Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have never been able to see how the killer, Lizzie or anyone else, could assume that Bridget did not hear or see something during the killing of Andrew.

Reading Bridget's Preliminary and Trial testimony, she never says she told anybody she was going upstairs so a killer hiding somewhere in the house could not have overheard her.

If it was a stranger to the house how would he know where Bridget's room was? And not knowing this what she would be able to hear?

How would he know how long she would be upstairs? Bridget testified it was her custom to take a brief rest before starting dinner. The amount of time she stayed was determined by the amount of preparation she had to do for the meal. A stranger certainly wouldn't know that Thursday's meal would require little preparation and that Bridget would be out of the way for any length of time.

Lizzie would know the answers to all those questions. The other alternative is an insane killer oblivious to any danger from within the house and determined to complete his mission.

I have always wondered that too. how could she not have heard anything.

i guess this: either lizzie does it -- or she informs the killer that the coast is clear. what else could it be?

of course, this is according to bridget -- not lizzie. according to lizzie, bridget had come in and gone upstairs and they did not talk.

Yes, according to Lizzie.
This reminds me of something else Lizzie said about Bridget which is kind of scary. She said Bridget went upstairs after Andrew left. Since we know Bridget's room is up the back stairs, we might automatically picture Bridget going up there. But actually, since which particular stairs were not alluded to at all, maybe Bridget went up the front stairs..
That would be to either kill Abby or find Abby already dead?
But, since Lizzie's answer eludes the prosecutor, the next question and answer seems to contradict her original answer. Then we are left wondering..again.

This first part is where Lizzie is unsure where Bridget was when Andrew came home- which seems especially odd because pretty soon she is saying that Bridget let Andrew in at the front door after all. The second part, is where Lizzie says Bridget was up stairs, Again! Because Lizzie does place Bridget upstairs at some time (or maybe even twice- or maybe even up there the whole time), it seems reasonable to think Bridget was up stairs at some point and didn't tell that in testimony.

Inquest
Lizzie
60
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone up stairs; I can't remember.
.........

68
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.
Q. After he went out, and before he came back; a large portion of the time after your father went out, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were the only person in the house?
A. So far as I know, I was.

Haulover @ Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:19 pm wrote:i guess this: either lizzie does it -- or she informs the killer that the coast is clear. what else could it be?

of course, this is according to bridget -- not lizzie. according to lizzie, bridget had come in and gone upstairs and they did not talk.

Yes I think that too, either lizzie did it or she informed the killer. IN any case I have always thought that it was odd the there are four people in the house, two get killed, and the other two are deaf dumb and blind. Didn't see anyone, here anyone and don't know anything. Odd don't you think?

Haulover @ Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:19 pm wrote:i guess this: either lizzie does it -- or she informs the killer that the coast is clear. what else could it be?

of course, this is according to bridget -- not lizzie. according to lizzie, bridget had come in and gone upstairs and they did not talk.

Yes, Lizzie informing the killer, IMO, seems the most logical.

Lizzie, like Bridget, doesn't announce where she's going, she just goes. If Lizzie is not involved the killer takes another chance in her returning. The killer would hear the screen door open and close but that does not mean he would know how long that person would be gone.

The same applies to Bridget going up to her room. He might hear her climbing the steps but he not knowing her habits would not know how long or even why she went up stairs.

It just seems to me a stranger who had just killed two people would want to eliminate any possible witnesses.

Kat @ Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:21 am wrote: Since we know Bridget's room is up the back stairs, we might automatically picture Bridget going up there. But actually, since which particular stairs were not alluded to at all, maybe Bridget went up the front stairs..
That would be to either kill Abby or find Abby already dead?
But, since Lizzie's answer eludes the prosecutor, the next question and answer seems to contradict her original answer. Then we are left wondering..again.

I don't think Bridget went up the front stairs. There was really no reason for her to go to that part of the house. She testified that both Lizzie and Emma took care of their own rooms, and that she didn't have any duties involved with the cleaning of the guest room. So what would she need to be going up the front stairs for? Unless she was looking for Mrs. Borden.
But sound carries so well up those front steps that she could've simply called to her, without the need to actually go up there. After all Bridget had no trouble hearing the laugh at the top of the stairs from the front door. I think Lizzie is either mistaken, or not telling the truth, about the fact that Bridget went upstairs while her father was out. She contradicts herself in so many other areas. And for a large part of the time Lizzie was by herself in the house while Andrew was out. Bridget was outside washing the windows. She contradicted herself twice in just that small portion of testimony. I've changed the bold letters from Kat's post to my illustrate my point.

