What if .....Emma was the one that planned the whole murder?

[snokkums]

I have been thinking about this for awhile. What if Emma was the one that planned the whole murder? It would make sense in a way.

Emma was quiet, reserved, not one of travel and yet the weekend of the murders she was out of town.

What if she planned the whole thing, got someone to kill abby (thinking that abby was the real victim) and then when andrew came home, the person had to kill him. I mean Abby was the intended person to kill because niether of the girls liked and Andrew walked in on the whole scenrio and he had to kill him too. It might explain how two people in the house can get axed to death and two stay alive.

As for Lizzie, I don't think that Emma had the thought that Lizzie would be indicted.

Just a thought or brain storming or something.


Robin [/i]

[KT72]

I have long believed Emma to be more involved than appears on the surface.

It strikes me that Emma harbored more resentment toward Abby than Lizzie did. Lizzie may have called her stepmother "Mrs. Borden", but from day one Emma called her nothing but "Abby." This doesn't strike us in our own day and age when stepparents even request their stepchildren to call them by their first names; however, in Victorian America it was unbelievably disrespectful for a child to refer to an elder by a first name. I'm surprised Andrew let her get away with it.

Secondly, Emma was 11 when Sarah Morse Borden died - that's old enough to remember, and it's old enough to feel and harbor resentment for any woman who would attempt to take Sarah's place. Emma always referred to Sarah as "our dear mother". I don't think she ever let go of that. And in an era when sharing and processing of feelings wasn't done, all Emma could do was to allow her hatred to simmer and simmer until it boiled over and exploded out sideways.

I definitely don't think Emma is totally innocent in all this.

[RayS]

The fallacy in this question is that is assumes the murder was pre-planned. No proof is given for this assumption.
Since it is just idle speculation, it really shouldn't be answered.
Those who have read at least 3 or 4 books on the subject may have another comment.

[KT72]

The fallacy in this question is that is assumes the murder was pre-planned. No proof is given for this assumption.
Since it is just idle speculation, it really shouldn't be answered.
Those who have read at least 3 or 4 books on the subject may have another comment.

RayS, I am reporting you to the administrator and following this action with a fervent prayer that she will finally do something about your consistent rudeness.

You have no right to dictate, or even suggest, what does and does not get answered on this forum.

And as for idle speculation.....There's absolutely no proof - none - that AJ Borden had an illegitimate son; or that the William Borden in the Taunton asylum was in any way, shape, or form connected, directly or indirectly, with AJ Borden or anyone else from the house at 92 Second Street. And yes, I have read Brown's book. And 3 or 4 others.

[snokkums]

yes with this scenario it would have been preplaned but no on ever checked it out . Everyone just assumed Emma didn't have anything to do with it because she was out of town. And let's face it she had more of a reason to kill Abby than Lizzie did . Lizzie didin't know her biological mother; she just knew what emma said

[1bigsteve]

I have often wondered this very same thing, Snokks. It's a very good question.

I have always felt it strange that Uncle John would come over and Emma would leave town (which she almost never did) at the same time as the murders took place. On top of that Uncle John gandered past a house full of strangers to pick some pears upon his return. And also his morning's alibi seems to have been TOO well documented for my taste. I get the feeling that John may have hired a killer, perhaps with Lizzie's and/or Emma's knowledge and help. Whoever did the killing had to have had inside assistance, unless it was Lizzie who did the killings. I doubt Emma came back to kill but it is within the realm of possiblity.

Emma's leaving Maplecroft may have been a result of a guilty mind. She was living on "blood money." She may not have cared for Lizzie's "high life" and, with a feeling of guilt, left Lizzie.

I would easily point the finger at Lizzie if I could find out how Lizzie kept blood off herself and where she hid the weapon. When we think about it everything points to Lizzie:

1. Lizzie was in the house during Abby's murder and Bridget was outside,

2. Lizzie mentioned the sale of dress goods to Bridget when Andrew got home perhaps as a means of getting her out of the house for Andrew's murder,

3. Lizzie tried to buy cyanide before the murders,

4. Lizzie had a good motive, money,

5. Lizzie seemed to change her alibi at every drop of a hat; I was on the stairs, I was in the kitchen, I was reading, I was ironing, I went out into the barn (no foot prints) looking for sinkers, I was eating pears, etc., etc.,

6. The shallow wounds point more to a woman than a man as the killer,

7. An outside killer is unlikely to have stayed inside the house between the killings unless he had help from Lizzie,

8. The laugh at the top of the stairs could have been Lizzie, "The old broad is dead, now it's your turn, Pops."

Did anyone see the blood in Lizzie's pot before the killings? How do we know, for a fact, that Lizzie was having her period and that was her blood and not her parents blood that she cleaned off herself and the weapon? I may have missed the answer to this question somewhere on the forum. I'll have to dig it up.

I feel there was something going on between Lizzie and Emma that we don't see yet, and I think John was involved too.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive20 ... fprivy.htm

At the Preliminary Hearing Knowlton would not state that the pail and bloody cloths were not germaine to the case. But by the trial, he stipulated that the period was over on Wednesday. To me that means that the matron at the jail probably informed them very shortly after the end of the Prelim that Lizzie got her period. The matron would probably be responsible for Lizzie's necessities while incarcerated under her care.
(This would prove the proper use of the bloody cloths and also prove Lizzie was not pregnant, supposedly).

I'm not sure what this has to do with Emma planning the murder, but I'm attempting to answer because it's an important point.

