Lizzie Borden Society Forum

1. Within my theory I conjectured Abby could have been deceived by one of the conspirators of Uncle John to go into the guest room to search for, for example, the watch of Morse, and then was killed there, so she had no time to change her clothes, no time to give Bridget any indication for the household work, and no time to leave the house.

According to the position of Abby’s body, is it possible that when the killer was approaching her, she was kneeling on the floor to search for that “something (a watch)” on the floor near the bed? She could have heard some noise made by the killer, but while she was raising up her head, she received the first, and maybe already mortal, blow?

2. Another idea: It has long been discussed if the behaviour of Morse was suspicious when he returned to the Borden house that morning. I think that if he planned the murders, he should have known what had happened in the house. he could have, using the last minutes, tried to calm himself more and concentrate more his attention to his “performance”, just as an actor before entering on the stage.

Your theory is flawed. Which one of John's conspirators asked Abby to go and watch upstairs for Morse, and why would Abby agree to do so? Why would she need to change her clothes, after all she was cleaning house?

Smudgeman, I mean, she had no time to change her clothes to go out.

Franz wrote:Yooper, If Morse killed Abby and Andrew during the night while they were sleeping, either by himselg, or by an intruder, Morse himself would be suspected, I think.

If the plan was to have Andrew and Abby killed during the night, Morse might well have spent the night somewhere else.

@Franz:

Your theory was entertaining to read, but I don't agree with it. Here are some of my reasons why: (I'd like to address means, motif and opportunity)

1. Opportunity: I think that a man coming to the door to talk to Abby would have been noticed by someone; at the very least, Dr. Bowen's wife, who was staring out the window. It was a big risk to take. Also, if this happened, why would Abby have only told Lizzie she had a note? Wouldn't it be more likely she would say to Lizzie "A friend of your Uncle's came by..." Finally, why would Abby have taken time to destroy the note? I think she would have put it in her pocket and left it there. Finally, Uncle John didn't visit that often...he wasn't familiar with the routine of the house, and couldn't know what Abby's day-to-day duties were. What if that particular day of the week was the one where she made deliveries to the church? What if she typically saw her sister on Thursday mornings? I"m making these up, but you (hopefully) get my point.

2. Motive: Uncle John led a quiet, unremarkable life. Nothing I have read indicates he was anything but a country boy who was good with horses. Why would he, at his age (I'm assuming he was over 50) decide to do something so dramatic and risky? If found guilty, he would hang by the neck until dead. Your speculation about his motive is, in my opinion, weak--at this point. I'd like to know just how close he was with his late sister. How far apart were they in age? Did he ever speak of her? Did he visit her grave? It seemed he was not at all close with his nieces. That he would carefully plan and then facilitate the brutal murder of 2 family members so that Emma and Lizzie would inherit money is, in my opinion, not plausible.

3. Means: Hatchets were easy to come by; I suppose the killers could have brought them along when they visited the house. But why so many blows? You have speculated that Uncle John requested the killers "overkill" so that the police would think a man did the deed. This doesn't make sense to me. The fact of so many unnecessary whacks tells me the killing was personal, and driven by passionate hatred. 18 blows is a LOT...I've tried swinging that many times, and was surprised by how long it took. Whomever killed Andrew (11 blows) didn't just deliver a lethal blow to his cranium, they obliterated his face, cut his eyeball in half, rendered him unrecognizable. His life could have been ended much more efficiently and in a less grisly manner.

Finally ( for this post at least...I need to get to a doctor's appointment, so I will return to this later tonight): How did the killer escape the house completely undetected? Supposing he did, why was there so blood trail anywhere?

And please Franz, no disrespect intended, but your speculation about what Lizzie did in the barn (masturbation) is, in my opinion, ridiculous. These were Victorian times. Freud's entire life was committed to explaining the staggering repression of women's sexuality during this era. It was hot, dusty, she was wearing a heavy silk skirt...there is absolutely nothing about this case that would convince me Lizzie was in the barn engaged in this activity. Plus I'm employing a skill that is admittedly heavily criticized: women's intuition. Trust me, it just doesn't track.

