Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Eugene,

I am of the belief (today anyway)...that Lizzie never touched the murder weapon. I do think she had some involvement in the 'planning' part, but I do not think she swung the axe. I think she took the rap thinking they would never convict "a woman like her". She was very lucky on that account.

I agree with you that something is missing. I believe it is something small...but giant in the sense that it will be what ties everything together. I don't think we have found that 'thing' yet...and probably never will. (I do think we have all the pieces we need...except for the last one.) I think it has been lost with time.


Tracy...

Since I don't agree with most of what is being said in this thread right now, and think most of it pretty unlikely, I'll just post this much on the subject and then I'll probably not follow this one much. I don't think Emma Borden had a murderous bone in her body. Emma left Maplecroft because she couldn't stay there anymore. Something was going on in that house that she could no longer live with. I do know from a newspaper interview with Emma that she never planned to set foot in that house again as long as Lizzie lived. That says to me that there was something pretty heavy going on in that house. She had stuck by Lizzie through a murder trial, and protested her innocence the whole time. But something drove her from the house. What could be bad enough after a murder trial for the murder of her parents, with Lizzie as the defendant, that would drive her from the house? I think Emma's suspicions of Lizzie grew, despite the fact that she still protested her innocence. I think she ended up being a little afraid of Lizzie, but still not wanting to believe she killed her parents.

Emma stayed in Fall River for a time after she moved out of Maplecroft. One of Emma's closest confidants was Rev. Buck. She was very good friends with his daughters, with whom she stayed for a time after moving from Maplecroft. I think, in my opinion, that Emma was sort of a dependent personality. She never lived on her own, though later in life she had plenty of money for buying and keeping up a house of her own. Why didn't she? Why did she always choose to live with others? If you check Emma's will, many of her beneficiaries are charities. She even named Lizzie as a beneficiary. Something Lizzie did not have the good grace to do for Emma.

She also left money to be held for the up keep of the family plot. Again something Lizzie never thought of. This doesn't speak to me of someone who had a hand in killing the very people buried there. If you read the two wills, you will get a better idea of who Lizzie and Emma are. I think Lizzie was a very dominant person, who's main interests were in herself and furthering herself anyway she could.

She also provided in her will for the founding of the "Andrew J. Borden Scholarships"

....each scholarship to be of such amount not exceeding the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300) per annum as said trustees shall determine; and I direct that such scholarships shall be awarded and given annually by said trustees one- half in aggregate amount thereof to such deserving male graduate or graduates and the other one- half thereof to such deserving female graduate or graduates of the High School in Fall River as they, in their discretion, shall select, such sholarship to be used to assist such graduates to secure advanced education.

So she named Lizzie in her will, provided for the family plot, and set up a scholarship fund in her fathers name. What did Lizzie do? How did Lizzie spend her money? How did Emma spend hers? How did Lizzie live her life after the trial, as opposed to how Emma lived hers? It appears to me that Emma could've continued living on the same track she did when her parents were alive. She more or less did. But what about Lizzie?

I still think that Lizzie did it, but, just for the sake of argument, here's another idea. Maybe Andrew came back into the house, not knowing that Abby was upstairs murdered, but, nonetheless, happened to see another person besides Lizzie there in the house. It could have been someone he knew so he felt comfortable to sit down on the sofa and relax. At that point the murderer (or murderess) realized that once Abby's body was discovered Andrew would know that person had been there and had done it, so he/she had to get rid of Andrew as a witness.

We don't know what split up those girls. Emma might have been hell to live with. She doesn't say it was Lizzie who drove her out, she just says she was advised to live elsewhere by Buck. They could have had a toxic relationship, the both of them, where you put them together and it's bad news, but separate them and they are better behaved.
I don't especially believe that the wills reflect the true person. If you think about it, they more often reflect what a person wants to be perceived as. A final testimonial to a persona, if you will. It's your last chance to change history's perception. Or your last chance to get back at someone.
I bring Emma into this mainly because I could see blood relations covering for blood relations. Other than that any other conspiracy of people seems too risky.