As for Emma *away over the weekend* of the murders, the crime was committed on a Thursday- no weekend involved- I think that was just a simple mistake- don't mind me clearing that up?
In researching Emma I found intimations that Emma had friends and acquaintances in New Bedford at least (where Heln Brownell lived), and she did go to Swansea which is across the river- I think she may have gone places we are not aware of because the spotlight was not on her so much so we don't know too much about how much she may have gotten around.
(Dartmouth visiting Morse? Westport at the Tripps?)

[Audrey]

I agree.... Emma may have liked to keep her comings and goings to herself.... She wasn't involved in things at church or in the community like Lizzie was... Maybe she wasn't missed? Alice said "THEY" would like to be cultured girls-- traveling, etc. Not "SHE" (meaning Lizzie only) would like to be...........

[KT72]

1bigsteve, I'm going to address your points individually

2. Lizzie mentioned the sale of dress goods to Bridget when Andrew got home perhaps as a means of getting her out of the house for Andrew's murder

If that was Lizzie's ploy, it didn't work. How could she be certain Bridget would leave? One might say Lizzie's hope was realized by Bridget's going to her room and thus being "out of the way" - but would that have been out of the way enough? If I were trying to get someone off the premises to commit murder, I'm not sure I'd be confident enough with their merely being out of the room. How could Lizzie know when/if Bridget would come down? Know what I mean?

3. Lizzie tried to buy cyanide before the murders

This was never substantiated. Eli Bence first identified Lizzie by voice only, and later by sight. But it was never proven that he wasn't mistaken.

IMHO, people choose murder methods according to their own personalities and character traits, or what they're comfortable with. I think that if someone wants to poison people, they're going to stick with poison of some kind; and this choice is going to be for a reason - not messy, hard to detect, fast-acting, maybe the killer is squeamish, etc. If a killer has these things in mind, it's going to be inconsistent to then switch to something messy, easy to detect, not as quick, and potentially findable and analyzable. The change from poison to edged weapon is inconsistent.

If Lizzie really wanted to poison her parents, all she had to do was wait till that mutton polished them off

4. Lizzie had a good motive, money

But if it was money she was after, why not just wait? Her father was no spring chicken. And if she feared that Abby would get everything, why not just kill her, then raise an alarm and point the finger at some poor non-English-speaking Portuguese immigrant? The perfect scapegoat. Then just wait for her father to die of old age.

See, this kind of thing is what makes me think this was NOT a crime of profit. It was a crime of hatred. The motive was emotional, not financial.

5. Lizzie seemed to change her alibi at every drop of a hat; I was on the stairs, I was in the kitchen, I was reading, I was ironing, I went out into the barn (no foot prints) looking for sinkers, I was eating pears, etc., etc.

Yeah, but there's every possibility she was on all kinds of sedating drugs when she gave those statements. Besides, let's just say for a moment she was innocent - when you go through something like that, you're in shock. You can't remember what happened with any degree of clarity. I was in a car accident once, not hurt but car totaled, and to this day I can't recall exactly how it happened. I can barely imagine walking into my living room and finding one of my parents hacked to death.

Let's remember too that no one wakes up in the morning planning to memorize everything they're going to do that day. If something that terrible happened to me (God forbid), I'd probably blank out. I wouldn't be able to say where I was that day or when I was there. This is what leads me to suspect Uncle Morse so strongly. You don't provide something that rock-solid unless you're planning to use it - unless you know, in advance, that you're going to need to establish an alibi. The lack of solid evidence in this case leads me to believe that it was planned by SOMEONE well in advance; and in those cases the killer(s) develop a story/alibi in advance and then stick to it.

Therefore, Lizzie's inconsistencies just might testify to her innocence.

Combine all this with the drugs and you've got a combination that doesn't exactly conduce to consistent testimony.

And there's every possibility Lizzie was in shock, even if she wasn't hysterical or crying. People handle shock in different ways.

6. The shallow wounds point more to a woman than a man as the killer

Watch it there, 1bigsteve I know some women strong enough to penetrate a skullbone with the implement of their choice. (Not that they'd ever do it, of course ) And I know some men with less-than-average male strength who might not be able to do so. Gender is really no indication.

7. An outside killer is unlikely to have stayed inside the house between the killings unless he had help from Lizzie

Not necessarily - you really can hide in that front hall closet without detection, while being able to see everything going on outside.

It would be so easy to kill Abby, run downstairs and hide in the hall closet (right at the foot of the stairs - a straight shot), then head for the sitting room (another straight shot, and close by) and do Andrew in.

It's possible that Lizzie (or Bridget) let the killer in but didn't know what his/her intention was. This is quickly becoming one of my pet theories

8. The laugh at the top of the stairs could have been Lizzie, "The old broad is dead, now it's your turn, Pops."

She also may have been laughing at the expletive Bridget uttered while trying to open the door. Not for one moment do I believe it was as innocuous as "pshaw"

You can't see the far side of the bed from the landing. Not even if you're looking right through the door. I'm not saying Lizzie absolutely didn't know her stepmother was dead; but it's possible she didn't. Nor can you see the far side of the bed from the stairs, unless you're standing on exactly the right step and sighting across the floor.

It COULD have been a diabolical laugh; but as my dad always says - "It ain't necessarily so"

[DWilly]

But if it was money she was after, why not just wait? Her father was no spring chicken. And if she feared that Abby would get everything, why not just kill her, then raise an alarm and point the finger at some poor non-English-speaking Portuguese immigrant? The perfect scapegoat. Then just wait for her father to die of old age.

