget supposedly cared so much for Mrs. Borden, why didn't she wonder where Mrs. Borden was that morning?
The point more is though, that if Bridget always went to take a nap in the late morning. If she didn't, perhaps she left for other reasons.

I have added the numbers and the bolds to john's quote.
I am only using this format because you covered so many points and I didn't wish to confuse myself...

john @ Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:44 pm wrote:Interesting view Kat, but just a couple points - that perhaps your wisdom can explain.
1.The same hatchet was used.

2.The only person who could have aftertheAbbyfactly killed Andrew would be Lizzie.
Emma would fit, but she's not conclusively there, and certainly more there for the murder of Abby than Andrew if at all.

3.No one else had motive or opportunity.

4. Say someone just out of some form of vengance, wanted to kill Andrew or Abby singularly, it could be done on the street with much less chance for personal loss on the street. Perhaps they could both been easily killed there as they walked, if they occasionally did - to church if nothing else, and that would be a good choice.

5.Your implication is that Abby was killed and thene either by extreme coincidence or by observance, someone else decided to kill Andrew.
The odds against being killed by an axe or hatchet are almost incalcuable. To have two independent hatchet slayings on the same morning falls off the map, but I agree so does having four airplanes successfully hijacked in one day.

For incalculable things that happen first motive has to be looked at.

6.The only motive if Abby was dead would most probably be money. I see no evidence that Lizzie or Emma was in such dire need. Leads one to believe by Lizzie's actions especially that Andrew's killing was a fluke killing and unexpected by her, but that Abby's probably was.

Many issues we've brought in are all falling into place here. Why would Andrew be directed to the front door and not the back? I think if he came in the back he would be much more likely to just go upstairs and take his nap - putting him away from the sitting room. If there was someone else in the house that Lizzie knew of who wanted to speak clandestinely with Andrew, Lizzie would want Andrew in the sitting room. So he comes in the front, in spite of the fact that he probably banged on the back rather than walk around. So he goes to the sitting room, or upstairs and back to the sitting room where it may have been cooler for his nap, and Bridget goes upstairs, and Lizzie leaves because women aren't around when men talk in those days especially and comes back after seeing the visitor leave to find Andrew's face bloody, and gets his keys from the mantle, and checks his room for a will, and comes down and yells to Bridget (to lessen implication on herself,) but gets rid of her, sending her for a doctor in case Andrew can still talk, and calls Mrs. Churchill over when she thinks Andrew is surely dead, but forgets that the mantle keys are in her pocket.
And later Dr. Bowen shows up who is the only person Andrew seems to hate (because of a relationship with Lizzie?) and Fall River has a bed & breakfast.

1. We don't know the same hatchet was used.
We don't know because Abby's wound had gilt and there is no gilt reported in Andrew's wound. We don't know it was a hatchet specifically if they did not even, at the time, include a hatchet in the indictment. This is not intended to confuse anyone. It's merely being a purist.

2.If we knew that we wouldn't be discussing this.

3. Ditto. If we knew that we wouldn't be discussing the mystery.

4. I've been saying this for 4 years.

5. My implication is the possibility that someone went farther than planned, or took advantage of the situation to go ahead and kill Andrew.
I think Abby was the main victim.
It would be a conspiracy of sorts, where maybe a second person went ahead and took advantage.

6. I think Abby died of hate. I agree that Andrew's killing might be unexpected by Lizzie- that's why I postulated another co-conspirator. (Not just some random crazy walking in- --). And it is agreed that Abby's killing probably was expected by her- so you are either contradicting yourself or agreeing with me?

As for the rest- the Bridget- I don't know. I would think the Bridget knew something, but I think she knew it after Abby. As for maneuvering Andrew so that he did not go upstairs, I believe I have posted about that theory myself- questioning that Andrew was kept from going upstairs for a year now- I only have the talk of Bridget to compare to the talk of Lizzie. Lizzie says he didn't go up and Bridget says he did. I've theorized as to why he was kept from going up until we kind of ended that subject. My theory was resting on the fact that his pockets were full- money, keys, watch etc. not merely speculation in order to further a scenario.

--The Bridget commentary is interesting.
--Andrew and Hiram Harrington have a lasting fued don't they?
Why do you say Andrew dislikes Dr. Bowen?