Sisters: I dearly love my older sister Kathy (the rich one) but at a recent cook-out at my son's house she was bossing Tristy (my daughter-in-law)
and being so bossy about baby Nya. I barked out
and told her off. (Don't you ever talk to Tristy like
that, it is her baby, etc..) Well Tristy and I were both upset about it, but the next day Kathy called me to chit chat like nothing happened and say goodbye she was going to
France for 10 days, I swear she doesnt have a sensitive nerve in her body regarding family. I am thinking that Emma was just like my sister Kathy.

Perhaps your sister has some jealousy pangs about the close relationship you have with your daughter-in-law and misses the closeness between you two? Or, as an older sister, misses having you to boss around?

Hmmm, I never quite saw Emma in that kind of light myself, I could be wrong. Emma did keep the robbery of the desk a secret from Alice Russell while it was Lizzie who spilled the beans. And, she did stand by Lizzie throughout the trial, including telling her little white lie on the stand for Lizzie about being in the kitchen during the dress burning incident instead of in the sink room. She never spoke ill of Lizzie after the split. I think of Lizzie as being the bossy one, who wants things done her way.

OMG! I heard a lot about a July 19th personality last night! It was an hour's worth and I was flashing back to Lizzie- it was very interesting insight!
This person lived in their own mind, the universe centered upon them, and they had a tendency to lie awake at night blowing things up out of proportion where the next day they actually got up mad and with their mind made up irrevocably!

Agreed, Kat, although the outsider would be reticant to squalk if the outsider had swung the hatchet.
How about a new site, "Lookout Lizzie," because that's where the evidence points. I'm sure you know what I mean, but I'll go into it in detail if you wish. For one thing regarding that, as an example, Lizzie is always between the body of her stepmother and the others until she leaves the house, leaves by her testimony anyway. Even while Uncle John is still there, she is between the first crime site.

P.S.
And, of course, by the time she leaves the house, 50% of the occupants are or soon will be dead.

Also, is it true, Kat, that when you reach 2,000 views you can add an addendum to your site, like changing it to, "Could All The World Have Known This was Coming Down - AKA Lizzie The Lookout"? Some qutie named Steph told me that, but I'm not sure she had anything to do with the forum.

Kat @ Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:47 pm wrote:We don't know what split up those girls. Emma might have been hell to live with. She doesn't say it was Lizzie who drove her out, she just says she was advised to live elsewhere by Buck. They could have had a toxic relationship, the both of them, where you put them together and it's bad news, but separate them and they are better behaved.
I don't especially believe that the wills reflect the true person. If you think about it, they more often reflect what a person wants to be perceived as. A final testimonial to a persona, if you will. It's your last chance to change history's perception. Or your last chance to get back at someone.
I bring Emma into this mainly because I could see blood relations covering for blood relations. Other than that any other conspiracy of people seems too risky.

Well, when I make my will I am going to be leaving my worldly possessions to organizations and people I really cared about in life. How can you further yourself anymore when you are dead, and why would you think that you could? I think of it this way, everybody sees you for who you are by the way you behaved when you were alive, what the heck is a will going to do for you after you're dead? They could say " Yes, she left a lot of money to charity, but she sure was a b**ch when she was alive." We never hear any stories of Emma being difficult to live with after the murders, and she was always living or rooming with someone. Did she ever live alone? If she was difficult to get along with, I would think someone would've spoken up. Especially with the added notoriety of being a Borden sister, and the murder being "unsolved". There certainly are no lack of stories about Lizzie. But we hear almost nothing about Emma. I think silence speaks volumes. If she would've been hard to live with, been domineering, been outspoken, always wanted her way, it would've come out. Just as it did with Lizzie.

It may be worth noting that Rev. Buck probably heard one side of the story of life at Maplecroft...

Yes, Audrey, there is that too.

My meaning is in the context as being what I should probably call a "folie a deux." The 2 Borden girls together- not Emma living with Buck girls or her cousin Gardner.
I thought I was clear when I said they might be better behaved if they lived apart.

Actually, I got the impression about Lizzie's will from a prominent researcher whose opinion was -at the time- that it was possible Lizzie was helped in the making of her will- given suggestions, it might be called, as to how best to leave her money. My assumption was that it was to make her look good. Which is possible. You don't "go out" with all the money and not care what people think of you after you're gone, I don't think.

john @ Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:55 am wrote:Also, is it true, Kat, that when you reach 2,000 views you can add an addendum to your site, like changing it to, "Could All The World Have Known This was Coming Down - AKA Lizzie The Lookout"? Some qutie named Steph told me that, but I'm not sure she had anything to do with the forum.

If this is your topic, john- meaning- you started it- you can go back to your very first post, click on EDIT at the top right- and get your original screen- and change the title if you wish. Then click on "submit."

I think tho there will always be a character limit, as to how many letters you use.

john @ Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:42 am wrote:Agreed, Kat, although the outsider would be reticant to squalk if the outsider had swung the hatchet.
How about a new site, "Lookout Lizzie," because that's where the evidence points. I'm sure you know what I mean, but I'll go into it in detail if you wish. For one thing regarding that, as an example, Lizzie is always between the body of her stepmother and the others until she leaves the house, leaves by her testimony anyway. Even while Uncle John is still there, she is between the first crime site.

I'm not quite sure how Lizzie is between the body of Abby and anyone else when the other "anyone else" was outside washing windows. Also when Lizzie is in the barn or in the yard she is not between the body and "anyone else?"

There are plenty of times when criminals "squalking" gets them arrested. And even if arrested on something else they brag on a hit while in jail. Someone knows something and tells someone and pretty soon there is no secret. Not a 113 year old secret anyway...
Or they act differently and their relatives get suspicious, or all of a sudden they have a lot of money or they have personal items from the crime they've kept. etc.
That reward was pretty darn big back then, too- $5000?
Equivalent to what?
5000 x 18?
$90,000

Has it been mentioned here in the forum if the reward is 'still offered' since the crime has not been solved ?

I tried the inflation calculator, and it says that $5,000 in 1892 would be $102,625.43 in 2005. Would interest be added on to that ?

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


Tracy...

You're missing one point, when Bridget is outside the house, Lizzie is between Bridget and the body of Abby, and when Uncle John is at the house she is between Uncle John and the first crime scene, and when Andrew comes home she is probably on the stairs so she is between Andrew and the body of Abby, and when Bridget washes inside windows Lizzie's whereabouts are unknown, but the klinker is that when Abby is "dusting," Lizzie is in the kitchen and not protecting the guest room. If Lizzie were going to kill her stepmother herself, and she wanted to kill her in the guest room , she might send a spurious note that guests were coming on Monday (as per previous posts) but she would be upstairs waiting for Abby and not watching Abby "dust."
Lizzie is the one who said there were guests coming on Monday and I guess that was never seriously addressed, and Lizzie was the one that said Mrs. Borden had a note and had gone out.
If Uncle John was such a slouch anyway why would she have to make up the guest room again for him, and if he was planning on staying another night why would Andrew have to ask him specifically back for dinner?

.

john @ Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:49 am wrote: If Uncle John was such a slouch anyway why would she have to make up the guest room again for him, and if he was planning on staying another night why would Andrew have to ask him specifically back for dinner?

I really need to start carrying my Rebello with me . I'm wondering if Uncle John didn't change his mind and decide to spend another night after he had arrived at the house for some reason. Rebello, and I don't have it with me, has an interview in a newspaper with the people that Uncle John was staying with. They stated that they had expected him home that night.
That as they understood it, he was only suppose to stay the one day is what I gather from the interview.