Thank you, however, for your entertaining theories. I don't mind that they're a bit far-fetched---keep 'em coming...as long as you can handle the criticism, I'm happy to talk about all-things-Lizzie with you!

[quote="NancyDrew"]@Franz:

2. Motive: Uncle John led a quiet, unremarkable life.
Why would he, at his age (I'm assuming he was over 50)
I'd like to know just how close he was with his late sister.
How far apart were they in age?


John V. Morse 1833 - 1912 He would have been 59 in 1892
Sarah Morse Borden 1823 - 1863 So they were 10 years apart in age
I haven't seen anywhere how close they were .

NancyDrew , I hope you'll be feeling better soon .

Hello, NancyDrew. Thank you very much for your reply. You have read very carefully my post, Thanks!
You mentioned Abby’s pocket. A good point. To be honest, I was thinking about this and wanted to ask other members: was there any pocket in the clothes on Abby’s body? If yes, I would like to modify a little my theory: If there was really a note, Abby could have put it in her pocket. Morse and his conspirators could have thought of this possibility and the real killer, after murdered Abby in the guest room, could have searched the note in her pocket and taken it away. The note was an evidence and they didn’t want it to be found by the police.

Take care of you, NancyDrew. If I understand well, you have been attacked by your dog? Ohlala!

Yooper wrote:

Franz wrote:Yooper, If Morse killed Abby and Andrew during the night while they were sleeping, either by himselg, or by an intruder, Morse himself would be suspected, I think.

If the plan was to have Andrew and Abby killed during the night, Morse might well have spent the night somewhere else.

Yes, Yopper, this is a possible solution. but I think in this case, without Morse's help from inside, they should find a way so that the real killer could go into the house or the afternoon or the evening of the August 3rd, and where he hided himself.

Franz,

Thank you for inquiring about my injuries...yes, my own dog (a 15 year old miniature dachshund; blind, deaf and going senile) lunged at me and punctured my thumb. 2 weeks later, I ended up with a massive infection in my wrist that spread to my entire arm (my dogs's shots were up to date, but there was bacteria from the puncture that migrated.) I spent 4 days in the hospital, hooked up to 3 different antibiotics. I'm still having pain in my hand, wrist and arm...doctors tell me it will be weeks/months before the inflammation in my tendons calms down. Very scary. It's nice to come here and be distracted for a while, immersing myself in this 120- year old case.

Now, regarding your theory, sorry my friend, but I'm not convinced at all in its plausibility. Regarding Abby's note, I'm going to speculate that whatever she was wearing that morning included an apron and that would have probably had pockets. I'm not as familiar with clothing form that era as others are; did women's house dresses generally have pockets? I honestly do not know.

Your modification of the theory, namely, that one of the conspirators, or Morse himself, thought to search her pockets and remove the note, also doesn't track for me. This would have meant rummaging around in her clothing, while she lay prone and murdered, to find the note? This would have taken extra time, possibly transferred blood to her dress, etc.

Morse had an air-tight alibi. How do explain your speculation, in light of where he said he was, and at what time?

There are 2 things that bother me about John Morse: 1. that he arrived without any change of clothes and 2. his behavior upon arriving at the house after the murders (casually strolling thru the backyard and eating pears before going inside). But neither of those lead me to believe he participated in the killing of his brother-in-law and wife. He could have just been what we call and "odd duck." (a weird guy.)

NancyDrew wrote:Franz,

Your modification of the theory, namely, that one of the conspirators, or Morse himself, thought to search her pockets and remove the note, also doesn't track for me. This would have meant rummaging around in her clothing, while she lay prone and murdered, to find the note? This would have taken extra time, possibly transferred blood to her dress, etc.

Morse had an air-tight alibi. How do explain your speculation, in light of where he said he was, and at what time?

Hey NancyDrew, I wish you a quick recover.

