Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I first became interested in Lizzie while in college. I was studying psychology and criminology. We briefly touched on the case but I was interested enough to begin reading about it on my own and it became a pleasurable pursuit versus an academic one.

I have always wanted to do an in-depth profile on the crime but have lacked the confidence to do so! I am beginning to have thoughts about certain key elements in the killings that do interest that part of my mind.

I want to share one of them with you…

I find the overall crime scene to be exceedingly neat. Apart from the actual bodies and the blood splatters, there is no evidence of a crime. (Duh Audrey! What else do you expect?) If the murders were committed by a stranger, or even by someone known to the victims I would expect there to be less “respect” for the physical environment of the home. Broken knickknacks and other signs that an enraged person was on the scene swinging a sharp weapon. Unless that person had an emotional attachment or personal “stake” in the condition of the home. I.e. - “I do not want to have to clean anything up so I will be careful not to break that vase or china figurine” or “that belonged to my mother, I do not want to damage it”. Especially if a woman committed the crime—traditionally the one who would be in charge of seeing to it the mess was cleaned.

Brown suggests Billy Borden as the killer. He was enraged over what he viewed as being denied what was rightfully his, yet his rage ended with the deaths of the Abbie and Andrew? Was he able to turn it off in between?

Likewise David Anthony. Was he able to satisfy his rage, relax for 90 minutes and then kill again?

I submit that if a person was in such a fit of violent rage that they would not be able to control it to the point of not wildly swinging a large weapon which one would expect to damage nearby items and furnishings.

The David Anthony theory supports “assistance in cleaning up, escape and the avoidance of detection”. The Billy Borden theory only supports silence after the crimes were committed. Still, neither theory explains the lack of other physical damage to my satisfaction.

Although I am not ready to make a decision about the new theory posted on the forum, I do think the killing was planned and carried out by someone with a sense of “ownership” of the environment in which it was committed.

It makes sense to me.

One would think that someone acting in a rage would do collateral damage, just out of pure hatred--smashing pictures, the mirror in the guest room, things that belonged to the victims. This was not done at all.

All rage theories also have difficulty with that passage of time between the murders, which is why some folks try to introduce a second murderer.

These murders were planned. If they were committed without the knowledge of Lizzie and/or Bridget, they had to be even more carefully planned in order to have gone completely undetected.

The "sense of ownership" and "trying to keep the house tidy" could very well be a reason for the neatness.

It's an interesting way to look at the crime scene- and a lady's look, at that.

Can there have been, what we might term, controlled rage? Does that satify the intermission between crimes?

I can't grasp the concept of huge conspiracies or even 2 murderers- the result of the attacks were too alike.

However, drugs imbibed between the 2 killings could work the murderer up into an *artificial* rage for the second attack.

If these killings were so well-planned that Abby had to be in that one room of all places, say, why didn't the murderer plan some fake destruction, breaking that which was not valuable- or stage a robbery? Is that not something a lady might think of, and if not, then no man helped to plan this thing?

The entire crime scene seems to indicate (to me) a certain naiveté as to the planning.

The problems with the "conspiracy theory" notions I have are:

Why was no better alibi or "story" concocted for those on the scene at the time?

NO one ever slipped and said anything?

The fact that nothing was damaged or stolen clearly show that the killer was there for one purpose-- to kill. It is rather like a "mob hit". In, get the job done, out. Quick as a wink and no loose ends.

a butcher could do these crimes nice and neat,
experience in killing, swift.

Thats a very interesting take on the crime scenes, Audrey. The murderer was like a killing machine, the sole purpose was to dispatch the victims and have little or nothing to do with the surroundings.

I agree, the rooms are almost too tidy. I'm thinking that if it was an outsider who just did Abby in, they would have probably wiped the gore off the hatchet on say the bedspread so it wouldn't drip all over the floor until the next killing. There would be no reason for them to care about messing up the rooms at all. But, someone with a vested interest in the belongings of the house.........hmmmm.

Whenever I hear a *hit* I think this doesn't seem like a hit. It has too much rage at the victims which signifys *overkill*. This was definetly Overkill- not just a bonk on the head. The wounds we see on the back of Abby's shaved head looks amaturish to me. Cuts going this way and that way- I almost see the slash of "Z" for Zorro.
The FBI profiler, Douglas, seems to theorize this was a familiar or family murder.
The obliteration of Andrew's face is significant, and the fact that Abby faced her killer yet has no defense wounds seems to point to someone who could get close to her- close to her on the far side of a bedroom yet.

Kat @ Fri Jun 04, 2004 1:13 am wrote: The FBI profiler, Douglas, seems to theorize this was a familiar or family murder.
The obliteration of Andrew's face is significant, and the fact that Abby faced her killer yet has no defense wounds seems to point to someone who could get close to her- close to her on the far side of a bedroom yet.

The obliteration of Andrew's face may not be as significant as it may appear considering the murder weapon. You do not hear of too many hatchets to the heart. Nor do you hear of hacking someone in the stomach with an axe.

The use of a hatchet or gun versus a knife can also indicate the desire to "distance" one self from the physical being that is being killed. A stabbing would require close physical contact--and a likely struggle.

Poison is generally the female weapon of choice........... It is the most "distancing" weapon.

I think the face/head areas were the target simply since the weapon used was more effective in those areas.

this is one of the most interesting topics in recent months, audrey.

i understand all the observations made. seeing the different angles on this all together in one place helps me to formulate this question: isn't the essence of the problem to be found in the fact that so many different characteristics of the murder are all true IN PART -- and in part ONLY?

i'm thinking about this lately more consciously -- aware that i keep exchanging one view for another, and around again.

Does this tell us something in particular -- that the true solution must include a whole essential piece which is currently missing? in terms of a certain logic, is this not necessarily true? or am i wrong? what exactly i have no idea -- i would guess a person, an individual no one ever heard of? and/or a relationship (therefore motive) no one has any way of validating?.........actually my idea seems to work even when you limit yourself to the legend, because even then you've got imagine lizzie disposing/cleansing the weapon and herself and whatever her dress trick was exactly...

just thinking. i'm immersed in her testimony again. it's sort of a masochistc pleasure.

As much of Victoria Lincoln as we can discard, I'm still attached to her idea that Lizzie killed Abby, not thinking she'd be faced with having to kill Andrew later. I agree that OF COURSE you wouldn't strike anyone with a hatchet or axe anywhere but in the head, and bear in mind that Andrew's wounds are half as many as Abby's, more or less.

There is still dispute as to the length of the handle to the hatchet. Some believe the doctors who testified that there must have been a long handle ( 24" or more) for leverage- and there are those who think the hatchet was as short-handled as a Tomahawk.
If 2'-3' handle- that is distance and less blood spatter and less chance of an up-close struggle.
If the handle was 12"-16" that is pretty personal- almost as personal as stabbing.
I suppose the handle length would enter into the psychology behind it's use as the weapon of choice.

Also, as an aside- some believe the handle snapped and that was the reason Andrew had less wounds.

Kat... Interesting and an excellent point.

I have been thinking of the handle length. I have hatchet in my garage with a fairly short handle. I use it to hack at small branches and to trim my grape arbor.

I always though a hatchet had a short handle and an axe had a longer one-- Is this correct?

Haulover @ Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:22 pm wrote: i understand all the observations made. seeing the different angles on this all together in one place helps me to formulate this question: isn't the essence of the problem to be found in the fact that so many different characteristics of the murder are all true IN PART -- and in part ONLY?

I think you hit the nail on the head and this also explains why so many of us have one theory only to change our mind moments later when we read another fact or think of it in a slightly different way!

I think the the solution is either simple-- Lizzie did it and had luck on her side and got away with it--- or it is something so out there that makes even the controversial theories submitted so far seem tame-- and of course I know the case will never be solved.

audrey:

i do thank you for accurately taking in my main point -- though it's only a point. it's a point about approaching the problem with a balanced reasoning. how do we do that? either lizzie was one of the most (if not THE most) audacious and clever cold-hearted bitches from hell with nerves of steel -- OR there is an unknown story (and important to note, one that she did not want told). the lizzie legend is hard to resist as any good horror story that makes sense while at the same time it is fantastic. but is it realistic enough to believe when you get right down to it? by all the evidence, andrew had been killed very shortly before the crowd came in. i'm sorry i can't put my hands on it now, but in the trial one of the witnesses observed blood trickle down andrew's face. i can't see how lizzie had time to do much of anything -- knowlton himself expressed this a hundred years ago.....saying the second murder was harder to explain, but he alluded to female cunning, etc., and called attention to the coat. of course, it's not impossible that lizzie did it all by herself - it's not impossible that they could not detect blood on a weapon when said weapon had in fact been bloodied, but it's too unlikely. they found the spot on her underskirt they judged as blood; they found the stain on that dress she gave them and determined that was NOT blood. on the other hand, they looked at the area and said, "Hmm, there's not nearly enough blood splattered around here; how did that happen?" (well, that could only mean one thing: the heart wasn't pumping when the axe got into the arteries. sort of like striking an axe into a mud puddle?)

but even if lizzie had two hours after killing andrew, how did she pull it off?

i'm digging around in lizzie's inquest again -- if anybody knows, she does. i'm interested in whether her words are a logic puzzle somehow buried or if it's nonsense.

bob: your point about the number of blows -- consider that andrew was struck in the face and abby in the back of the head. it was actually more difficult to get into abby's brain that it was andrews. IF this was the point -- see what i mean? (the thinness of andrew's skull was pointed out in the trial. i mean, if you take this practical approach, it works.)

I think that is an excellent point about the number of blows. Andrew's injuries were probably more visually reassuring that he was, indeed-- dead.

actually, you make an additional point. i was just talking about the density of the material between the killer and the brains of the victims.

your point seems to be that the psychology of the killer was indeed endowed with some human feeling?

i've never believed victoria lincoln's explanation for the difference. if lizzie does this -- she does not love him. the quantity of wounds is not the difference between hatred and "sort of love". that's awfully flawed reasoning. and to put my point about this in particular another way -- the exact same amount of damage was done to them both.

Death is equal damage!

I meant to say that the killer was satisfied once the job was done!

yes, that's what i meant in speaking of one of the angles. that's one of the inescapable perspectives -- that it was in fact a "job." efficiently, neatly, and with surety.

to speak to another observation -- whether the "design" of the wounds was professional or amateur: i don't know how to judge this. if the skull resists penetration, the killer might deliberately alter direction here and there. that's abby. in the case of andrew, the blows are much the same (because they worked?)

or..... practice makes perfect?

My understanding of Audrey's point is merely that with Abby face-down, the killer couldn't look at the dying face and know the body was dead. (Say, an amature).
Whereas with Andrew, the killer is looking at his face and probably saw the moment of death and then stopped.
And yes, practice makes perfect is involved as well, yes, Audrey!

(Me)--So it is more a matter of practicality than human feeling.

.......

"Although I am not ready to make a decision about the new theory posted on the forum, I do think the killing was planned and carried out by someone with a sense of 'ownership' of the environment in which it was committed."--Audrey

This reminds me of Emma cleaning up the blood on the parlour door, against the orders of the Medical Examiner in charge of the scene, Dr. Dolan. I believe this was done before the funeral in the sitting room.
I've not been able to understand this. Why just that blood? Why not the blood on the picture and the wall? If she is cleaning for the arrival of those invited to the service, what about the rest of the blood (which Kieran saw on the 16th)- plus the girls did not use the parlour for the viewing.
I also wonder where the sofa was during the service?

I find it odd they stayed there to begin with!

Innocent or guilty--- I would have no desire to live in a house where anyone was recently murdered, let alone my father and stepmother. Even if my worst enemy stumbled in here while running for his or her life and was murdered in my house-- I'd be up packing my bags before they had the crime scene tape affixed.

Seriously-- Do you not imagine Emma cleaned that blood up since it would not do to have it there for the funeral? Emma defiant? I like it....

Practicality versus emotion... For some reason, in my opinion-- it sort of fits.

I think the the solution is either simple-- Lizzie did it and had luck on her side and got away with it--- or it is something so out there that makes even the controversial theories submitted so far seem tame-- and of course I know the case will never be solved. ---Audrey

Although I very much want to believe in Lizzie being innocent, I believe this is a great point made by Audrey. If it is the "something so out there" thing...all hail to the one who finds the missing link which makes the connection...finally.

Tracy...

One thing that startled me in the new Hatchet was the mention in the timeline of the return (?) of the sofa. Did I read that correctly? Why in God's name would they want such a thing back? Even if it were reupholstered and cleaned, I cannot imagine looking at the thing day after day with the imprinted memory of Andrew hovering round it. Any ideas?

--Lyddie

It is like what was mentioned earlier- why would they even go back there to live? Also why did they stay in a house of bloody murder with 2 dead bodies until the funeral and then later, the arrest? And to think Emma lived there alone but for a servant (s) until Lizzie came back!
Did she not think there was a murderer still out there waiting to return and kill everyone? How did she sleep at night, relatively alone in that house?
Maybe they took back the sofa so no one else would get it, like the press? Another question would be- did they store it, say, in the cellar, so as not to have to look at it.

Another thought is, if they hated that house and their furnishings were so old (?) why move anything or everything to the French Street mansion? Maybe as items for the servants to use? I can just see Lizzie on her first real shopping spree!

as far as their staying in the house with the dead before the funeral -- i tend to think this was just typical practice of the time. i can remember when it was common for the funeral home/mortician to return the "prepared" body in casket to the front room of the home and lay it out for the mourners a whole day and night before the funeral. this was the context in which i saw my first dead body, in fact. and this was the case with the death of my mother's brother (young unexpected death) -- and she (my mother) slept that night on the couch near the open casket purely out of personal preference "to be near him." i digress but i remember...........that was the most agonizing grief for the departed i've ever been around (i was only about 10). to this day i've never experienced so much crying, wailing -- that was so continuous.........whenever it would stop, others would start again. you don't see that kind of overt grief over the loss of a loved one much these days (here i'm thinking of myself as a witness during my short funeral home career). it got so bad, in fact, that several remedies were tried just to stop the crying. the most interesting one was performed by a relative of my aunt (wife of deceased, who was of Apache descent) -- this indian (before the era of "native american") went in the back yard and gathered some acorns (or some nuts like them, i can't remember exactly what kind of nuts they were) and burned them in the oven until they started smoking -- and this actually quieted the house down for a while. i remember that was the only remedy that worked in what was otherwise almost a madhouse.

______________________


along another line about the crime scene: have you ever thought though what the assessment would have been if there had been overt scenes of a robbery or "attempted" robbery? with drawers ransacked and things dropped on the floor and overturned furniture, etc? given the time interval between the murders -- they would have had to conclude that the killer had tried to make it look like robbery when obviously it couldn't have been robbery. what robber would kill abby and then continue to look around the house, dodge lizzie and bridget- and then, after borden had laid down on the sofa, obliterate him and pick things off the mantle and go through is pockets?

I can't imagine Lizzie and Emma wailing like that. I wish they had.
This was bloody homicide tho & that is a bit different than someone dropping dead- so to speak. At least I think of it as different -and terrifying for Lizzie, I would imagine as she was in that house during murder and might never feel safe again without a bodyguard. Granted, the police stayed outside but not for very long. I wonder when the last police presence left the yard? Probably after Lizzie's arrest and after they were denied any more access to the house? I wonder if the police kept a covert watch on the place?

Anyway- the robber could wait until after Andrew's death- or the fake robber- but that does leave so little time doesn't it? Interestiung point.

Good point Haulover.... My father was "laid out" at home as well. Having the "viewing" at home is very common in Europe.

One thought I had after reading Kat's post was that considering the fact that neither E or L had ever really lived outside the protection of their father and home-- wouldn't you think they would be petrified about their future if nothing else? Women in those days depended on men to do most things for them. Wouldn't you think Lizzie and Emma were overwhelmed with the decisions to be made? Had Lizzie not been charged they would have been compelled to make a lot of decisions and arrangements to see to. Perhaps the charges and trial strengthened them and made them more able to face the things they had to do later when she was released.

i know the homicides make it different from a natural death in the family situation, but how many choices did they have? at that point they prob felt the place was safer than ever? i don't know -- i sensed you weren't sure either - how much "safety" emma was afforded until lizzie's acquittal? all things considered, she prob. felt safer staying right there? i see the point, though -- emma could have gone and stayed with others somewhere............maybe she had a sense of responsibility about the house (she must have been totally confused about what to expect). i don't guess miss russell came back for a slumber party. now i just wondered -- did morse stay with her during the trial? well, that's a whole subject i haven't wondered too much about.