Any hostess would have straightened the room and made the bed. We do not know how much cleaning she did in there. She may have intended to merely make the bed. I think he WAS expected back that night at 92 2nd. Otherwise she would have STRIPPED the bed and put fresh linens on it. Especially if she had a real/fake notion that someone else was coming to stay in a few days. I have never, in my entire life put a guest in a bedroom without clean linens on the bed (and fresh flowers in the room) and I have always changed them after they have left. It is simply the way it is done. Abby ran an immaculate home. I can not imagine her putting anyone else in that room-- or making the bed with soiled linens to "change another day".


There are no reports of soiled bed linens anywhere.

Here is what Lizzie says about what Abby told her.
inquest
Lizzie
63(20)
Q. Did she say anything about making the bed?
A. She said she had been up and made the bed up fresh, and had dusted the room and left it all in order. She was going to put some fresh pillow slips on the small pillows at the foot of the bed, and was going to close the room, because she was going to have company Monday and she wanted everything in order.

It sounds like clean sheets and pillowslips. I suppose it's possible Abby stored the used sheets in a drawer until wash day? Maybe they would be fouled by sitting in the laundry in the cellar until Monday? Personally, I wouldn't think of it, but where does a 19th century housewife put her good but used sheets until laundry day when that is a whole 4 days away?
____

I did get the point, about Lizzie placing herself between the body of Abby and any other, but I didn't see how you would include Morse? I don't quite get that. Morse wasn't around while Abby's body lay a'festerin'.
He was gone before she died and back after she was found. Do you mean she was *guarding* the room, not the body? (Because she stayed upstairs until he left?)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you Audry - it must be in the archives somewhere how much of the bed she changed, and that would lead to believe what her thinking was; if she just thought Uncle John was coming back, or if she was preparing for guests. Most likely Uncle John wasn't expected back, so she was preparing for guests on Monday. Who were the guests to be?
Regarding Uncle John, not only wasn't he probably coming back, but she had to send Dr. Dolan to find him. So there's a mystery - she sends Dr. Dolan to find Uncle John while Uncle john is on his way back. If she knew Uncle John was coming back, why send Dr. Dolan away from her in her time of need to find him?

Yes, Kat, perhaps she was guarding that room even before Morse left.
Lizzie the lookout.
I hope you understand the reality of Lizzie the lookout. It means that if Lizzie is looking out, whomever killed Abby and Andrew didn't have to kill anyone else. So instead of the possibility of killing five or more people, if Lizzie is watching, the kill is two.
Lets take two scenarios: Lizzie the killer; Lizzie the lookout.
If Lizzie is the killer, because of proximity, she has to kill probably three, and perhaps four or more people with her hatchet. If Lizzie is the lookout, the killer has to kill only two.
Now think about that, and the lack of blood trails around the house, and not finding the weapon, nor bad clothing, and what does it lead you to believe?
If the entire information were plopped on a detectives desk and he was told that he had to solve it in an hour, because there was something else to solve later, what conclusion do you think he would come up with? Do you think he would be studying railroad timetables or measuring the distance from Lizzie's house to Dr. Bowen's?
He would look at everything and say that it had to be Lizzie or Bridget or an unknown, and look more closely. That there is no evidence against Lizzie or Bridget he would quickly conclude unknown. That an unknown could enter a fairly secured house in broad daylight and remain there for three hours with people milling about, he would conclude inside help. That Bridget was limited in her physical abilities to reach portions of the house, he would exclude bridget. Consequently, after one hours search, he finds Lizzie and an unknown. He's glad about this hour, for it only took him ten minutes, and he can take a 50 minute break.

I like your thinking John. Can someone direct me
to where it is stated that the Borden's were expecting more overnight guests? I don't remember
reading that anywhere.

Nancie, its in Lizzie's Inquest testimony, page 63:

Q. Did she say anything about making the bed?
A. She said she had been up and made the bed up fresh, and had dusted the room and left it all in order. She was going to put some fresh pillow slips on the small pillows at the foot of the bed, and was going to close the room, because she was going to have company Monday and she wanted everything in order.