68
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.

Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.

Q. After he went out, and before he came back; a large portion of the time after your father went out, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were the only person in the house?
A. So far as I know, I was.

So where was Bridget when Andrew came home? Had she come in and gone up to her room? Or was Lizzie alone? If you read it in context he asked her the same question twice and got two different answers. So all we really have is Lizzie contradicting herself again.

There are a few interesting things that stand out to me from the testimony. I'm trying to piece them together and figure out why they are standing out so. I don't have a reason for them yet. One is the fact that in the Witness Statements on page 8 Mrs. Churchill gave the time that she left her house to go after her goceries as 11 am. and returned about 11:15 to 11:20 am.

At the inquest page 126:

Q. Up to 11 o'clock you had been at home?
A. I was at home until about eleven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. Did you see any other member of the household?
A.No sir. I saw the girl later washing the windows.

Q.How much later was it when she was out washing the windows?
A. It might've been ten o'clock. I cant tell.

Q. Washing windows on the outside?
A. Yes sir.

Q. How long should you say she was out there, that you saw her washing windows?
A. I cant tell. I stepped into my bedroom for something, I saw her throwing water up on the parlor window.

Q.She was washing the parlor window then?
A. Yes sir.-------------------------------------------

Trial page 344-345:

Q. How far are your kitchen windows--- we have seen them but perhaps i will put that in the case, ---about how far are your windows from this screen door?
A. I don't know.

Q. Can you give us an estimate with reference to some object in this room?
A. I shouldn't think they were much beyond that rail. ( Indicating rail in front of the prisoner's dock.)

------------------------------------

A. About what time did you leave the house?
Q. I don't know, somewhere near 11 o'clock I should think.

Mrs. Bowen testifies that she was sitting at her window with a full view of the Borden front and side doors until 10:55.

The Clerk at Hudner's Market where Mrs. Churchill did her shopping that morning placed the time that she left his market at around 11:05 or 11:10.

So I have so many questions here. Why didn't Mrs. Churchill see Lizzie go to the barn, or at least see her in the yard? Why, if Lizzie claims she was in the barn, didn't she see Mrs. Churchill? She stated she was looking out a window facing the street eating pears. Why didn't Mrs. Bowen see anyone? Did she even see Bridget washing the windows?

Mr George Pettee also claims he saw Bridget outside the house at around 10:00 o'clock. He said she was in front of the house nearly opposite the front door, and she had a dipper, pail and the brush so he thought she had been washing the windows. He said she was standing stationary, not moving. I wonder what was meant by this. Did he mean she was just standing in one place and not walking around, or not moving at all? She stated in her testimony that she washed the diningroom windows after the parlor windows, and then went inside to wash the inside of the windows.

So we know that Bridget was outside at 10:00 by two witnesses statements. It would be very helpful to know what time she went outside in the first place. Sorry I'm going off on a rant here but I have to leave soon, and will not be back home until this evening. I figured if I posted what I had jumbled in my brain so far, someone may add something to the thread that will help me pin down exactly what it is that doesn't seem to click to me .

I guess it's possible that Mrs. Churchill was running around getting ready to go -- she says she was hurrying so she would get the potatoes at the market and have them ready by noon -- so she may not have been looking out those side windows.

As far as Mrs. Bowen goes -- I think Knowlton must have been very disappointed with her responses at the Preliminary hearing. On his cross-examination he asks her if she was at her window at 10:55 and she agrees she was at the north bay window with her attention "down street" watching for her daughter. (Her testimony indicates that down street means north to Mrs. Bowen.) So they are going along fine for awhile with her saying she could see the Borden yard and did not see anyone coming or going during that time BUT ... then she says "I had my blinds closed so I could not see through them".

Knowlton must have been stunned but he pressed on for some reason.
"Q: You could not see the yard at that time?
A: No sir, if I had had the blinds open -- I had my blinds closed so I could not see through them.
Q: So you could not see the yard at that time?
A: Not at that time.
Q: At that time you could not see the yard where you were at all?
A. No."
Q: So where you were standing that morning, watching for your daughter, you could not have seen, without opening some blinds, you could not have seen the yard?
A: No sir. I misunderstood you." (Preliminary Hearing, 480)

So it looks as though she can't be counted on to say whether Lizzie went to the barn either.