BTW, i thought i remembered there was at least some claim that the mortician or funerary establishment or whatever it was -- took possession of the couch?

The couch was removed and stored until the trial (where?) and then brought to court, but I don't think they exhibited it. Then it was returned.

Apparently during the actual trial in New Bedford, Emma stayed with friends. I think that is in the newspapers. Morse did too I believe- boarded in New Bedford during that time.

I realize this is an old (very) topic, but as I'm new here I'm reading back to be more informed and to view the ideas/opinions of others.
My question as to this topic is....if one is in a murderous rage, could he also be clear-minded enough to worry about knickknacks?
I'm sure I wouldn't be, no matter how emotionally attached to the items I might be.

FairhavenGuy @ Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:58 pm wrote:It makes sense to me.
One would think that someone acting in a rage would do collateral damage, just out of pure hatred--smashing pictures, the mirror in the guest room, things that belonged to the victims. This was not done at all.

All rage theories also have difficulty with that passage of time between the murders, which is why some folks try to introduce a second murderer.

These murders were planned. If they were committed without the knowledge of Lizzie and/or Bridget, they had to be even more carefully planned in order to have gone completely undetected.

The "sense of ownership" and "trying to keep the house tidy" could very well be a reason for the neatness.

I suppose that crime scenes will vary according to the conditions of the crime. In some there may be neatness, but not in others.
It would be helpful if you could cite some general reference on Crime Scenes. There are texbooks for Criminal Justice, aren't there?

Susan @ Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:11 pm wrote:Thats a very interesting take on the crime scenes, Audrey. The murderer was like a killing machine, the sole purpose was to dispatch the victims and have little or nothing to do with the surroundings.

I agree, the rooms are almost too tidy. I'm thinking that if it was an outsider who just did Abby in, they would have probably wiped the gore off the hatchet on say the bedspread so it wouldn't drip all over the floor until the next killing. There would be no reason for them to care about messing up the rooms at all. But, someone with a vested interest in the belongings of the house.........hmmmm.

None of us were there that day. Could the rooms have been tidied up before the photographs were taken? Today's practices were not around over 100 years ago.
In "The Wrong Man" one reason for suspecting the husband was that the PJ tops were pulled down to cover the groin in the photographs. Later we found that this was down for modesty. Even 60 yrs ago.

True, Ray, none of us were there that day, that is why we still speculate about the crime to this day. From the witnesses who were immediately on the scene we have descriptions of the rooms that sound as if everything was in its place and nothing broken. No blood trails across the floor or bloody footprints, etc. I still think if the murders were committed by someone whose soul purpose was to destroy the elder Bordens and they didn't have any vested interest in the house or belongings, the rooms wouldn't have been quite so neat.

I do agree that Abby's skirts may have been adjusted before the photos were taken, as in the case you cite. We know that her body had been moved prior to the arrival of the photographer and her legs and petticoat may have been visible. Interesting that the sight of a battered dead body wasn't shock enough, but, that there may have been a glimpse of something not considered savory about the body was covered up.

I agree--- Abby probably was afforded the courtesy of modesty.

I was mainly speaking to the physical environment, the tchockies and things like this near the bodies.

susanlani @ Sun May 28, 2006 3:18 pm wrote:I realize this is an old (very) topic, but as I'm new here I'm reading back to be more informed and to view the ideas/opinions of others.
My question as to this topic is....if one is in a murderous rage, could he also be clear-minded enough to worry about knickknacks?
I'm sure I wouldn't be, no matter how emotionally attached to the items I might be.

Welcome susanlani!

The undisturbed rooms, especially the guest room, is strange indeed. Nothing, with the possible exception of one item, appears to have been touched or moved on that dresser.

Susan and susanlani, I agree, its hard to believe a person that enraged would worry about their surroundings or straighten up before they left.

Thank you for the welcome. I should have introduced myself. I'm Susan Lani from Milwaukee, Wisconsin with a renewed interest in Lizzie. Thanks again.

Hi Susanlani, welcome to the Forum!