Hi Nancie. I could use a few quotes from Sinclair Lewis here, but I won't.
I hope you find the answer to the enigma, and I will try to help you.

And, Allen, re: your post of tues, 7/24 at 2:24 PM, that states that the murders were committed on that day because Bridget was washing windows. i'd like you to show me any post by anybody which states that, and you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Also regarding the locks - you show me a post about the locks before I brought up the lock issue. I admit I wonder about Bridget too, and Bridget has been gone over tons. But show me the post that says Dr. Dolan saw Lizzie in the hallway, or at the screendoor, when in fact she wasn't.
So where was she - he was there earlier that's the problem.

Haulover @ Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:25 pm wrote:... 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. ...

Eugene, I've been trending toward that very idea myself that she could not have acted alone. The big problem, IMHO, is just who that helper could be. Her circle of friends was very limited an even more so for close friends.

I can't believe Emma had anything to do with the crime, at least not before the fact. She probably lied about she being the one who instigated the dress burning. Like Melissa said, something awful was going on or happened at Maplecroft forcing her to leave. I've always suspected Lizzie fessed up or at least hinted at it.

Again, Melissa makes a great point about Emma being dependent. As much as she may have hated Abby, her little protected world was shattered upon her father's death. Being the meeker of the two she suddenly found herself in the position of being dependent on Lizzie for her life's direction. From what little we know of their life at Maplecroft, Lizzie ruled the roost.

thanks, harry! i had hoped someone would connect to that and comment.

***Eugene, I've been trending toward that very idea myself that she could not have acted alone. The big problem, IMHO, is just who that helper could be. Her circle of friends was very limited an even more so for close friends.***

i agree with your assessment, but your third sentence is what i take to be the clue -- as to how to think about it -- we make the assumption that we would know her intimate relationships, but how? i would say the mystery person is either a family secret or a lizzie secret. witnesses were not asked questions like this -- and i can see how neither the prosecution nor the defense would want to -- but i'm fascinated by what could have come up had they so delved. i'd give a lot to know what mrs. churchill alone had happened to see or hear.

of course, i don't know the "who."

there's a lot of speculation about understanding lizzie, but i wonder if it usually misses the mark, because it is prejudged that these several people are the only people in her life. if lizzie hates her life at home, how does she spend her days? or, more to the point -- the victorians keep everything "covered up" as much as possible, but people in general probably had a whole lot to cover up -- things they would not bother to cover up at all today. what if lizzie, a 32 yr old spinster without love or intimacy, finds this as awful as most women today would? maybe she's desperate and vulnerable.

anyway, the center of gravity, so to speak, is for me -- missing info that is essential. i'm not satisfied with any of the theories.

BTW, as awful as brown's fall river conspiracy is -- i guess he was the first to give some plausibility to a secret culprit, so he did that if nothing else. but maybe he's right in the general direction.

i just read the engstrom book, and it's such crap. but it makes me think that a fictional solution need not be crap if it actually works. i know of some fiction in progress right now. but i don't think i would be motivated to fictionalize it unless i can identify a secret person. otherwise, i might just narrate the story using every factual detail available with the end toward making it as vivid as possible, and leaving the mystery intact.

john @ Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:59 am wrote:And, Allen, re: your post of tues, 7/24 at 2:24 PM, that states that the murders were committed on that day because Bridget was washing windows. i'd like you to show me any post by anybody which states that, and you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. .

Show you a post by someone else stating that the murders were committed on the day because Bridget was washing windows? I have no idea what you are asking me to do here. I was expressing my OPINION. What is a fact is that Bridget was outside washing windows, thus leaving Lizzie alone with Abby in the house at the time of the murders. Why would I need to cite a post made by somebody else? It is your opinion that you have solved this case. But you don't give out any of the clues. Why? Because you don't have them to give. You don't have any more information than the rest of us have at our disposal. So you thinking you have solved it, is an opinion, just like mine.