1. About Morse. What I wanted to say is that: Morse and his conspirators could have predicted that Abby would put the note in her pocket. But that man who actually searched the note could have been only the real killer. At at moment, Morse had gone out and was in the town (an air-tight alibi).

2. I dont' understand well your "rummaging around in her clothing". I imagine that if there were really pockets, they should be outside of her clothings (I apologize for my poor English).

3. I don't think the extra time the killer had to take is a problem, because after having killed Abby, he hided (this is my theory, obviously) himself just in the guest room.

Another thing, very important. I would like to know if the front stairs goes to the attic? I remember I read somewhere in the attic there was a little room and used as a second guest room at Lizzie's time, now a W.C. of the Borden house B&B. Can people go there by the front stairs, or only by the back stairs?

And I would like to know about the clothing room, was it locked usually? Could this clothing room be considered as a possible hiding place for the killer before Abby went into the guest room (for the second and last time)?

The clothing closet was kept locked. Alice Russell testified to being in Lizzie's room the day of the murders with her, and seeing her go and unlock the clothes closet and go in twice. She did not know why she went in but said she seemed to be checking on something. And the officer who searched there had to ask Lizzie for the key in order for the room to be searched. All of the doors on the second floor were kept locked except for the guest room door. The front stairs did not go to the attic room. There was no way to get to the attic except by the back stairs. And yes someone did think to search Abby's "pocket". But since the equivalent of Victorian purses were sometimes referred to as pockets,I have always been more convinced they had talked about searching her purse. I don't think Dr. Bowen was asking Lizzie if she rifled through the dead woman's pockets. House dresses did have pockets at the time as well. There was a spot , or what was referred to as a smooch, of what was thought to be blood found on the pocket of Lizzie's dress at the time. And another smooch lower down on the skirt. It was tested and according to the results was found not to be blood. I have often wondered how accurate their testing was at the time.

Trial testimony of Alice Russell:

Q. Miss Russell to go back again to the day of the homicide, do you remember anything about a search for a note by anyone --- Dr. Bowen?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. State what there is about that.
A. When we were in the dining room Lizzie was lying down, and I think Dr. Bowen came in --- I always thought it was Dr. Bowen -- came in and said, "Lizzie, do you know anything about the note your mother had?" And she hesitated and said, well no, she didn't. He said, "I have looked in the wastebasket," and I think I said -- no, he said, "Have you looked in her pocket?" And I think I said," Well then she must have put it in the fire." And Lizzie said, "yes, she must have put it in the fire."

In agreeing that the note must have been burned Lizzie did not relate the fact that she should have seen Abby burn it. She spent the majority of the morning in the kitchen by her own account. The only fire burning there was in the kitchen.

Franz, I mean no disrespect. I'm not trying to offend. But in asking all of these questions would it not be better in the long run if you just searched out the answers on your own using the free source documents on this site? You would learn so much more about the case if you took the time to read through them all and learn all of the facts of the case for yourself. Because the answers to all of the questions you are asking can all be found there. Not to mention the rest of the facts surrounding the case.

I quote here the testimony of B. J. Handy, that I found in website:

“Testimony of Benjamin J. Handy in the Trial of Lizzie Borden (June 15, 1893)
I am a physician, and have been practising medicine in Fall River nearly twenty years. I went by the Borden house, on the morning of the murders, at nine o'clock, and again at a little after 10.30. Saw a medium-sized young man of very pale complexion, with his eyes fixed on the side-walk. He was passing slowly towards the south. He was paler than common, and acting strangely. I turned in my carriage to look at him. Never have seen him before. Had light suit of clothes, collar and necktie. Have searched for him since; been to the police station to look at various persons; but have never seen the young man since.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
He was walking very slowly, scarcely moving. He was agitated, or weak, staggering; or confused, or something of the kind. Did not appear intoxicated. Seemed mentally agitated: showed this by intense expression of his face. I think I had seen him on some previous day. He did not stagger. I did not mean to say he staggered j he didn't. His body oscillated. He did not appear intoxicated.”

