Lizzie Borden Society Forum

After doing alot of reading, I was wandering how much investigating did the police do into the murders and the murderer(s)? It just seems they zoned in on Lizzie and that's all she wrote.

One of my pet peeves is that people have a tendency to jump to conclusions about people, situations, whatever. "It was her hatchet so she must have done it!" Of course in modern times they would have done a better job due to better techniques and experience. Lizzie would be searched, better photos taken, blood work, etc.

But we have to remember that this was 1892. Police work was in it's infancy. Columbo wasn't around. But all in all I think the police did a fairly good job of investigating Lizzie. Whether they could have spent more time investigating other 'suspects' I really don't know. I suppose they could have if they had any. I do feel the police could have done other things if they had thought about it. If I had been the investigator I would have sealed that house up and searched everybody and everything but in the end Lizzie would still be my prime suspect but not the only one. As I've said before, I don't think a man did the killing but it's possible. 'Always keep an open mind' is my moto.

-1bigsteve (o:

Hey BigSteve. You said Lizzie would be a suspect of yours but not the only one. Who others?

I was just wandering, Bigsteve.

john @ Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:10 pm wrote:I was just wandering, Bigsteve.

Not all who wander, John, are lost. I like to wander. Sometimes I wonder why I wander and sometimes I wander through all this wonder. I think I'll wander on down to the river and just sit and wonder...

Well Lizzie is my prime suspect but I would also take a closer look at Bridgett. If she was really seen walking bow-legged across the street then maybe she was hidding that hatchet under her dress. But, where was she taking it? I really don't hold much faith in Bridgett's guilt. You don't wack out your two employers because you were told to clean some windows. But the shallow wounds indicate to me that the prime suspect was most likely a woman. Lizzie and Bridgett were the only two women known to have been in and around the house that day. If it was someone other than these two that person would have had to have the guts to hid in a closet for hours, possibly with a full bladder. Entering, exiting, entering then exiting again doesn't sound right.

But, I've always had the feeling that there is something about this case that never made it to court. Someone knew something but kept their mouth shut. I feel there was something going on. Like a part of a puzzle that is missing.

Of course I have the whole case solved but I'm just waiting on the rest of you to figure it out. If you would like to find out who did it just send $99.95 to me at... In all seriouseness this is one case that has my brain working over-time. I would like to see this case solved but on the other hand I wouldn't.

-1bigsteve (o:

A lot of wandering people feel the same way bigsteve - solve it and then what do we do?
Your comments on shallow hatchet marks are very interesting - were there any deep hatchet marks, and on what bodies, etc. The bodies were each certainly overkilled, leading to a woman as the suspected perpetrator. I always believed it would have to be an unusually smart (savvy, street) man or woman to do it - what do you think?

john @ Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:37 pm wrote:A lot of wandering people feel the same way bigsteve - solve it and then what do we do?
Your comments on shallow hatchet marks are very interesting - were there any deep hatchet marks, and on what bodies, etc. The bodies were each certainly overkilled, leading to a woman as the suspected perpetrator. I always believed it would have to be an unusually smart (savvy, street) man or woman to do it - what do you think?

Well, there is always the Christine Demeter case. Love that one. The back wound on Abby may have been a deeper wound but that would be soft flesh. The number of wounds on both bodies indicate to me that the killer did not have the strength to do more damage with one or two blows and had to make up for it with many blows. That would also fit with a woman in a rage. "This is what I think of you, you tight wad!" Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Whoever did it must have been smart enough to kill with out getting blood on themselves. Lizzie could have put on an old dress and a sac over her head to kill Abby, change, then repeat the scene when Andrew got home. With the woodstove going she could have put the dress and/or the bloody sac in the fire. But, she no doubt would have been sweating under that sac but no one said Lizzie was drenched in sweat.

But, what about the hatchet? Where did she hide it? She didn't leave the property and she didn't throw it in the neighbor's yard. She could have hid it in her room somewhere but would she really take the chance than the cops would be too"proper" to search a lady's bedroom? That wouldn't be too bright. One snoopy cop and the party is over. She could hide it on the smoke shelf which is a shelf behind the damper in the fireplace but from what I heard the fireplace opening was papered over. Besides no one but a brick mason or a chimney sweep would know that shelf is there (Santa Clause really can't get down a chimney you know). Lizzie would have gotten soot on her arm and sleeve. That is where I would have hid it. The privy was dredged. She could have taped it to the back of a dresser drawer or put in in her bed mattress or between the mattress and wood frame. Maybe that is why she took to her bed...