Andrew was down street during that time, thus out of the way. Emma was in Fairhaven, she was out of the way. Uncle John wasn't at the house he was visiting relatives. Even most of the police force was out of the way on that day at the clam bake. Bridget was outside washing windows. Lizzie was the only one left inside that house, besides Abby who ended up dead. Even if the screen door was unlocked, Lizzie places herself in the kitchen.

If this case were to happen today, the police would've arrested Lizzie and she would probably have been convicted, IMO. There would also be no wait before instituting a full search of the house. She would've been read her rights before making any statements to police. Her statements would then have been admissable in court. Eli Bence would've been shown a line-up, or a group of pictures including women who have similar features to Lizzie, so his identification would stand up. Although I thought his identification of Lizzie was rather strong anyway. His testimony would've been admitted as well. How can any judge today think that trying to buy poison a day before the murders with some ridiculous excuse would've been too remote in time, and have no bearing on the case?

I guess john you are meaning Dr. Bowen when you earlier said Dr. Dolan.
If so, why do you think Dr. Bowen was at the house earlier Thursday? You mean earlier than when he was called for by Bridget, I think?

Allen @ Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:17 pm wrote: If this case were to happen today, the police would've arrested Lizzie and she would probably have been convicted, IMO.

Mock trials have been unable to convict her...

I agree that current day law enforcement practices and crime investigation would make a huge difference in the investigation-- we do not know what they would have found. What evidence was there to find? We will never know...

Several points.
Your comments, Allen require a lot of thought because you know so much about this case, as do yours Kat.
I stated a long time ago that I thought the murders were committed on a Thursday because that was the day Bridget normally washed the windows and would be outside, and at the time I was examining past posts, and never saw that that had been mentioned before. Also, and most importantly of what you and I have discussed, Allen, certainly everyone was gone, but also everyone was perhaps going to come back: sure Emma was in Fairhaven (?) but there was no telephone, how would a murderer know that she wouldn't cut her trip short and show up?; Mr. Borden went downstreet as you say, but what if he got sick and vomited on the sidewalk - he would have turned around and been back home; Uncle John is pretty whackey anyway, and I can't see that he talked with Lizzie that morning, so how would she know where he was going, and could she really depend on his not coming back early? Lizzie the lookout seems to make more sense than Lizzie the multiple killer. And what about Bridget, sure she's washing windows, but what if she comes inside because the water fails in the barn and finds Lizzie a bloody mess - is Lizzie prepared to kill Bridget? Is Lizzie prepared to kill Emma and Uncle John - she'd have to be.
Yes, Kat, I got Dr. Bowen wrong.
Because Dr. Bowen origionally said that he saw Lizzie standing by the doorway and then changed his testimony. He changed it several times in fact, unusual for a Doctor.

Jack The Ripper said in one of his letters, "I've told you the street where I live."
So Stephanie, where do you go from there?
The same is true here, I've told you what and I've told you where and I've told you who.
And I'm not holding back - if i was holding back, I wouldn't tell you what, where and who.
I'll give another clue - the answer is in a book by David Kent.

P.S.
Jack The Ripper did say the street that he lived on.

I even told a name - Jack The Ripper didn't do that, although he told a Father's name, or a family name.

***Because Dr. Bowen origionally said that he saw Lizzie standing by the doorway and then changed his testimony. He changed it several times in fact, unusual for a Doctor.***

that's what i was looking at. is this the result of genuine shock on his part, and therefore confused memory? or is there a finer lesson helpful with these descrepancies in general? bowen is in the door and looking at lizzie in a matter of seconds, maybe he doesn't see churchill then. maybe he sees her for the first time when he asks her to look at him. maybe lizzie was near the door but it was actually bridget who opened it for him?

point being that maybe these changes in testimony come about because of disconnect between memory of eyes and what was learned at almost the same time.