I don't think Bridget went up the front stairs. There was really no reason for her to go to that part of the house. She testified that both Lizzie and Emma took care of their own rooms, and that she didn't have any duties involved with the cleaning of the guest room. So what would she need to be going up the front stairs for? Unless she was looking for Mrs. Borden.
But sound carries so well up those front steps that she could've simply called to her, without the need to actually go up there. After all Bridget had no trouble hearing the laugh at the top of the stairs from the front door. I think Lizzie is either mistaken, or not telling the truth, about the fact that Bridget went upstairs while her father was out. She contradicts herself in so many other areas. And for a large part of the time Lizzie was by herself in the house while Andrew was out. Bridget was outside washing the windows. She contradicted herself twice in just that small portion of testimony. I've changed the bold letters from Kat's post to my illustrate my point.

--Allen

Yes, I did bring up the contradiction. I meant to show context and then an ulterior meaning, which can still exist.
Bridget cannot kill Abby by calling to her upstairs. Bridget has to go up there to kill or find the body. That's if we distrust everyone's words as to what happened in that house after Andrew left. Meaning Bridget is a suspect in this as well as Lizzie. Bridget has not much alibi- considering how little she was seen outside that morning supposedly washing windows. A contract or deal made between Lizzie and Bridget seems reasonable as to what the story would be when the bodies were found by the first outsider.

So where was Bridget when Andrew came home? Had she come in and gone up to her room? Or was Lizzie alone? If you read it in context he asked her the same question twice and got two different answers. So all we really have is Lizzie contradicting herself again.

--Allen

Knowlton was asking what he wanted to ask and didn't always get the answer he thought he wanted from Lizzie. He didn't know her and he had been briefed by the local aithorities Monday evening. I think he pressed her for answers which fit some idea he had and that allowed her to sneak by with some non-responsive answers- and when pressed, by repeating the question- she gets a cue from him as to what he expects the answer to be.
Take for instance the circles Lizzie took him in on the lines and sinkers story. It took him pages of testimony to figure out that he thought the lines were in Marion and she had meant the lines were at the farm. It took him asking almost 3 times to elicit the story of the note. I do think Lizzie was capable of changing her answers to fit what she realized he was after.
Her first response may be the most responsive. It's just something to consider.

It's entirely possible that Lizzie changed her answers to fit what she thought Knowlton wanted to hear. It's also possible that she changed her answers simply because she started off not telling the truth, and once a person starts telling lies it becomes harder and harder to keep track of them.

I think one of the issues that was causing me some trouble was reconciling the idea that at 10:00 Bridget was washing the Parlor windows according to Mrs. Churchill. Mr. Pettee also has Bridget outside and in front of the house at around 10, but he said he thought she had been washing the windows. He said she was stationary. This gives me a picture of Bridget standing around on the sidewalk holding a dipper and pail. Unless I'm taking his testimony too literally, which is possible, Bridget was standing outside in front of the house in what I would consider the act of killing time? Waiting for something?Taking a break? I wish there were still ways to get more specific testimony sometimes

In going over the Witness Statements I keep coming back to Dr. Bowen as well. I have always found his behavior suspicious. It seems others found it suspicious as well. I think maybe that deserves to be investigated a little more seriously. It was said that at least five years prior to the murders Lizzie seemed to become a little more upbeat, for lack of a better term. Could it be because she was secretly having an affair of some kind? Love can put a spring in your step for sure. I'm not saying it was any sort of affair with Dr. Bowen I'm just trying to look at it from all angles.


The Witness Statements page 19:

Dr. Bowen stopped me on the street, and was very anxious to know what Mr. Knowlton meant when referred to having found another agent of death. He was very nervous when talking of this I told him I did not recollect of any such statement in his plea.

page 21:

Mrs. Jane Grey, No. 215 Second Street. " Dr. Bowen's character is at least suspicious. Four years ago, while the Borden family were summering over the river on the farm, Lizzie remained at home. One Sunday evening during this time, she and Dr. Bowen came to church together, and sat in the Borden seat. I myself saw them this evening. At the time, and since, there was much comment on this act. Some remarked how courageous she was to remain in the house alone; but others replied in a knowing way, perhaps she has very acceptable company.