I my opinion, the young man that Mr. Handy saw that morning could not be the killer. But I am wondering, he appeared twice near the Borden house, at 9 o’clock and a little after 10:30…

Allen wrote:Franz, I mean no disrespect. I'm not trying to offend. But in asking all of these questions would it not be better in the long run if you just searched out the answers on your own using the free source documents on this site? You would learn so much more about the case if you took the time to read through them all and learn all of the facts of the case for yourself. Because the answers to all of the questions you are asking can all be found there. Not to mention the rest of the facts surrounding the case.

Hey Allen, thank you for your frankness. I am reading for the second time all the documents I found, and am searching some news. I read the documents a couple of months ago, and being a newcomer of the case, and there are too much details... I will verify the sources in my possession every time necessary before posting something, even though I have many other things to so. Thank you very much, Allen.

Franz wrote:I quote here the testimony of B. J. Handy, that I found in website:

“Testimony of Benjamin J. Handy in the Trial of Lizzie Borden (June 15, 1893)
I am a physician, and have been practising medicine in Fall River nearly twenty years. I went by the Borden house, on the morning of the murders, at nine o'clock, and again at a little after 10.30. Saw a medium-sized young man of very pale complexion, with his eyes fixed on the side-walk. He was passing slowly towards the south. He was paler than common, and acting strangely. I turned in my carriage to look at him. Never have seen him before. Had light suit of clothes, collar and necktie. Have searched for him since; been to the police station to look at various persons; but have never seen the young man since.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
He was walking very slowly, scarcely moving. He was agitated, or weak, staggering; or confused, or something of the kind. Did not appear intoxicated. Seemed mentally agitated: showed this by intense expression of his face. I think I had seen him on some previous day. He did not stagger. I did not mean to say he staggered j he didn't. His body oscillated. He did not appear intoxicated.”

I my opinion, the young man that Mr. Handy saw that morning could not be the killer. But I am wondering, he appeared twice near the Borden house, at 9 o’clock and a little after 10:30…

There was a mill hand, nicknamed Mike the Soldier, who had been on a drinking spree. He answered the description in all respects and had been in the vicinity of the Borden house at about the time stated. Be cautious in reading the testimony, Handy does not say he saw the young man on both occasions as he passed the Borden house.

So Dr. Handy says the young man was NOT staggering, but was "oscillating?" What does that mean? I thought "oscillating" meant to swing back and forth, in a rhythmic fashion. But he also says the young man was "scarcely moving."

I find his entire statement confusing.

Allen, according to the Witness Statements, Mrs. Bowen "was sitting at her front window ..., awaiting and watching for the coming of her daughter. She was at this window until 10.55 A.M. The daughter was away, and was expected on the forenoon train. ...” (The witness statements, p.8)

In my theory, the second conspirator, the messenger of the note, should arrived at Borden house about 9:00. The statement didn’t mention from which o’clock Mrs. Bowen began to sit at her front window at watch. Since her daughter was expected on the forenoon train, it seems for me highly unlikely at Mrs. Bowen could have been sitting there from as early as 9:00 and waiting until 10:55.

Mrs. Churchill saw Andrew out in the yard around nine o'clock.

Franz Wrote:

In my theory, the second conspirator, the messenger of the note, should arrived at Borden house about 9:00. The statement didn’t mention from which o’clock Mrs. Bowen began to sit at her front window at watch. Since her daughter was expected on the forenoon train, it seems for me highly unlikely at Mrs. Bowen could have been sitting there from as early as 9:00 and waiting until 10:55.


There was no note Franz, Lizzie made the whole thing up! THINK about it!

Smudgeman wrote:Franz Wrote:

In my theory, the second conspirator, the messenger of the note, should arrived at Borden house about 9:00. The statement didn’t mention from which o’clock Mrs. Bowen began to sit at her front window at watch. Since her daughter was expected on the forenoon train, it seems for me highly unlikely at Mrs. Bowen could have been sitting there from as early as 9:00 and waiting until 10:55.