I believe that Lizzie's dress which she burned, was stained with either arsenic, or fecal poisioning. Arsenic was ruled out by labs, but fecal wasn't. Fecal would make sense, because if she bigly dosed the Bordens, Bridget would still have the effects, but Uncle John wouldn't. Now fecal on a dress would come out in the wash, but did Lizzie perhaps burn the dress because she wanted to get caught and get it over with? It would truly seem so by her attitude.
As far as the robbery is concerned, it was probably done by Lizzie or Uncle John, and most likely to see if there was a will around - I'd suspect Uncle John because I don't think Lizzie would be interested in railway tickets.

What about the barn door - that was the origional question!
7/12 7:33 AM

oops- I just posted a similar question over on another thread- about the robbery.

Oh, just so you know, I'm only posting things on my own site as of now.

Very good Kat, and I will only post on my own site now. I think I posted it somewhere else, that whoever dropped the hatchet wasn't likely to squalk!

So it's believed that Lizzie tried poisoing, but not hatcheting?
How does one draw that line?

About the barn door- it was open Thursday- do we need to know more?

About Dr. Bowen, I think he contradicts himself more often than we think.
He saw Lizzie at the door- he saw Lizzie in the hall.
He cried when he saw Andrew- he did not cry when he saw Andrew. (Well, reportedly).
He has visited at the house a bit- he has only been at the house on business.
Abby died of fright- Abby did not die of fright.
He saw Lizzie outside Wednesday- no it was his wife who accounted for seeing Lizzie out Wednesday.

These are from memory- did I get them right so far?
[Edit to change post: had said Lizzie was seen out Thursday- but it was Wednesday.]

If Lizzie could have killed Abby off by poisioning that would have solved a big problem for her. I'm not sure how she could have poisioned Abby and not Andrew, but Abby looked like the big eater.
TX for your posts on Dr. Bowen, but a question, how can Dr. Bowen as a physician, say that it appears that Abby and Andrew died at the same time? More to follow on that after your answer.
Also re: Dr. Bowen, how did he come so quickly? Where was he - did he have a phone in his horse carrige? And, of course, the same questions which began this site come up too, why did Dr. Dolan meander by? Why did Mrs Kelly choose to be late for the dentist? Did Mrs. Bowen moniter the neighborhood or was she watching the Borden house specifically for the few days before the murders? Note several posts by you. Did Mrs Churchill just coincidentially get home from shopping at the exact same time as the murder of Andrew was discovered, or was she following Andrew? Was she in a carrige? I'm not sure of the spelling of that, and I'm not looking it up. Why would 250 people appear within 45 minutes of a murder at a murder house when if they all heard it by second person it's unlikely (by definitive studies) that the name or location of those involved would be correct. I agree that people have a grouping instinct - especially for disasters, but this seems an unlikely number especially when it was about half an hour after the police had even been called, somewhat less time than appeared.
Hey you don't know me you don't like me, but how many of you who have sit and judged me,
have walked the streets of Bakersfield?
And there's still the police - Allen, with supposedly six years experience (Kat I think) left a crime scene.
And of course the foibles of the investigation.
Lets take one obscure theory - which I presented a long time ago - that when Andrew killed Lizzie's pidgeons, she would have wanted him dead. As a true animal lover, I'd have wanted my Father dead too. She figured out a way to do it, and coupled with the in heritance issues, there is the motives. I think she was reluctant to have her Father killed and perhaps even tried in her way to prevent it when it was coming, but it happened and she dealt with it.
It would be interesting to see if Lizzie dealt with any food preperation.
It would be interesting to see if Abby had any of her own keys in her room at time of death.
It would be interesting to see exactly what keys were found on Andrew.
It would be interesting to see exactly where Lizzie was when Dr. Bowen "arrived." I thought she was being fanned.
It would be interesting to see where Dr. Bowen was from 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. on the morning of the murders.
It would be interesting to see where Dr. Dolan was going to and coming from on the morning of the murders.
Tx again Kat for your support on the Dr. Bowen issue - I feel he's a rogue.