See, this kind of thing is what makes me think this was NOT a crime of profit. It was a crime of hatred. The motive was emotional, not financial.

I think if Lizzie had killed only Abby that Andrew would have known she was the murderer. After all, how many people can you name that had a motive to kill poor old Abby? I can only name two. Emma and Lizzie. Now, I doubt Andrew would have handed Lizzie over to the cops. No, he'd keep quiet and even pay for a lawyer but, what he wouldn't have done is reward Lizzie with a bunch of money right away or move to The Hill which is part of what Lizzie and Emma wanted. No, Abby would be dead but the girls would be stuck in the same lifestyle with a very unhappy Andrew.

Not necessarily - you really can hide in that front hall closet without detection, while being able to see everything going on outside.

It would be so easy to kill Abby, run downstairs and hide in the hall closet (right at the foot of the stairs - a straight shot), then head for the sitting room (another straight shot, and close by) and do Andrew in.

It's possible that Lizzie (or Bridget) let the killer in but didn't know what his/her intention was. This is quickly becoming one of my pet theories

If an outside killer waited in that closet. He/she had one long hot wait. The person also, would not have known when Andrew was coming home. If this killer was hiding in the closet they would have had a poor idea of where everyone was in the house. Was the killer just going to pop out and hope for the best?

[RayS]

The fallacy in this question is that is assumes the murder was pre-planned. No proof is given for this assumption.
Since it is just idle speculation, it really shouldn't be answered.
Those who have read at least 3 or 4 books on the subject may have another comment.

RayS, I am reporting you to the administrator and following this action with a fervent prayer that she will finally do something about your consistent rudeness.

You have no right to dictate, or even suggest, what does and does not get answered on this forum.

And as for idle speculation.....There's absolutely no proof - none - that AJ Borden had an illegitimate son; or that the William Borden in the Taunton asylum was in any way, shape, or form connected, directly or indirectly, with AJ Borden or anyone else from the house at 92 Second Street. And yes, I have read Brown's book. And 3 or 4 others.

If you are reporting me to the administrator that says you are claiming the right to dictate who is allowed to post on this forum.
What is the "tone" of this forum? Should it be based on fantastic speculation (like Lubinsky was part of the murder plot!?)? If you do, that would seem to cheapen this forum. "Mybe the two boys in the barn were sent there to destroy evidence?"
Arnold Brown explains how he became interested in this case. He was given the handwritten notes of Henry Hawthorne. He investigated, and found facts that supported this story. Brown then wrote his book.
No one here can ever prove a story, given the fact that everyone had died before WW II, mooting this case.
I wonder why NO ONE ELSE has tried to get a copy of the Peterson papers and do an investigation. Edward Radin did so in 1960, and found facts that allowed him to publish his book [the original murder].
I'm glad that you have read more books. But with differenct conclusions, which book offers the best solution? The one that best explains the mystery. The presence of an Unknown Subject best explains the giggle from the second floor. The tolerance shown Lizzie by FR ruling class until the shoplifting episode is best explained by their knowing what really happened, and thought Lizzie was right to defend the family honor.
Your turn.
One suggested proof: which author has sold the most copies? Yes, its popularity, not objective proof, but what else is available?

[RayS]

[quote="DWilly @ Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:24 pm
...

Not necessarily - you really can hide in that front hall closet without detection, while being able to see everything going on outside.

It would be so easy to kill Abby, run downstairs and hide in the hall closet (right at the foot of the stairs - a straight shot), then head for the sitting room (another straight shot, and close by) and do Andrew in.

It's possible that Lizzie (or Bridget) let the killer in but didn't know what his/her intention was. This is quickly becoming one of my pet theories

If an outside killer waited in that closet. He/she had one long hot wait. The person also, would not have known when Andrew was coming home. If this killer was hiding in the closet they would have had a poor idea of where everyone was in the house. Was the killer just going to pop out and hope for the best?

I think the likely scenario is that the killer waited in the empty guest bedroom, until Abby chanced to meet him. He knew Andy would return because of a planned meeding. Andy also came home for lunch.
We know there was a giggle from the second floor when B. tried to unlock the door. Doesn't that laugh suggest something?

There is also the problem of Bertha Manchester, murdered just like Abby.

[RayS]

1bigsteve, I'm going to address your points individually ...

I deleted to avoid duplication.
NOW this msg does show a lot of knowledge and sense. But you too are taking it upon yourself to correct another person's postings. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Allen]

3. Lizzie tried to buy cyanide before the murders

This was never substantiated. Eli Bence first identified Lizzie by voice only, and later by sight. But it was never proven that he wasn't mistaken.

IMHO, people choose murder methods according to their own personalities and character traits, or what they're comfortable with. I think that if someone wants to poison people, they're going to stick with poison of some kind; and this choice is going to be for a reason - not messy, hard to detect, fast-acting, maybe the killer is squeamish, etc. If a killer has these things in mind, it's going to be inconsistent to then switch to something messy, easy to detect, not as quick, and potentially findable and analyzable. The change from poison to edged weapon is inconsistent.