There was no note Franz, Lizzie made the whole thing up! THINK about it!

I had thought, and had concluded that there was no note. But then, unfortunately, I refuted myself. Maybe one day I will refute myself for another time, who knows?

Franz wrote:

Smudgeman wrote:Franz Wrote:

In my theory, the second conspirator, the messenger of the note, should arrived at Borden house about 9:00. The statement didn’t mention from which o’clock Mrs. Bowen began to sit at her front window at watch. Since her daughter was expected on the forenoon train, it seems for me highly unlikely at Mrs. Bowen could have been sitting there from as early as 9:00 and waiting until 10:55.


There was no note Franz, Lizzie made the whole thing up! THINK about it!

I had thought, and had concluded that there was no note. But then, unfortunately, I refuted myself. Maybe one day I will refute myself for another time, who knows?

Sounds a lot like Lizzie's inquest testimony, doesn't it?

Yooper wrote:

Franz wrote:

Smudgeman wrote:
There was no note Franz, Lizzie made the whole thing up! THINK about it!

I had thought, and had concluded that there was no note. But then, unfortunately, I refuted myself. Maybe one day I will refute myself for another time, who knows?

Sounds a lot like Lizzie's inquest testimony, doesn't it?

Not at all. All was opposite: Lizzie began by saying that there was a note, and she never refuted herself (she never said there wasn't a note).

I'm quite sure that everyone, except Franz, will get the point.

Yooper wrote:I'm quite sure that everyone, except Franz, will get the point.

I wanted to say: Lizzie began (from the August 4th) by saying there was a note, and she never refuted herself. Her hesitation that we talked about doesn't mean she refuted herself. she never said: "There was not that note, I was mistaken."

Generally speaking, in my opinion, those apparently suspicious points in her inquest testimony could be explained other than that she could have killed Abby and Andrew.

Allen wrote:Mrs. Churchill saw Andrew out in the yard around nine o'clock.

Allen, I don't want to be considered unserious. I am looking for that source that I have read, which could be concerned with our discussion. Give me some time, please.

Perhaps you should read the source documents more carefully before you post. If you are not sure, look it up! Very simple and less annoying.

Franz,

The source for Mrs. Churchill's statement that she saw Mr. Borden in the yard is in her Inquest testimony:

"Q. Had you seen any of the household, or anybodyelse in the yard?
A. I saw Mr. Borden I should think about nine o’clock, the hour he usually goes down street. I was in my kitchen doing kitchen work. I happened to see him out in the yard.
Q. You saw him going out?
A. Yes, he was going as if he had been out in the yard, out by the barn, coming out around the back steps.
Q. He went out on the street?
A. I dont know. When I looked at him he was standing there by the steps as if he was headed for the street, to the west."

It can also be found in Mrs. Churchill's trial testimony on page 343. This is where she states about what time she saw him.

Q. During that morning did you see Mr. Borden at any time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. About what time did you first see him?
A. I should think about nine o'clock or so, somewhere along there.

Q. Somewhere around nine o'clock?
A. Yes, sir; I cannot tell just exactly.

Q. In what part of your house were you when you first saw him?
A. The kitchen.

Thank you Allen and Harry. Indeed I am not looking for Churchill’s testimonies. I am pretty sure to have read, in a second hand source, that the clock of someone have been found late. I am searching for the original source. Would you like to give me some information? You certainly can.

I will give you some information about that Franz. The information about a time piece being found to be incorrect is in the trial transcript. Finding that information is up to you. And what that witness testified to has nothing to do with what you are claiming. But you can figure that out on your own after reading the testimony in the trial transcript.

I always though that Uncle John knew more that what was telling

snokkums wrote:I always though that Uncle John knew more that what was telling

I suspect him, indeed.

Nobody has ever raised the possibility that even if they did know more than they were telling, it wasn't because they were guilty of anything. It was because two people had been brutally hacked to death and they were worried they might suffer the same fate.