He also, as we all know well enough , is the one who took it upon himself to burn the note he found in the Borden home so shortly after the murders. If we think of the 'cast of characters' as just that it doesn't seem like suspicious behavior. We can make a character into any mold we want in our minds, sort of like a movie or a play. But if we remember them as real people...what would happen if a person had blatantly burned a possible piece of evidence at the scene of a crime today? This could also explain why Lizzie sent for DR. BOWEN first. Dr. Bowen was also one of the people shut up into her room with her for a good deal of time on that day. A member of the police Force seemed to describe him as almost guarding the door. It could also explain why Mrs. Bowen was sent away by her husband. What can upset a woman more than having the rival to her affections present? Even if the affair was only going on in Lizzie's mind, a sort of unrequited crush that Bowen was fully aware of but could do nothing about, it kind of makes sense. Lizzie had never been married, no beau existed that we can conclusively prove as anything other than rumor, I'm sure she was very lonely. It would only be human for her to be lonely. An extremely lonley woman could have fallen for Dr. Bowen, fantasized about the two of them being together, or completely mistaken his intentions toward her by seeing only what she wanted to see.


I have always been surprised by the number of statements there were made concerning the fact that the Bordens didn't get along. The Witness Statements are riddled with them. Maybe John was right. Maybe the whole world did know it was coming down

I don't think Bowen was shut up in her room with Lizzie for very long. We can check that timing, if you want.
Also, what Bowen burned seemed to be some pieces of paper of his own. We can check that too.

The fact that Pettee and Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget outside around 10 a.m. seems to confirm that she really wasn't doing much- as observed. She may have done what she said- but there is room for doubt. Pettee sees her in front, which becomes very near the front parlour windows. But she's not doing anything. And then Mrs. Churchill sees her about the same time at a parlour window outside throwing water up- which was the last task she supposedly performed outside- that throwing of water with a dipper.
But at 10 AM nothing was happening, timeline-wise, in the committing of murders. So 10 AM is no alibi at all.

Kat @ Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:08 pm wrote:

I don't think Bridget went up the front stairs. There was really no reason for her to go to that part of the house. She testified that both Lizzie and Emma took care of their own rooms, and that she didn't have any duties involved with the cleaning of the guest room. So what would she need to be going up the front stairs for? Unless she was looking for Mrs. Borden.
But sound carries so well up those front steps that she could've simply called to her, without the need to actually go up there. After all Bridget had no trouble hearing the laugh at the top of the stairs from the front door. I think Lizzie is either mistaken, or not telling the truth, about the fact that Bridget went upstairs while her father was out. She contradicts herself in so many other areas. And for a large part of the time Lizzie was by herself in the house while Andrew was out. Bridget was outside washing the windows. She contradicted herself twice in just that small portion of testimony. I've changed the bold letters from Kat's post to my illustrate my point.

--Allen

Yes, I did bring up the contradiction. I meant to show context and then an ulterior meaning, which can still exist.
Bridget cannot kill Abby by calling to her upstairs. Bridget has to go up there to kill or find the body. That's if we distrust everyone's words as to what happened in that house after Andrew left. Meaning Bridget is a suspect in this as well as Lizzie. Bridget has not much alibi- considering how little she was seen outside that morning supposedly washing windows. A contract or deal made between Lizzie and Bridget seems reasonable as to what the story would be when the bodies were found by the first outsider.

You could look at this I think in two different ways with Bridget. First, why kill the cash cow? The Bordens are paying her to be a maid, that's her lively hood.

On the other hand, the cash cow wasn't paying much and maybe Lizzie convinced her to help kill the parents and get the inheritance. There by giving her more money if she helped.

Also I read somewhere on this site (don't know how true it is) that Bridget was caught sleeping with a guest and she got caught. Andrew might have asked her to leave, and with no means of support, she "lost it" and killed him.
Just some thoughts on Bridget.

Kat @ Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:49 am wrote:I don't think Bowen was shut up in her room with Lizzie for very long. We can check that timing, if you want.
Also, what Bowen burned seemed to be some pieces of paper of his own. We can check that too.

