Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading in the book, "Did Lizzie Borden Axe For It?" and was reading an interesting theory. It goes something like this:

"Another theory is that Doctor Bowen himself may have committed or had a hand in the murders, the idea being that there was anamoustiy between him and Andrew abd that Andrew had treated him rudely the day before when Abbey went to the doctor and Andrew yelled, "My money shan't pay for it [the doctors visit], that perhaps being the last straw."

Think maybe he and the girls were in cohoots together? After all, the girls, especially Lizzie, thought they should be living better.

What's everyone opinion on this?

Bowen was 52 at the time of the murders. He seems more bumbling than guilty of anything related to the crimes themselves.

I personally don't think much of the theory because the motive doesn't hold any water. If he was mad at Andrew from the day before, why kill Abby, the goose that laid the golden egg and visited him when she was ill?

Maybe because lizzie emma, and the doctor where in this together. Just a thought, because if they were going to kill andrew, they certainly didn't want to leave a witness.

What would he have to gain?

There is little to no evidence that the Borden girls even remained in touch with him after the crimes.

Snokkums, what do you think of the theory?

snokkums @ Fri May 05, 2006 12:58 pm wrote:I was reading in the book, "Did Lizzie Borden Axe For It?" and was reading an interesting theory. It goes something like this:

"Another theory is that Doctor Bowen himself may have committed or had a hand in the murders, the idea being that there was anamoustiy between him and Andrew abd that Andrew had treated him rudely the day before when Abbey went to the doctor and Andrew yelled, "My money shan't pay for it [the doctors visit], that perhaps being the last straw."

I think it is a total fantasy, unworthy of any comment except this one.

I don't know if you know this snokkums, but the origin of the statement supposedly made by Andrew Borden when Abby wanted to seek Dr. Bowen's professional help,*My money shan't pay for it*- was Lizzie Borden.

Not only was it Lizzie Borden, it was Lizzie telling Alice Russell Wednesday night and then just before the trial, 10 months later, Alice put it into a letter to the police as part of her statement about Lizzie coming over to her house Wednesday, Aug. 3rd, after dinner.

So, it comes from a supposedly overheard conversation between 2 people who are dead and cannot contradict it, reported to Alice by Lizzie, then written down months later, then used as a theory.

What's your opinion on this, snokkums?

My opinion of it is that there were alot of people that didn't like andrew and anyone including lizzie. emma and the doctor could have done it. Many people thought andrew was miserly, including Lizzie and Emma. After all, both thought they should be living better, and andrew didn't want to pay the doctor. Anything is possible.

Lots of poeple don't like lots of other people.

Assuming an outsider as the murderer and further assuming focus and objectivity, why both Abby and Andrew and in that order? Assuming lack of focus and subjectivity, why not Lizzie and/or Bridget? Andrew managed to live nearly seventy years with the same miserly habits.

It's ironic that Andrew's habits created the family fortune which quite probably led to his murder.

As far as I know, there is no proof that Andrew even made the statement. It is hearsay. Not paying for an office call is hardly a motive for murdering two people.

Yooper @ Wed May 10, 2006 9:31 am wrote:Assuming an outsider as the murderer and further assuming focus and objectivity, why both Abby and Andrew and in that order? Assuming lack of focus and subjectivity, why not Lizzie and/or Bridget? Andrew managed to live nearly seventy years with the same miserly habits.

It's ironic that Andrew's habits created the family fortune which quite probably led to his murder.

Obviously, the murderer had a grudge against innocent Abby (well liked by many?), and the "loathsome miser" Andy (Arnold Brown's description). I believe the answer is that murder was not intended, it just happened from the dynamics of personal interchange.
Many can speculate endlessly (like it was Lubinsky and his horse, or a Chinese Tong, or maybe a former accountant who lived in Albany). William of Ockham suggested the "simplest explanation is likely to be the true one" (don't multiply dependencies needlessly). I think Brown's explanation will stand the test of time, it has so far.

Read about the Harvard student whose work of fiction was recalled by the publisher? Its story echoed another work. That is why any new book that provides a better explanation could be better, but it hasn't happened yet.

twinsrwe @ Wed May 10, 2006 10:19 am wrote:As far as I know, there is no proof that Andrew even made the statement. It is hearsay. Not paying for an office call is hardly a motive for murdering two people.

If it wasn't true then Doctor Bowen (name?) would have corrected it in the press or at the Trial. Or was this story only in the newspapers?

Audrey @ Wed May 10, 2006 8:44 am wrote:Lots of poeple don't like lots of other people.

I pity those who don't like people they don't know. Or are so proud and intolerant of other people's viewpoints, particularly when they know so much more than the person who dislikes them.

lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololgasplololololololololololololololologaspgasplololololololololololololololgaspgaspgaspthump

ANGEL ! ANGEL ! ARE YOU OK ?? I am calling 911 !!

No wait....whew...she is OK...laughter...it's good for what ails you !


Tracy...

I just happened to notice that when I point my finger, there's three other fingers pointing right back at me!

twinsrwe @ Wed May 10, 2006 10:19 am wrote:As far as I know, there is no proof that Andrew even made the statement. It is hearsay. Not paying for an office call is hardly a motive for murdering two people.

Bingo! It's hearsay, third hand, and from the mouth of the accused.
Bowen was pretty nonchalant about the whole thing.
Besides, he saw who he is pretty sure was Lizzie going upstairs when he came over plus Abby was not around according to Bowen, when he made his visit over after his breakfast.

I also like the reality-check provided by Yooper who says Andrew lived almost 70 years without being murdered.

My name is Randa Hanes. My Great-Grandfather's name was Porter Aaron Borden Hanes. His mom was a Borden. Now the family has always believed that the illegitimate brother committed the murders because Andrew didnt recognize him as the his son. Now how I dont know...but ponder that possiblity. If Andrew wasnt recognizing the brother as his son then he wouldnt get any money when Andrew died. Wouldnt that be motive to kill Andrew and Abbey.

celtic_star71488 @ Sat May 13, 2006 8:42 pm wrote:My name is Randa Hanes. My Great-Grandfather's name was Porter Aaron Borden Hanes. His mom was a Borden. Now the family has always believed that the illegitimate brother committed the murders because Andrew didnt recognize him as the his son. Now how I dont know...but ponder that possiblity. If Andrew wasnt recognizing the brother as his son then he wouldnt get any money when Andrew died. Wouldnt that be motive to kill Andrew and Abbey.

It depends.... If Andrew was giving him a monthly stipend, why kill the golden goose?

Personally, I do not believe Andrew had an illegitimate son at all.

HI!
The way the question is asked, makes me first think that since Andrew did not have a will, any illegitimate son would be better off money-wise trying to get an allowance or even extortion money from Andrew while he was alive. Andrew alive in this instance, would be worth more than dead, yes?
You can't reason with a dead man.

Do you know if you are related?

celtic_star71488 @ Sat May 13, 2006 7:42 pm wrote:My name is Randa Hanes. My Great-Grandfather's name was Porter Aaron Borden Hanes. His mom was a Borden. Now the family has always believed that the illegitimate brother committed the murders because Andrew didnt recognize him as the his son. Now how I dont know...but ponder that possiblity. If Andrew wasnt recognizing the brother as his son then he wouldnt get any money when Andrew died. Wouldnt that be motive to kill Andrew and Abbey.

If William did kill both Abby and Andrew, for money, then it seems to me that he killed two people in vain. He gained nothing by killing them. Correct me if I am wrong, but, it is my understanding that all of Andrew's money went to Emma and Lizzie. William received nothing.

William acting alone in the murders of Abby and Andrew just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water for me. For one thing, why the overkill of Abby if it was Andrew he was really out to get? And, while he was at it, why not kill Lizzie as well?

Furthermore, if I were in Lizzie shoes, did not kill Abby and Andrew, and had nothing to do with their deaths, I highly doubt that I would have "taken the blame" for ANYONE, especially a half-brother that I barely knew, assuming that she did indeed know of him. How could she have known, loved or wanted to protect William to this degree if he was unrecognized by not only Andrew but the entire family? What would have been Lizzie's motive for taking the blame for William's actions?

Some have speculated that Lizzie did not wish to harm Andrew's reputation nor that of the family's good name by declaring Andrew had a bastard child.... Yet she would cover his up his murder-- the man she she adored enough to protect?

Kat @ Sat May 13, 2006 11:09 pm wrote:HI!
The way the question is asked, makes me first think that since Andrew did not have a will, any illegitimate son would be better off money-wise trying to get an allowance or even extortion money from Andrew while he was alive. Andrew alive in this instance, would be worth more than dead, yes?
You can't reason with a dead man.

Do you know if you are related?

Personally I think that if someone were to have offered Andrew $50 in lieu of his reputation he would have considered the deal.... I doubt he could have been extorted from.

Audrey @ Sun May 14, 2006 10:29 am wrote:Some have speculated that Lizzie did not wish to harm Andrew's reputation nor that of the family's good name by declaring Andrew had a bastard child.... Yet she would cover his up his murder-- the man she she adored enough to protect?

I can see where Lizzie would want to protect her father's reputation and the family's good name, but what about protecting her own reputation and good name?

Audrey @ Sun May 14, 2006 12:31 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sat May 13, 2006 11:09 pm wrote:HI!
The way the question is asked, makes me first think that since Andrew did not have a will, any illegitimate son would be better off money-wise trying to get an allowance or even extortion money from Andrew while he was alive. Andrew alive in this instance, would be worth more than dead, yes?
You can't reason with a dead man.

Do you know if you are related?

Personally I think that if someone were to have offered Andrew $50 in lieu of his reputation he would have considered the deal.... I doubt he could have been extorted from.

Maybe not, but there were more members of the Borden family than just Andrew that such news would affect. His females, his sister who was ill- Abby's family, etc. His immediate family might have discussed his decision before he made one.

I wonder where Lizzie's concern for the family name was when she went on her shoplifting forays?

I think I would like to start a poll about whether people are convinced that Lizzie was a shoplifter, or not.

I remember many years back reading an article in the Fall River Herald News about someone who was writing a book about who killed the Bordens while placing the blame on Dr. Bowen. But, do not remember the book being published. (?)