Allen wrote:Nobody has ever raised the possibility that even if they did know more than they were telling, it wasn't because they were guilty of anything. It was because two people had been brutally hacked to death and they were worried they might suffer the same fate.

Allen, I suspect Morse more than the simple speculation that he could knew more than he told.

I wonder, why the Borden case is so mysterious, so ... unsolved, after 120 years, so many hisrorians, so many criminal experts, so many amateurs, but never solved? Isn't it possible that because that person who had the best alibi (Morse) was never seriously suspected? In my opinion the reason could be just here. I am curious to know, those who considered Morse as the real murder (author of the plan and helped by a conspirator), how have they argued to prove or demonstrate that Morse was the real guilty person in the Borden case.

Allen wrote:Nobody has ever raised the possibility that even if they did know more than they were telling, it wasn't because they were guilty of anything. It was because two people had been brutally hacked to death and they were worried they might suffer the same fate.

That is very true-- and worthy of it's own thread. I have never thought of that!

This is Franz's theory, for our newbies! Enjoy!

This is the first version of my theory.

Franz, does that mean there is a new one?

Anyway, you had me at masturbate :-)

I have been considering this case for a long time. I almost immediately landed on Morse and a hired killer. I would also note that Arthur Philips, four decades later, also revealed this as his opinion and gave a motive.

I can't buy into the daylight axe murder to impress Jodie Foster...I mean his nieces. I think Morse returned from Iowa broke, and Andrew was his lifeline. The night before that lifeline, whatever it was, was jerked out from under him.

I think many times this case is overthought. It might have been as simple as you say...a killer let in the night before. I think where everyone (especially here) gets the rope tangled around the axle is when a theory tries to answer EVERYTHING.

A disappearing note? In a drafty old Victorian house you grew up in...I could find 50 places to hide it that a bunch of flatfoots wouldn't find. And didn't anyone here ever go to Catholic school? You are passing notes and the situation gets tight -- you eat them! It's paper!

I think that one possibility, in these small strokes, is that maybe Morse brought Lizzie into the picture on false premises. She had visited him in Dartsmouth earlier that week, right? Maybe he said "Lizzie, we need to find that will. Or maybe that promissory note. Or maybe evidence of what Abby's family was getting. Or correspondence from them. Or something else."

"Lizzie, leave the side door open, and my man is going to slip in and find the paperwork. Tell your mom...er...Abby...that the windows look like cr@p. Somebody mentioned it. You are embarrassed. Get Bridget busy."

They might have practiced the story they would need if the intruder was spotted.

But that wasn't Morse's plan. He sent one of his cattle slaughterers.

Mayhem ensues. When he gets back he braces Lizzie on the side "My guy went nuts! We have to keep this quiet!
==================

At one point, I read a lot about violent multiple killers. You know how many are women? Statistically, zero. 5'3" women don't chop people up with axes. 6'3" women don't chop people up with axes. Sunday school teachers with no prior and no post history of violence don't chop people up with axes. Doesn't happen.

Once you get by that....damn...it was Morse and his meat processors!! C'mon!

Also, I strongly believe Morse was in financial straits. I will produce some evidence when I clean it up.

Hey, RGJ. Have you read debbie's posts where she has discussed violent female killers who have chopped and violently murdered others?

Yes RGJ, the new one is this:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5191

The major difference is that in the new one, I conjectured that the effective killer entered into the house the 4th August (not during the night before), immediately before Abby' death (about 9:25-9:30).

At the beginning I suspected Lizzie, but more I study the case, more I am convinced that the killer was not her. And among the others, uncle John is my candidate n° 1 for the double murder. And I tried to demonstrate it in a series of threads entitled About uncle John's behaviours (parts 1-9). Very happy to discuss the case with you.

RGJ wrote:... Anyway, you had me at masturbate :-) ...

So, if you too think Lizzie didn't do it, according to you, where was Lizzie when Andrew was being killed and what was she doing?