If Lizzie really wanted to poison her parents, all she had to do was wait till that mutton polished them off

The witness Statements notes of Doherty and Harrington page 8+:

Eli Bence. Had a lady ask for prussic acid on Wednesday morning August 3rd. When asked for what use, she said " to put on the edge of a seal skin coat." I made no sale. She left the store in a very haughty manner. "No, I do not know her, but think I would know her again, should I see her." After being placed in a position where he could both see and hear Miss Lizzie Borden, he was very positive in identification, not only of her face and general appearance, but also of her voice.


Inquest Testimony of Eli Bence page 160:

Q. Did you know who it was?
A. I knew her as a Miss Borden, I have known her for some time as a Miss Borden, but not as Andrew J. Borden's daughter until that morning.
One of the gentlemen who was sitting there, when she turned around and went out, he says "that is Andrew J. Borden's daughter". I looked at her a second time then more closely than when I was talking to her. I should say it was Miss Borden.


page 161:

Q. Had you ever seen her in the store before?
A. No, sir, not in the store.
Q. You had merely seen her on the street?
A. Yes sir.


---------------------------------------
Q. Did you go afterwards go to the house?
A. I did, yes sir.
Q. When was that?
A. I should say between eight and nine o'clock.
Q. What day was that?
A. That was the fourth, the day of the murder.
Q. When did you go to the house?
A. Eight o'clock in the evening after the murder.
Q. The same evening?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you there see Lizzie Borden?
A. I did, yes sir.
Q. Where was she when you saw her?
A. In the kitchen, talking with Officer Harrington.
Q. Did you recognize her as the one you had had the talk with the night before?
A. I did, yes sir.
Q. Positively?
A. I don't think I could be mistaken.
Q. How did you judge?
A. I judged both from seeing her before on the street, and also by a peculiar expression around the eyes, which I noticed at the time, and noticed then.
Q. Did you hear her talk?
A. I did.
Q. Did you identify her voice?
A. I did.
Q. You went in for the purpose of seeing if she was the one?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you speak to her that evening in there?
A. I did not.

Eli Bence was also not the only witness who identified her as the one who was in the store trying to purchase the Prussic acid. There were two other witnesses in the store who identified her who both knew her by sight, and knew who she was. But people tend to focus only on Bence for some reason, I think it is because then it makes it easier to say he was mistaken. But were all three of them mistaken?

Yeah, but there's every possibility she was on all kinds of sedating drugs when she gave those statements. Besides, let's just say for a moment she was innocent - when you go through something like that, you're in shock. You can't remember what happened with any degree of clarity. I was in a car accident once, not hurt but car totaled, and to this day I can't recall exactly how it happened. I can barely imagine walking into my living room and finding one of my parents hacked to death.

Let's remember too that no one wakes up in the morning planning to memorize everything they're going to do that day. If something that terrible happened to me (God forbid), I'd probably blank out. I wouldn't be able to say where I was that day or when I was there. This is what leads me to suspect Uncle Morse so strongly. You don't provide something that rock-solid unless you're planning to use it - unless you know, in advance, that you're going to need to establish an alibi. The lack of solid evidence in this case leads me to believe that it was planned by SOMEONE well in advance; and in those cases the killer(s) develop a story/alibi in advance and then stick to it.

Therefore, Lizzie's inconsistencies just might testify to her innocence.

Combine all this with the drugs and you've got a combination that doesn't exactly conduce to consistent testimony.

And there's every possibility Lizzie was in shock, even if she wasn't hysterical or crying. People handle shock in different ways.

Lizzie began to tell inconsistent stories about where she had been as early as when Mrs. Churchill arrived at the house. She virtually told each witness and each police officer something different about where she had been and why, and what she had heard. She was not under the influence of any sedatives then. She wasn't under the influence of anything. This was just moments after the body had been found, moments after she had suppossedly walked in from outside to find her father dead. I do not believe for an instant that she could forget where she was, and why, in the space of a few minutes no matter how traumatic the situation.

[KT72]

But you too are taking it upon yourself to correct another person's postings. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Not to correct - to comment. To bring up opposing points for debate. There's a big difference between doing this and telling people they're flat-out wrong and in need of correction.

And no, I don't have any right to decide who posts on here or what is discussed. My concern is not with you or with your theories, but with the way they are stated - with rudeness and arrogance. Your assumption that no one is more informed on this case than yourself, and that no one who posts on here has read more than one reputable book on the subject, is insulting. No one is going to listen to your ideas if you state them in a belittling tone.

It's my understanding that we're all supposed to be respectful on this forum. The Report feature exists to ensure this. If you want to be respected, show some respect to others.

That's all I'm saying. Peace

[KT72]

I do not believe for an instant that she could forget where she was, and why, in the space of a few minutes no matter how traumatic the situation.

Like I said, this has happened to me. That car accident, I couldn't remember how it happened right after it happened. Everything before the impact got wiped out. And I wasn't even hurt; it wasn't even all that traumatic. There were, and still are, two completely different versions of it in my head.

My understanding was that Bence was taken to the house and placed at the side door while Harrington went in. He identified Lizzie by voice. It was only after he was brought into the kitchen that he ID'd her by sight.

This makes me think of something else - why would Lizzie even try to get poison in Fall River? She was active in the community; surely she'd have known she'd be risking detection. And why try prusic acid? Why not try something she'd be more familiar with, like chloroform? It was easy to get and wouldn't arouse suspicion at all, as it was commonly used to euthanize animals, etc.........

And there's still the inconsistency factor....if poison was her method of choice, what would make her focus on a hatchet? Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not married to anything I said in that (very lengthy) post. It's just a few more things to consider.