Although I don't consider this a debate, I'll grant you the hatchet because I thought gilt was found on both skulls, and I wasn't sure you knew about the gilt. It could have been worn off, of course, by the time the hatchet got to Andrew, but we don't know that, and modern forensics could find a new clue there.
Two killers is certainly a facinating twist. I hope I can be footnoted in your book for something, perhaps for creating the word aftertheAbbyfactly.
On a lighter note though, whoever killed either Borden had to be prepared to kill others and I think this is beyond Lizzie's scope so she couldn't be involved physically in either crime. For instance, if Lizzie killed Abby, she would be afraid of someone easily getting in through the screen door, it could be done in a few seconds with a razor blade, and have locked the inside back door up as well, which apparently she didn't.
I hope that if I've ever added anything to this mystery that it has been that whorever killed Abby and Andrew had to be prepared to kill (if Lizzie was unawares) at least three other people at the same time.

I think we're starting to reveal more than is necessary here, Kat, and don't want to continue this.

This key is Lizzie didn't know if Andrew was dead or not when she called Bridget, so she clearly didn't do that crime or she would have got the job done. But why doesn't Bridget bail?
Bridget is involved!

john @ Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:44 pm wrote: I have always wondered why, if Bridget supposedly cared so much for Mrs. Borden, why didn't she wonder where Mrs. Borden was that morning?
The point more is though, that if Bridget always went to take a nap in the late morning. If she didn't, perhaps she left for other reasons.

I have a New York Times article at home, I'll have to find it and give the exact quote, which states that Bridget told a reporter she went upstairs to lay on the bed because she felt sick. She did testify that she had been sick, and went outside during the morning for at least one bout of protracted vomiting. If she was still feeling ill. My vote would be that she usually took a nap around this time, and she hurried to it on this day because she was sick. I don't agree that Lizzie didn't plan for Andrew's death. I think she had it planned for them both to die. I still don't see her waiting on the money. I also don't see that Andrew was a man to be manipulated.

john @ Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:10 am wrote: On a lighter note though, whoever killed either Borden had to be prepared to kill others and I think this is beyond Lizzie's scope so she couldn't be involved physically in either crime. For instance, if Lizzie killed Abby, she would be afraid of someone easily getting in through the screen door, it could be done in a few seconds with a razor blade, and have locked the inside back door up as well, which apparently she didn't.

I think the murder took place on that day because Emma was out of town, Bridget was to wash the windows so she would be out of the house, and nobody knew that uncle John was going to show up because his visit was unexpected. Mr. Borden was out on his usual rounds, it was his customary habit to be out during this time. I don't think Lizzie thought there would be a danger of anyone else being in the way. I think if anything wasn't planned for, it was Uncle John's visit to the house. Bridget testified that she believed Lizzie had locked the screen door while she was out washing windows. So she didn't try to get back in the house. How convenient for Lizzie. How convenient also, that the screen door was really not locked. For anyone else to get in and back out unseen, for me anyway, is not very probable.

Bridget
Prelim
12
Q. When you started to go out in the barn, do you remember how you found the door then?
A. Miss Lizzie came through the kitchen then, as I started to go out in the barn with a pail. She was at the back door.

Q. You had the pail?
A. Yes. I was outside. She was at the back door. She wanted to know if I was to wash windows. I said yes. I told her she need not hook the door, for I would be around there; but I told her she could hook it if she wanted to, and I would get the water in the barn.

Q. Where was she standing at that time?
A. In the back entry.

Q. Had she said anything about hooking the door?
A. No Sir.

Q. How came you to say that to her?
A. I thought she might hook it, and I could not get in. She was standing in the back entry then.

Q. How near the screen door was she then?
A. Pretty near it; not very far from it.

Q. Was you going out to get your pail then, or handle.
A. The handle.

Q. What did you say you said about getting the water?
A. I said I would get the water in the barn.

Q. What did she say?
A. Nothing.
.............

--Lizzie said nothing to Bridget and Bridget did not claim to see Lizzie hook the door at the Preliminary, but she says she assumes if the door is hooked she could not get in- that's why Bridget mentioned the screen to Lizzie- so they would understand each other as to whether Bridget could get in. But because Lizzie doesn't answer nothing is resolved.
.........
--At the Trial, Bridget claims Lizzie did not hook the door. Maybe that is why there was confusion here:

Q. Where did you then go?
A. I came upstairs. In the kitchen closet I found a brush which was to wash the windows with. I filled my pail with water in the sink and took it out doors. As I was outside the back door Lizzie Borden appeared in the back entry, and says, "Maggie, are you going to wash the windows?" I says, "Yes." I said, "You needn't lock the door; I will be out around here; but you can lock it if you want to; I can get
the water in the barn."

Q. Did she make any reply to that?
A. I don't know, sir, she didn't.

Q. Now had you seen her between the time you left her in the kitchen eating her breakfast and the time she appeared at the screen door as you went out with your pail of water and brush?
A. I don't remember to see her.

Q. Do you know what she did to the door?
A. She didn't hook it.

Q. Do you know where she then went as you went out doors?
A. No sir, I do not.

Q. You have said that, going out with your pail and your brush, you went to the barn?
A. I went to the barn to get the handle for the brush.

--The door was unhooked when Bridget came in for the dipper.

I think John posts some good points and has a very
good grasp of this case!

Well Nancie, maybe you will be his next lucky winner !


Tracy...

So, in going back a little bit, who could the second killer possibly be, and I admit it's possible. I'd have to guess you're thinking the first killer Lizzie and the second killer Emma. It would work, perhaps even better if the first killer was hiier by Lizzie, or Lizzie and Emma, because Emma would have known it was to happen. If Emma escaped with all the evidence it would explain a lot of things, and though certain cases are specified as to people waiting around to kill someone, it seems pretty unlikely someone would wait for an hour and a half for Andrew to come home.
So that does work, but are there any reasons that it doesn't?
On think why it doesn't work I just realized why it does work, very work.

I think Emma hated Abby more than Lizzie did. But I don't know if Emma would kill. I think after all this time, someone would have been suspicious of her but she never really acted up after August 4th, like Lizzie did. Lizzie kept getting her name in the papers, but not Emma.
Behaviour after 1893 trial- is to what I refer.
Lizzie covering for Emma on Abby's murder. Bridget covering for Emma as well. Early enough in the morning to maybe get back to Fairhaven without being too noticed?
Why do I think Emma might inspire more loyalty from Bridget than Lizzie would inspire?
I understand loyalty to a friend or famiy member was a big deal back then. Like those Marion schoolteachers who wouldn't talk against Lizzie and one ripped up a Lizzie-letter rather than show the police. And Alice Russell called "A Turn-coat Friend" after all she'd been through...

Which would have more hate? The original hater or the one who was trained to hate?

Would Emma kill?
Would she be willing to defend herself if confronted? Seemed pretty frail, but perhaps.
Since you're progressing with this, Kat, lets go to the peak. If emma would have entered or exited that morning there would be no way that she wouldn't know that someone wouldn't have recognized her comings. Then what would have happened to the plan? If Andrew, Abby, Uncle John, or the unknown caller had seen her what would have happened to the plan, now remember she had to enter and exit. Lets say she gets in Ok, and leaves with the culpatory evidence, now she has to leave ok with a bundle of junk quickly. So she does and dumps it in the river or eats it. So no one sees her on her way to Fall River that morning, or back to Fairhaven. So she's pretty lucky. But here's the key to this solution - how would Emma know that Bridget would go upstairss, and is she prepared to kill Bridget too?
Lizzie never sent Bridget upstairs, and Andrew wasn't asked to be in the sitting room, so it is, as Kat says, a crime of opportunity, but not by a woos like Emma.
There is no evidence that Emma was there in spite of her treck back that morning and afternoon when she could have been observed.
Why would it even be believed at all that Emma could have something to do with the crime? She did have motive, but questionable opportunity.
Now, more interestingly, of course, is Lizzie.
She had presence, and opportunity, and motive, and though doubtfull, means. But first, would Emma have known?
You tell me - it was Emma's first extended stay away from home ever.
So Emma most likely knows.
And now is there any evidence of an intruder, or is Lizzie on her own?

There is Bridget testimony that Wednesday she went upstairs (to rest, is implied) before supper. And she wasn't ill Wednesday- so I think she rests between jobs, as long as she gets her jobs done.
Lizzie could be writing Emma every day, keeping her in the know.

The thing is, I can only see any conspiracy amongst only those girls, because what's to stop any outsider brought in on the plan from talking?

i guess this is as good a place as any to put this question (i don't want to start a new thread on it) -- but does anybody believe that lizzie's own hands picked up an axe and did these murders?

now, i know a few people will say yes. and in fact, i said so a few years ago -- if you look back in the archives you'll see.

but if there's anything i've learned, it's that lizzie could never have done this herself. it isn't that i think she's "innocent." i don't think she's "capable" of this. but she found herself responsible--that's for sure. so there's the mystery. we can't hang her any more than her jury could. the answer to why we are still doing this is that we are missing essential info. i don't know where it is--but something is missing--that's what i've learned--something is missing.

intuitively, i think it may be the case -- that if it were absolutely known -- that we would then spot all these clues right under our noses. what i think about mostly these days is -- what is obvious, yet unnoticed, and what would also simplify this mess? (i don't know it, but that's my perspective.)

i was not able to justify lizzie the legend. can anyone do that?

excuse me, i forget where i am. is this "trousers" or "knew it was coming down"?