The fact that Pettee and Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget outside around 10 a.m. seems to confirm that she really wasn't doing much- as observed. She may have done what she said- but there is room for doubt. Pettee sees her in front, which becomes very near the front parlour windows. But she's not doing anything. And then Mrs. Churchill sees her about the same time at a parlour window outside throwing water up- which was the last task she supposedly performed outside- that throwing of water with a dipper.
But at 10 AM nothing was happening, timeline-wise, in the committing of murders. So 10 AM is no alibi at all.

No, being seen outside at 10:00 o’clock may not provide any alibi, but she professes to have been outside during the time Abby was killed. If there were witnesses, such as Mrs. Churchill, Mr. Pettee, and the Kelly maid, that saw her outside at all it goes to corroborating her story a little. A few witnesses are better than none. Also, Abby was already dead. Where was the killer? If Bridget had some guilty knowledge of what was going on, she probably wouldn't know for sure when Abby was actually dead until she went into the house. She goes outside to 'wash' the windows and leaves Lizzie to her devices inside the house, but unless she was actually standing there or was inside the house to see Lizzie after the deed there was no way of knowing just when Abby died. Meanwhile Bridget is outside being seen by neighbors and the Kelly girl. Though I find it unlikely Bridget had anything to do with it, there is always that possiblity.

It wouldn't make much sense to me if the pieces of paper that Dr. Bowen burned belonged to him. Where did these pieces of paper come from? And why would he be standing there trying to piece them together in the Borden kitchen during a murder investigation? Why did he first tear them up, and try to piece them back together at that exact time? If they were his why didn't he seem to know the contents of the letter?

The Witness Statements page 6:

After leaving her, I went down in the kitchen where was Dr. Bowen, Asst. Fleet, Dr. Dolan, Bridget and several others. Dr. Bowen had scraps of paper in his hand, on which there was some writing. He and I spoke about them, and he tried to put some of them together. He said " it is nothing, it is something about, I think, my daughter going through somewhere." If I recollect correctly, it was addressed to Emma, but about that I am not sure. The Doctor then said " it does not amount to anything", and taking the lid off the stove, he dropped the pieces in. There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there.

Trial testimony of Philip Harrington page 566-568:

Q. When you got into the kitchen who was there?
A. Well, there was quite a number of people, among whom I recognized Drs. Bowen and Dolan, assistant marshal Fleet, and the servant girl, whose name at the time I did not know.

Q. Did anything occur with reference to the stove in the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir. Just as I went to pass by Dr. Bowen, between him and the stove, I saw some scraps of note paper in his hand. I asked him what they were.

Q. You say you saw Dr. Bowen with some scraps of note paper in his hand?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was he standing?
A. He was standing a little west of the door that lead into the rear hall or entryway.

Q. Go on and describe what was done and what you and Dr. Bowen said, not what anyone else did.
A. I asked him what they were, referring to the pieces of paper, and he said, " Oh, I guess it is nothing."

MR. ROBINSON. I cannot let this go in unless you give me an assurance that it has nothing whatever to do with it.

MR. KNOWLTON. It has nothing to do with the case at all.

MR. ROBINSON. You claim the paper has no significance.

MR. KNOWLTON. Well, he said it has no significance.

THE WITNESS. So he started to arrange them so as to determine what was on them, or to learn their contents. They were very small and it was rather difficult, but on one piece, on the upper left hand corner, was the word “Emma". And that was written in lead pencil, as well as the other pieces I saw.

Q. Now then, what did you do with the paper?
A. I asked him again what they contained, and he said, “Oh I think it is nothing. It is something, I think, about my daughter going through somewhere." He then turned slightly to his left and took the lid from the stove and threw the papers in, or the pieces in.

Q. Now then, did you observe anything as he lifted the lid from the stove?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go on and state what you did and what you observed.
A.I noticed the firebox. The fire was very near extinguished. On the south end there was a small fire which I judged was a coal fire. The embers were about dieing. It was about as large as the palm of my hand. There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.

Q. Now will you describe the roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well I should say it was about that long. (Indicating) Twelve inches I should say.

Q. And how long in diameter?
A. well, not over two inches.


I added the extra testimony about the burned paper that was already in the stove because it has always intrigued me. What was it? But it would appear from the testimony that Dr. Bowen had no knowledge of what was on that piece of note paper.