[snokkums]

I still think that Emma was more involved than anyone thinks. I don't think that Lizzie was smart enough to do this by herself. Emma seems to have the brains. Plus that when thier mom died, Lizzie was only two, and Emma was 11(?). Emma would have been able to influence Lizzie on how she felt about Abby. And maybe Emma was not to thrilled about Abby in the first place. And on that point, maybe Abby was the intial victim and Andrew, just happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

[Smudgeman]

Well, If Abby was the intended victim, didn't the killer or killers know that Andrew would eventually return? That was his house afterall, how did they know he would be home or not? If the plan was to just kill Abby, then the killer or killers would leave poor Bridget there alone, holding the bag (hatchet I mean). I do however think Emma knew something, she didn't ask Bridget what happened when she returned home after the murders. I would have been asking a million questions if I was innocent, and my parents were just brutally murdered.

[Wordweaver]

[quote="DWilly @ Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:24 pm
There is also the problem of Bertha Manchester, murdered just like Abby.

Manuel Correira, who was convicted of Bertha Manchester's murder, wasn't even in the US when the Bordens died. Are you implying that he was wrongfully convicted? That's always a possibility, of course, but I'd like to see your reasoning if you believe there was a miscarriage of justice.

[Kat]

This topic quickly got ahead of me. I'd like to comment after reading everybody, but hope I'm not the final word or anything. So just pretend I stuck my 2 cents worth in here in the middle of everyone and not at the end, please?
I had to print it out. It was 18 pages!

I tend to agree about the motive for these crimes. Simple profit is not enough. There was hate, passion and overkill here, so my thought is that was the over-riding emotion. There may have been some temporary mental imbalance or abberration. And in that way we do think of Lizzie because she seems to be the character in the family, the one who acts up in the home and who talks around town. But Emma yes, surely, does admit she is the one with the biggest problem with Abby. Alice tho suggests that no one was getting along because Andrew did not appreciate girls- words put into her mouth thru a question asked her. I think it was a combination of those girls interactions within that dysfunctional family that led to the killings. It's not too hard to imagine that Emma planned something, but it is hard to imagine that Emma killed someone, like we imagine Lizzie did.

I also think a switch from poison to hatchet is a big deal- but others here don't agree so that is something maybe which will not be resolved.
Actually, Lizzie had an alibi for Wednesday, but not exactly during the time of Bence's suposed sighting and interaction with her. But gee, doesn't anyone think he started out pretty vague? I mean, he gave her a 90 minute spread of time for her visit to his drugstore. He couldn't admit to what she was wearing or a purse or hat or all kinds of things. I'd think he could narrow the time a bit better especially when he had backup *witnesses.*

One of them was not worthy of being considered on the same level of witness as the other two. It was brought up that "two other witnesses in the store who identified her who both knew her by sight, and knew who she was." But Hart was sort of useless in that regard, and possibly tainted.

Inquest
Mr. Hart
164
Q. Did you know who it was?
A. I did not at the time, no sir.
Q. Have you since seen her?
A. I have not, no sir.
Q. So you dont know who it is, excepting by hear say?
A. I dont know, except from a picture I have seen.
Q. Seen in the paper?
A. In the Fall River Globe, yes sir.
Q. That is all the way you know is by the picture. Does she resemble the picture of Miss Borden you have seen in the paper?
A. She does.
Q. That is all you know about it?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Had you ever seen that person in the store before?
A. No Sir.
(Mr. Hart recalled.)

Q. Did you see the lady that was in custody, in company with the Marshal, as you went out?
A. In black, yes sir.
Q. Is that the woman?
A. That is the woman.
Q. You are sure of it?
A. That is sure.
Q. You dont think you can be mistaken?
A. I dont think I can be mistaken.
Q. I think you said you had known her by sight before?
A. I never knew the woman by sight before.
Q. You are sure this is the woman?
A. I am, sir, just.

It is mentioned/implied that poison is quicker than an edged weapon. It might be quicker if it was prussic acid, but not many poisons act that quickly. It has been surmised that prussic acid would as easily kill the user as any victim they may be attempting to assassinate. With any other poison, in comparison, I'd say a hatchet was *quicker* and more sure.

When someone sticks to their story and it doesn't change, that person is usually assumed to be telling the truth (at least now-a-days) and human nature being what it is, I'd think the cops back then also knew this. Lizzie changing her story is much more indicative of guilt (rather than stress) to an investigator. A changing story is usually a dead give-away of involvement.

The statement is made that "shallow wounds" indicate a woman's handiwork. I would like to caution those who use this subjective phasing again, (sorry)- this term "shallow wounds" -and I think it would be beneficial to use the correct terminology that was used in Dolan's report or testimony, if that's OK? For accuracy?
Whether or not these wounds were made by a man or a woman- do the closing arguments at the trial use this kind of determination? Is that where this idea is found?

Lizzie said the guestroom door was closed when she traversed the stairs so the question of her laughing because she could or couldn't see Abby's body from the landing or a certain stair seems moot.

Back to alibis: Lizzie's is pretty interesting for Wednesday. Mrs. Borden supposedly gives her one to Morse and Mrs. Dr. Bowen. Except Bridget won't give her one because Bence's allowing 90 minutes in the morning for her entrance and request at his store. We know that Lizzie doesn't often come to meals with the family, but on Wednesday she does. Why?

[Allen]

I also think a switch from poison to hatchet is a big deal- but others here don't agree so that is something maybe which will not be resolved.
Actually, Lizzie had an alibi for Wednesday, but not exactly during the time of Bence's suposed sighting and interaction with her. But gee, doesn't anyone think he started out pretty vague? I mean, he gave her a 90 minute spread of time for her visit to his drugstore. He couldn't admit to what she was wearing or a purse or hat or all kinds of things. I'd think he could narrow the time a bit better especially when he had backup *witnesses.*

I don't think the switch from the poison to the hatchet was a big deal. The switching of weapons has been done by many killers. I think if someone wants someone else dead, they are going to use whatever means is necessary. She couldn't aquire the poison, so she switched to the hatchet. I don't think she was going to abandon her plans of murder because she couldn't obtain the poison. Maybe she also realized that she could be identified in a store trying to buy it. Maybe she realized the poison would definitely point to someone in the house.

Bence couldn't identify any of the clothing she was wearing, or a bag, or a hat, or whatever. I don't think that makes him especially vague. None of the witnesses who were at the house with Lizzie the day of the murders remembered what she wore. We know they all saw her, why couldn't they identify her clothing any better?

At the time Bence saw her in the store, he had no other reason to remember her other than that she tried to buy prussic acid, and was a perhaps a little haughty. He didn't know there was a murder, it hadn't been committed yet. He remembered her about the same way he would remember everyone else who came into his store that day. Maybe slightly better because she stood out by trying to buy prussic acid, and he had seen her before. Do you usually take notice of all of your customers and remember exactly what they were wearing if questioned about it the next day?

Many witnesses were vague about many things that day. I'm not sure if I was asked to remember what time someone came into my place of work the next day, that I would be able to pinpoint an exact time. But I would probably go with a time frame. It had to be before this, but after this happened.

Why were the other two witnesses useless?

[Kat]

I don't discount Bence but am complaining that he was vague for such an important witness. He seems pretty thorough otherwise- but in his line of business he might have been more observant. He seems prideful to me.
Hart is the useless witness- but in comparison with the others and in the context of someone here pointing out here that the other 2 (who were not Bence) knew Lizzie by sight. Hart did not. I'd throw his testimony out because he says he recognized her from a news picture. You probably would too- it's not an effective ID- better to go with Bence and Kilroy.
I gave the inquest testimony, above.

I know you and others think it's possible for someone to switch weapons. We discussed this. I don't think it's impossible- but I think it's unlikely.
If I think that than I have to decide if it was Lizzie who tried to buy poison, and then failing that used a hatchet. Or if it was Lizzie who tried to buy poison, and failing that got someone else to use the hatchet.
Or Lizzie never tried to buy the poison and used a hatchet. Or Lizzie never tried to buy poison and never used the hatchet.
My way is much more complicated because of my tendency toward not switching poison for blade.
As you know, I only put Poison in this category as something I don't think would be switched. Just about any other failed attempt with any other kind of weapon, I'd agree might be interchangeable.
It's the psychology behind poisoners which makes me hesitate over an easy acceptance of a switch like that.

[Kat]

You know, I hate to say it, because I've gained a sort of affection for Emma, but she seems more like an annonymous-letter type or a secret poisoner type to me - more so than Lizzie.

If Lizzie were buying poison for someone else to administer- that would seem acceptable, psychologically, to me.

[Allen]

You know, I hate to say it, because I've gained a sort of affection for Emma, but she seems more like an annonymous-letter type or a secret poisoner type to me - more so than Lizzie.

If Lizzie were buying poison for someone else to administer- that would seem acceptable, psychologically, to me.

That's something I had never thought of before. But if this was the case, if Lizzie was buying the poison for Emma to administer, why would she be trying to buy it while Emma was out of town? And what then drove her to kill her parents herself instead using an axe?

[Kat]

It's an interesting scenario, isn't it?
I just thought of it and consider we all help each other come up with these questions- that's the fun of a Forum.
Any speculation?

[Mossy Oak Mudslinger]

I was watching "Enigma - The Lizzie Borden Case" two nights ago on the Biography channel and it stated that while Lizzie was on her deathbed that she had told her nurse(I forgot her name) that her boyfriend killed her parents. Apparently Lizzie's father did'nt take to kindly to Lizzie's boyfriend. The nurse had come forward with this.

Although the narrator stated that we will never know if the nurse was telling the truth,it does seem plausible. I don't believe I ever heard much of Lizzie's boyfriend,if she indeed did have one.

[Angel]

There's always the chance that Emma may have appeared to be the passive little person, but was, in fact, a passive-aggressive manipulator. Those kind of people have a great deal of power because they hide behind their sweet, retiring personna, while actually controlling people around them with manipulations, triangulations (playing one person against the other while looking as innocent as can be), etc. Maybe she used Lizzie as her way to get back at Abby and her father, so Lizzie would be acting out, while Emma sat back and enjoyed the friction.

[Kat]

I do know a wonderful person, a Pisces, who really did that, and I didn't even know (as Cancer to her Pisces) that I was being maneuvered. It was a manipulation by her that ended up kind of blowing up in my face but not until later.
That's weird, because I hadn't thought of that in a long time.

[Kat]

Maybe Emma was the *poisoner* because it possibly fits her personality and also she was away when the family got sick. Poisoners try to be away when that happens.
Maybe she charged Lizzie with acquiring some substance and Lizzie got the request wrong? And since Lizzie couldn't get it and couldn't very well telegram to Emma to ask what she should be getting for her- the plan changed?
If Emma made the family ill, it was from Fairhaven, somehow: long-distance.

[sguthmann]

was there any visits by Emma to the Swansea farms whie she was away? an opportunity to put something in the milk?

[Kat]

Now we're thinking!
How else could she poison from Fairhaven? Any other ideas?
Maybe in a food the family only ate on Tuesdays?

[Allen]

How would she get the poison into the food from Fairhaven?

[sguthmann]

if she didn't visit the farm herself, she'd need an accomplice. Alfred Johnson? He did have a fairly intimate relationship with the family in Fall River as well, coming over, cleaning up the yard, chopping wood (!), and staying over when he did work there - according to his own statements to police. Isn't he the one who also kept his bankbook there? And wasn't he also "sick" the day of the murders?

[Allen]

Alfred also testified that he knew exactly where the hatchet's and other such implements were kept, and described the exact place that they were found.

[DWilly]

I was watching "Enigma - The Lizzie Borden Case" two nights ago on the Biography channel and it stated that while Lizzie was on her deathbed that she had told her nurse(I forgot her name) that her boyfrie nd killed her parents. Apparently Lizzie's father did'nt take to kindly to Lizzie's boyfriend. The nurse had come forward with this.

Although the narrator stated that we will never know if the nurse was telling the truth,it does seem plausible. I don't believe I ever heard much of Lizzie's boyfriend,if she indeed did have one.

That is the so called "David Anthony Did It" theory. So far, there is no proof that he was Lizzie's boyfriend. David was ten years younger than Lizzie and not a single one of her real friends who knew her ever said he was her boyfriend. As a matter of fact, if you look through Rebello's books he has several quotes from that time period which dispute Lizzie ever having a boyfriend:

Pg. 229, " She never had a lover, she has avoided the company of young men."

Pg. 231, "and absolutely without any desire for marriage."

Pg. 233, " This woman, [Lizzie] thirty-three years old, unmarried and without a lover..."


Actually, if you go into the archives and read the whole thing about David Anthony you will find the story it's full of holes. Also, keep in mind Lizzie never married.

[RayS]

I was watching "Enigma - The Lizzie Borden Case" two nights ago on the Biography channel and it stated that while Lizzie was on her deathbed that she had told her nurse(I forgot her name) that her boyfriend killed her parents. Apparently Lizzie's father did'nt take to kindly to Lizzie's boyfriend. The nurse had come forward with this.

Although the narrator stated that we will never know if the nurse was telling the truth,it does seem plausible. I don't believe I ever heard much of Lizzie's boyfriend,if she indeed did have one.

This is the kind of quote that cannot be proven, given the lack of documentation. "On his deathbed, X confessed to shooting JFK and also taking part in the plot against Lincoln". Did this person die of brain cancer or some disease known for causing hallucinations (like using morphine)?

[RayS]

Maybe Emma was the *poisoner* because it possibly fits her personality and also she was away when the family got sick. Poisoners try to be away when that happens.
Maybe she charged Lizzie with acquiring some substance and Lizzie got the request wrong? And since Lizzie couldn't get it and couldn't very well telegram to Emma to ask what she should be getting for her- the plan changed?
If Emma made the family ill, it was from Fairhaven, somehow: long-distance.

After the murders the Professors from Harvard took away the stomach contents and the milk pail. No poisons were found. (Or is my memory playing tricks?)

[Audrey]

Was coffee part of the menu on that long ago fateful day?

[Allen]

I think it was, I think Lizzie took some coffee and cookies that morning as well.

[sguthmann]

rays, i remember the same about the findings of the stomachs and milk. still, i'd love to have those specimens put through a modern day tox screening!

bottom line is something was making those people ill. maybe it was just a rough case of food poisoning, but i don't think so. there is clearly a pattern of escalating...for lack of a better word, "violation" with regard to the elder Bordens. first a robbery in the home, in the broad daylight where just their personal effects are messed with...then the "poisoning," which reiterates the implication of the "robbery" (that the perp can get to his/her victims at will, and in a very personal way), and finally the murders themselves. The first two acts were designed to harrass and scare the Bordens - and apparently had the desired effect on Abby, at least.

i think many criminal profilers would agree that given the facts of the case, including events that led up to the murders, the "illness" the Bordens' suffered from in their final days was most likely NOT accidental or unintentional.

[RayS]

rays, i remember the same about the findings of the stomachs and milk. still, i'd love to have those specimens put through a modern day tox screening!

bottom line is something was making those people ill. maybe it was just a rough case of food poisoning, but i don't think so. there is clearly a pattern of escalating...for lack of a better word, "violation" with regard to the elder Bordens. first a robbery in the home, in the broad daylight where just their personal effects are messed with...then the "poisoning," which reiterates the implication of the "robbery" (that the perp can get to his/her victims at will, and in a very personal way), and finally the murders themselves. The first two acts were designed to harrass and scare the Bordens - and apparently had the desired effect on Abby, at least.

i think many criminal profilers would agree that given the facts of the case, including events that led up to the murders, the "illness" the Bordens' suffered from in their final days was most likely NOT accidental or unintentional.

I read that "summer flu" was very common in those days, covering anything from bad water to spoiled food. If any poison causes damage to a stomach, it would be noticed when they cut it open. The test for arsenic goes back to the early 19th century. People also used a poison for cleaning tarnish from silver, which counteracts the importance of tarnish. Arsenic removes tarnish (?), so this was a test when dining with Lucrezia Borgia or anyone else.