and it would be interesting to look into the ghosts
of the next-door dead children killing Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

You ask if Dr. Bowen was just a bumbler, or if he was some kind of participant. Just offhand, if he was a bumbler, I don't think Lizzie could manipulate a Doctor unless he was truly involved. Doctors now and then had really status. But if he was involved with her she may just consider him a bumb. By Dr. Bowen's testimony it appears he was a confused man, and I wonder if the confusion went on throughout his life. But did his confusion really indicate some kind of "set-up" or altered testimony? Take just the "back door" statement of his. It really doesn't matter where Lizzie was when he arrived unless Dr. Bowen was there when the killing of Andrew happened, and I suspect Lizzie was at the back door or in and out to the barn. When Bowen actually, by testimony, showed up, there was no way Lizzie would still have been at the back door. And the really really really interesting and fascinating thing about "Lizzie" is that there was no way for him to know unless he'd been there. From some point of view, and from somewhere, he knew that Lizzie was at the side door shortly after her Father had been killed! Yet he wasn't there yet! So there is one bumbler who is a liar. Again I ask, as in a previous post, where was Dr. Bowen from 10:00 that morning to 12:00, and where was Dr. Dolan?

Bowen's driver said they got to the street at 11:05 am, so that's just about the time the ice cream man saw a woman-not-Bridget outside by the side steps, and within seconds of Andrew's murder.
I thought that was a mistake on his part telling the time.
The word didn't go out until probably 11:10 for the police to hear of it at 11:15.
And later Bowen keeps changing the time...

Hey - if Bridget lays down at 11:00, and Dr. Bowen arrives at 11:05, and sees Lizzie on arrival. Lizzie wouldn't have even had time to kill Andrew, much less clean up. And if Dr. Bowen heard by some form from his wife that a crime had been committed at the Borden house, and that was why he was there, then he had to have heard sometime earlier than 11:05 about it. And Bridget was the alerter. So is it coincidental that Dr. Bowen just happened to be at home or nearly there when his wife learned of the crisis?
The truth is difficult to find here, but it looks like Bridget couldn't even have been in bed, much less laying down at 11:00. She would have had to have been at the Bowen house earlier than that for Dr. Bowen to have been alerted by his wife.
"Could all the world have known this was coming down?"

Audrey @ Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:34 pm wrote:

Allen @ Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:17 pm wrote: If this case were to happen today, the police would've arrested Lizzie and she would probably have been convicted, IMO.

Mock trials have been unable to convict her...

I agree that current day law enforcement practices and crime investigation would make a huge difference in the investigation-- we do not know what they would have found. What evidence was there to find? We will never know...

Mock trials are faced with the same evidence they used in 1892. Which means Lizzie's testimony is still excluded. The testimony of Eli Bence about Lizzie buying prussic acid is still excluded. Everything, all of the evidence, was the same. Of course she was aquitted. All a mock trial serves to do is reenact the original trial.

But my point is the mistakes WERE made and the testimony WAS excluded.

You also have to allow that if the crime happened in these times Lizzie may very well have been more informed and NOT spoke to the police, etc without a lawyer present. She would have been mirandized and Lizzie was anything but stupid.

Poison is NOT available as readily these days AND she would have known about modern forensics.

It is apples/oranges.

She was clever enough to get by in 1892, I say she very well may have pulled it off today.

If you want to speculate that the police/prosecution had the resources we have today at their disposal we have to extend them to Lizzie as well.

Supreme Court Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist participared in one of the mock trials of Lizzie Borden. Did they just read from a script ? Did they do it just for sport ?

"The prosecution did not or could not make out a strong case against her a century later (September 1997), a jury of Stanford Law School alumni, faculty and students, in a mock Borden trial presided over by Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor of the United States Supreme Court, again found Lizzie not guilty for the same reason." - - - William Masterson

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... ml?sect=11

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97 ... izzie.html

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/10 ... 1li060.htm


Tracy...