I have trouble believing that Dr. Bowen would have a note in his hand and not know what the note said. Did someone give him the note? Do you really think he'd throw away a note without reading it first? Did he find the note in the house? Again, would he have picked up a note and then without reading it throw it away? Is this also, the note that had Emma's name on it?

Two things stand out for me on this whole Dr. Bowen thing. One, I don't think he liked Andrew. Andrew treated him like a second class citizen. Second, I always thought it was rather odd how Bowen seemed to have such warm feelings toward Lizzie and yet, he was so indifferent to the rest of the Borden family.

I agree that note with Emma's name on it is intriguing. It would make sense if it was a draft of the message Lizzie asked him to send to her sister -- or even just the address to which it should be sent. But, if it was, why didn't he say that to Harrington?

Arnold Brown says Bowen's daughter's name was not Emma. (Brown,209) Do we know if this is true?

Bowen's daughter's name was Florence G. Bowen.

Thanks, Kat. So, if Harrington really did see the name "Emma" in pencil on the note and has the impression it is addressed to her but Dr. Bowen explains it away as something to do with his daughter, it really does seem a little odd, doesn't it?

This thread is way off topic from the original post.

Lizzie would know the answers to all those questions. The other alternative is an insane killer oblivious to any danger from within the house and determined to complete his mission.

--Harry's summary -first post


My point is that we should include Bridget in the scenario, as killer or helper, as another alternative.
I am picturing Lizzie in her room, hearing a rukus, and finding Bridget standing over the body of Abby...etc.

Harry @ Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:06 pm wrote:I have never been able to see how the killer, Lizzie or anyone else, could assume that Bridget did not hear or see something during the killing of Andrew.

Reading Bridget's Preliminary and Trial testimony, she never says she told anybody she was going upstairs so a killer hiding somewhere in the house could not have overheard her.

If it was a stranger to the house how would he know where Bridget's room was? And not knowing this what she would be able to hear?

How would he know how long she would be upstairs? Bridget testified it was her custom to take a brief rest before starting dinner. The amount of time she stayed was determined by the amount of preparation she had to do for the meal. A stranger certainly wouldn't know that Thursday's meal would require little preparation and that Bridget would be out of the way for any length of time.

Lizzie would know the answers to all those questions. The other alternative is an insane killer oblivious to any danger from within the house and determined to complete his mission.

That is an intriguing point, Harry. I think an outsider would be hard pressed to murder two people and skirt two living women in and around the house without being familiar with the household. To me it points to Bridget and Lizzie, singly or in tandem as the culprit, or as the informer(s) to the murderer as to the household schedule for the day. The chance for someone to slip into the house, unseen, unheard and unknown is so slim it is almost nonexistant.

Hey Susan, welcome home!

If Lizzie and Bridget were not involved and the acts were committed by a total stranger then they were both in mortal danger of being killed themselves.

A killer, unfamiliar with the house, would have no idea whether they had been seen or heard.

A stranger to me just seems to be totally unlikely.

And as you say, there must have been a deal not to kill the other 2 live people. So obviously it is a single known killer or a plot, because Lizzie and Bridget survived.

Hi Harry, thanks, nice to be back. Yes, I thought of that too, if it were a total stranger, both women were in total danger most of the morning. Of the two, I think Lizzie would have been the one who was more in the line of fire. Bridget had more of a circumscribed range in and about the house, she had tasks in certain areas to complete. Lizzie was a free agent; she could go and be anywhere at any given time, in and about the house. She was up in the area where Abby was killed, mere feet from the door to the guest room when she brought up her laundry to her room and sewed her loop on a garment.

A total stranger, hiding in the guest room and hearing footsteps coming upstairs, very near to the room that they were in. Perhaps thinking that this person (Lizzie) who came upstairs could come in the room and see the stranger's handiwork at any given moment and perhaps spoil the later plan of getting Andrew. When I think of it this way, I think the stranger would then choose to dispatch Lizzie while she was in the vicinity.

And after this, Lizzie is the last known person in the dining room, right next to the sitting room where Andrew lay. If the total stranger was in the vicinity hiding, they might have heard Bridget go upstairs to her room. If they knew Lizzie was still immediately next door, she was in the way again and would need to be dispatched quickly. If she did indeed go to barn at that point, it may have been the only thing that saved her life.

Yes, I think it comes down to a total stranger being an unlikely culprit.