[Audrey]

rays, i remember the same about the findings of the stomachs and milk. still, i'd love to have those specimens put through a modern day tox screening!

bottom line is something was making those people ill. maybe it was just a rough case of food poisoning, but i don't think so. there is clearly a pattern of escalating...for lack of a better word, "violation" with regard to the elder Bordens. first a robbery in the home, in the broad daylight where just their personal effects are messed with...then the "poisoning," which reiterates the implication of the "robbery" (that the perp can get to his/her victims at will, and in a very personal way), and finally the murders themselves. The first two acts were designed to harrass and scare the Bordens - and apparently had the desired effect on Abby, at least.

i think many criminal profilers would agree that given the facts of the case, including events that led up to the murders, the "illness" the Bordens' suffered from in their final days was most likely NOT accidental or unintentional.

I read that "summer flu" was very common in those days, covering anything from bad water to spoiled food. If any poison causes damage to a stomach, it would be noticed when they cut it open. The test for arsenic goes back to the early 19th century. People also used a poison for cleaning tarnish from silver, which counteracts the importance of tarnish. Arsenic removes tarnish (?), so this was a test when dining with Lucrezia Borgia or anyone else.

can we have a source please-- from where you read that?

[sguthmann]

Although I can't cite the source off hand, I too have heard of the "summer sickness" of olden days...due to poor food-keeping conditions primarily, from what I understand. In fact I know I've read about it in connection with the Bordens' sickness, as a possible explanation, just as RayS suggested.

I'm not discounting your explanation entirely, RayS, but I still am not convinced that's what was going on here, especially in light of what I still say was likely a pattern of increasing violence aimed towards the elder Bordens. And wasn't Uncle John eating off that same mutton that seemed to make all the other sick, but yet didn't affect him?

[Allen]

This is an excerpt from 27th edition of The People's Commonsense Medical Adviser by R.V. Pierce which was published in 1892. I found this on page 553:

Cholera Infantum, or summer complaint, is a disease peculiar to the warm season, and more prevalent in cities and among those children who do not nurse at the breast. It is characterized by great irritability of the stomach, and persistent vomiting and purging, the discharges from the bowels....


Well I won't get into what it says from there on out. I just ate.

[Kat]

If Morse thought there was poisoning going on, he wouldn't eat there would he?
Maybe he only ate a little? He did say he wasn't hungry. We only have his word for this as Abby served him, not Bridget. But why would Abby offer him their food if she thought there had really been poisoning?
Maybe he made it up that he ate there Wednesday afternoon? But wouldn't Bridget have to clear the dishes?
So maybe Morse knew in which food it was contained?
Anyway, I think the idea that the man at the farm was also ill is a good connection made- but we don't know in what way he was ill, do we? He may have been chronically ill and ready to be replaced- per Morse's instructions to find a man to manage (?) the farm?

Anyway, there were vegetable poisons back then, as now, that could not be detected later- they'd be absorbed. Or a vegetable poison which they had no test for back then.

[RayS]

I read that "summer flu" was very common in those days, covering anything from bad water to spoiled food. If any poison causes damage to a stomach, it would be noticed when they cut it open. The test for arsenic goes back to the early 19th century. People also used a poison for cleaning tarnish from silver, which counteracts the importance of tarnish. Arsenic removes tarnish (?), so this was a test when dining with Lucrezia Borgia or anyone else.

can we have a source please-- from where you read that?

Perhaps if you actually read some books you wouldn't ask me for a source. Perhaps it is in Radin's or Kent's book, or maybe Brown's book.
I could have even read if from a reliable source on this site.

[Kat]

Witness Statements, page 36, Seaver's notes:
"Frederick Eddy made the following statement. 'John V. Morse came over to this house Wednesday evening Aug. 3, between seven and eight o'clock. He drove a horse and top buggy; said it was a stable team. He came in the house and brought a rattan basket, took out three pears and laid on the table, said he brought them over from the Borden house. He said Mr. Borden sent him over to see how I was, and get the eggs. Said Mr. Borden was coming with him, but he, his wife and Lizzie were taken sick last night, and he couldn't come.' " etc.

--Did someone say it was Johnson who was ill?
Anyway, it looks like it was Eddy.

[Allen]

That's sort of a vague statement is there anything else to support the fact that Mr. Eddy was actually sick? That Andrew 'sent him over to see' how Mr. Eddy was doesn't necessarily have to imply that he was sick. There are times I'll go to visit someone, and when asked where I'm going I'll say that I'm going to see how so and so is doing. But that doesn't mean that the person I'm going to see is sick.

[RayS]

This is an excerpt from 27th edition of The People's Commonsense Medical Adviser by R.V. Pierce which was published in 1892. I found this on page 553:

Cholera Infantum, or summer complaint, is a disease peculiar to the warm season, and more prevalent in cities and among those children who do not nurse at the breast. It is characterized by great irritability of the stomach, and persistent vomiting and purging, the discharges from the bowels....


Well I won't get into what it says from there on out. I just ate.

Thank you for your valuable input.

[Bob Gutowski]

This is also disgusting to imagine, but what if the poisoner was putting her own stool (no, not the one she sat on that's at The FRHS!) in her parents' food? It certainly wouldn't show up in the forensic tests of the day, would it?