Bridgett could have carried it away but where to? Drop it down a sewer? In broad daylight?

Lizzie could have hired a killer, that would have explained the missing hatchet and Lizzie's bloodless clothes, skin and hair. My guess is that there is a connection between Uncle John's visit, Emma's trip and the killings. On the other hand the killer may have been smart enough not to sink the hatchet head too far into the skulls out of fear of breaking the handle or getting the head stuck in the skull. I don't buy that theory but it's a possibility.

It seems no matter what trail you take in this case you run into a brick wall.

-1bigsteve (o:

Uup a brick wall.
You certainly have the issues correct though.
Perhaps, between you and me we we can figure it out.
Want to? (not waiting for an answer i assume yes)
We will assume issues are the same as questions, so any issue = question.
Is that all right, and you have to interrupt me if i am wrong.
The first issue is uncle john (old spec cap) and is he an issue or isn't he an issue?
I don't think UJ is an issue, but i will wait for your decision on him.

On second thought I don't want to reveal this knowledge. I will answer specific questions, and will tell you specific clues if i know them, and so specific clues go!

maybe bridgett whacked her employers because she wasn't getting paid enough, and lizzie said that she would pay her more if she was her boss?

snokkums @ Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:30 am wrote:maybe bridgett whacked her employers because she wasn't getting paid enough, and lizzie said that she would pay her more if she was her boss?

That is a possibility, Snokkums, but based on Bridgett's sudden exit I doubt that the deal was made. I think Bridgett jumped ship beacause she knew Lizzie was guilty or strongly suspected her and didn't want to hang around waiting to be 'next.'

I once heard it said that Bridgett's vomiting my have been the result of knowing ahead of time that her employers were going to be killed that day. I never bought into that idea. I think the vomiting that went on in that house was the result of poisoning by Lizzie either in the hopes of killing her parents outright or in setting a foundation for the "father had an enemy" line Lizzie later used. All three were sick. Lizzie said she was sick too. Yea, right. When the poison failed, Lizzie resorted to the hatchet. Why she didn't use a knife, if she was the killer, I'll never know. Less blood splatter. Perhaps Lizzie felt the weight of the hatchet head would give her the extra heft she needed to makeup for her lack of physical strength. The shallow wounds seem to fit well with this idea. A gun would have made too much racket and I doubt Andrew had one Lizzie could borrow and Lizzie would have looked awfully funny trying to buy one. "I only need two bullets. Geeze this thing is heavy. How do you load this thing? Do you have one that doesn't make any noise?" Women just didn't buy guns in those days. Lizzie would have stood out.

I really don't think Bridgett knew anything ahead of time about the murders. It all came as a major shock to her, I think. Whether or not Lizzie was guilty I don't know. Her and Emma were the only ones we know of that gained financially from the deaths and Lizzie didn't seem to shun the money. "I'll take that mansion please, oh yes and an expensive car too and a maid, a chauffer, oh dang where did I put my shopping list. Emma, you want something?" I just can't see Lizzie mourning the deaths for long. Who know's, she may have cried all the way to the bank. "Yes! The tight wad is dead. I'm free!" I may have done the same thing if I were in Lizzie's shoes.

What puzzle's me is why Lizzie would hang onto a paint covered dress and then suddenly get rid of it before the bodies were cold. I think Lizzie wore that dress over the dress she was wearing that morning of the killings. And her "Why didn't you stop me Emma" line she used when Emma saw her burning that dress in the woodstove was just a little too "pat" for me. I don't think she would have asked Emma if she should burn the dress if it were covered in blood. Lizzie had to get that dress into the stove pronto and ask for forgiveness later. Why didn't she burn the dress minutes after the killing? Was the fire out then? Was a bloody head cover wrapped up in that dress? Back to square one, where did she hide the hatchet?

-1bigsteve (o: